Putin always waved that he had atomic bombs. Now, he claims that he might use it if, thanks to the military help, Ukraine might defend itself from being conquered by Russia.
Putin needs to be told that the West is prepared. Our defense will most likely encounter rockets with nuclear weapons before they leave the Russian territory. But we are ready to accept that we might not intercept them all. However, our response will be swift and merciless. Russia, as we know it, will be no longer. In particular, it will be forever deprived of having any nuclear arsenal. I bet that in such a situation, even if Putin decides to press that red button, it will be after some reasonable people in Russia disconnect it from the launchpad. I hope our intelligence services have already arranged that.
At least, that is what the recent revelations about the behind-the-scenes American policy determining aid for Ukraine suggest. At the beginning of the war, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley asked his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, “Under what conditions would you use nuclear weapons?”
Russians responded that they reserve “the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of catastrophic battlefield loss.” In plain language, if Ukraine will be able to defend itself efficiently, Russia feels entitled to turn the war into a nuclear one.
So, American support has been to keep the war going but not allow Ukraine to win. People are dying, but the military-industrial complex has its heyday.
Elon Musk claims that he is ready to serve as the chief of the Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration. He forgot what he did when he had to improve Twitter’s performance after purchasing it. He fired about 80% of employees, and Twitter did not collapse.
After taking office as president of Argentina in December of 2023, Javier Milei did not create the Department of Government Efficiency either. He did the opposite; he dissolved 11 ministries and fired 15,000 government employees. As of June 2024, 55% of Argentinians are OK with that.
One does not improve efficiency by creating a new bureaucracy but by eliminating the existing one.
Musk knew that at Twitter but forgot it when veering into politics.
Elon Musk warned us that “America is headed for bankruptcy.” The national debt, which is $34 trillion and growing fast, worries most reasonable Americans.
We do not have it during wartime when debt usually grows, but during relative prosperity, when public debt should go down. Looking closer, it is obvious that our inability to have candid conversations about our problems is the underlying cause of a political deadlock.
Politicians do not offer solutions; they vote to throw more money at our unresolved issues.
Elon Musk claims that he bought Twitter to invigorate public debates. So far, he is as bad as our politicians and the mainstream media that he criticizes so much; his $44 billion brought us louder moaning but no solutions.
That question comes to mind when reading critics of the recent Supreme Court decision weakening so-called Chevron deference. In that case, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency executing the law can select the way to do that as long as it is reasonable within the law’s intention. Recently, in a similar case, the Court decided that citizens still can challenge rules issued by the executive branch in court. The critics claim that we should respect the decisions of experts and that judges might not be experts on very technical issues. That argument questions the very existence of the judiciary branch of government. The law is plainly wrong if an educated layman cannot comprehend it. During the trial, by listening to the experts’ testimony, a layman with some basic education should be able to learn and understand the issue in question.
I heard on BBC that assessment of the recent debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. People are still commenting. For example, the response to Trump bringing Hunter Biden’s conviction should be: “He does not run for president. Many Americans have criminal convictions, but only one criminal runs for president.” Having too many senior moments, Biden could not be as sharp as Reagan responding to Mondale about age.
Dana Bash asked Trump for the details of his intention to deport illegal immigrants in mass numbers. It was a good question, but Trump dodged it. There was no follow-up. Neither Biden nor the moderators pointed out that mass deportations would require the Soviet-style police state and would be inhumane and harmful to the American economy. Biden had senior moments, but why the moderators were not sharp is a mystery.
Dr. Phil McGraw is a clinical psychologist who has gained fame thanks to his charming way of asking people seemingly simple questions that are not so easy to answer. Nothing of that happened during the 71-minute-long interview with Donald J. Trump.
Dr. Phil praised Trump and, on a few occasions, suggested the right answers. He never interrupted Trump’s bragging about his achievements. The main narrative was that the presumed opponent, the current president, was not qualifying to be reelected. It was honey for already sworn Trump supporters; there was nothing that could help skeptics or opponents of Trump change their opinion.
It was an example of an interview when mentally the interlocutor asked questions when on his knees. It was exactly the kind of conversation I suggested Elon Musk should not have with Trump on X. Dr. Phil will cure his sore knees after that interview. At X, the credibility of Elon Musk will be at stake. Once lost, he will never get it back.
After Donald J. Trump was found guilty, many complained that it was a petty issue. They might be right that politics were behind it.
About a century ago, Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion, not for his murderous actions as a gangster. In his infamous mafia affairs, Al Capone was cautious in covering his tracks and intimidating potential witnesses. So, the law caught him where he did not expect it.
As a businessman and a politician, Trump is a despicable person. Sadly, lack of character, dishonesty, and common fraud seem to dominate now politics in the U.S. Trump convinced about half of Americans that he is the right man to drain the swamp. He had his four years and proved he was as good or bad as others. It is time for him to retire. As he still muddles the minds of many Americans, a petty guilty verdict might be good for the nation. The law is the law, as Trump says, to illegal immigrants.
1. Avoid frontal offensives because, in flat terrain, the number of tanks and soldiers matters. Russia would prevail. Ergo, on the frontlines, no offense but defense. A few miles east or west do not matter. The well-selected defense lines do.
2. Get good air defense so Russia’s rockets and missiles have a low chance of reaching the targets.
3. Hit targets in Russia, both military and infrastructure. Let Russians know that Ukrainians can destroy electric power stations in their cities, too.
Ukrainian military leaders seem to see it like I do. We can only guess when Russian elites will realize that returning to borders before 2014 is the only peace option. Will it be before the Russian Federation as we know it disintegrates or after that?
I grew up in Poland when it was in the Soviet Bloc. The regime was not as brutal. A few spectacular political killings happened. The murder of priest Jerzy Popiełuszko is the most known case. There were some suspicious cases of beating, some fatal, by unknown perpetrators. Most of the system’s opponents were harassed by being fired from their jobs or thrown out of the schools. Some of them made a big political issue out of their suffering. I was always advised not to become a martyr but to be effective. Looking back, I endured a lot of petty torment, but it was a fair price for the harm to the system I managed to do. I did not become a martyr. Alexei Navalny decided to be a martyr. We can only speculate how much he could achieve if he chose to be effective.
Many tell us what to think. I ask my readers to be skeptical. Question me and others. 
In democracy majority rules. However, it is unwise to implement a major law with a narrow majority, and despite the strong disapproval of the main opposition. This is how the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare was voted in. Then it won a narrow support in the 2012 election. Slightly more than 50% of Americans are for Obamacare, and slightly less than 50% of Americans are strongly against it. The country cannot function when a narrow majority forces its policy on the meaningful minority.
Putin always waved that he had atomic bombs. Now, he claims that he might use it if, thanks to the military help, Ukraine might defend itself from being conquered by Russia. Putin needs to be told that the West is prepared. Our defense will most likely encounter rockets with nuclear weapons before they leave the Russian territory. But we are ready to accept that we might not intercept them all. However, our response will be swift and merciless. Russia, as we know it, will be no longer. In particular, it will be forever deprived of having any nuclear arsenal. I bet that in such a situation, even if Putin decides to press that red button, it will be after some reasonable people in Russia disconnect it from the launchpad. I hope our intelligence services have already arranged that.
At least, that is what the recent revelations about the behind-the-scenes American policy determining aid for Ukraine suggest. At the beginning of the war, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley asked his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, “Under what conditions would you use nuclear weapons?” Russians responded that they reserve “the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of catastrophic battlefield loss.” In plain language, if Ukraine will be able to defend itself efficiently, Russia feels entitled to turn the war into a nuclear one. So, American support has been to keep the war going but not allow Ukraine to win. People are dying, but the military-industrial complex has its heyday.
Elon Musk claims that he is ready to serve as the chief of the Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration. He forgot what he did when he had to improve Twitter's performance after purchasing it. He fired about 80% of employees, and Twitter did not collapse. After taking office as president of Argentina in December of 2023, Javier Milei did not create the Department of Government Efficiency either. He did the opposite; he dissolved 11 ministries and fired 15,000 government employees. As of June 2024, 55% of Argentinians are OK with that. One does not improve efficiency by creating a new bureaucracy but by eliminating the existing one. Musk knew that at Twitter but forgot it when veering into politics.
Elon Musk warned us that “America is headed for bankruptcy.” The national debt, which is $34 trillion and growing fast, worries most reasonable Americans. We do not have it during wartime when debt usually grows, but during relative prosperity, when public debt should go down. Looking closer, it is obvious that our inability to have candid conversations about our problems is the underlying cause of a political deadlock. Politicians do not offer solutions; they vote to throw more money at our unresolved issues. Elon Musk claims that he bought Twitter to invigorate public debates. So far, he is as bad as our politicians and the mainstream media that he criticizes so much; his $44 billion brought us louder moaning but no solutions.
That question comes to mind when reading critics of the recent Supreme Court decision weakening so-called Chevron deference. In that case, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency executing the law can select the way to do that as long as it is reasonable within the law's intention. Recently, in a similar case, the Court decided that citizens still can challenge rules issued by the executive branch in court. The critics claim that we should respect the decisions of experts and that judges might not be experts on very technical issues. That argument questions the very existence of the judiciary branch of government. The law is plainly wrong if an educated layman cannot comprehend it. During the trial, by listening to the experts' testimony, a layman with some basic education should be able to learn and understand the issue in question.
