A strike by Starbucks baristas protesting the company’s new dress code grew Thursday.More than 2,000 Starbucks baristas at 120 U.S. stores have gone on strike since Sunday to protest the new dress code,…

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

"We hope he is the first of many."

Foreign Affairs Elbridge Colby is Right: Europe Should Focus on Europe The Trump administration wants European capitals to stop trying to deter China and focus on their own continent. The Pentagon is pushing the British military to focus more of its attention and resources in the Euro-Atlantic, not in East Asia, the Financial Times reported recently. The policy’s purported architect is U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, who has been a strong supporter of America’s European allies increasing their military spending and doing more for their own defense, especially in light of the Ukraine War and increased concern regarding Russian aggression. This policy marks a sharp break from the Biden administration, which sought to link America’s Indo-Pacific and NATO allies under the presumption that an enhanced European military presence in Asia would help counter Chinese belligerence in the region. Reacting to the FT’s reporting, Ely Ratner, the Biden administration’s top Pentagon official for the Indo-Pacific region, suggested that Europe staying actively engaged in Asia would be “good for deterrence and good for Taiwan’s defense and resilience” and is “something to be encouraged.”  But Colby is correct in both his analysis of the situation and the prescriptions recommended. On the whole, America’s allies in Europe currently do not have the resources necessary to undertake meaningful deployments outside of their principal theater. Furthermore, when they do undertake such operations, they are not contributing to regional deterrence in any significant manner and, instead, are exacerbating an already tenuous regional equilibrium.  Since President Barack Obama declared a pivot to Asia in the early 2010s, Europeans have been fearful that increased U.S. engagement in East Asia would be at their expense, given their underinvestment in defense and overreliance on America’s strategic leadership. By attempting to step up their own engagement in the Indo-Pacific and increase confrontational rhetoric and trade policies toward China, the Europeans are seeking to ensure continued U.S. support by demonstrating that they can help the U.S. counter its “pacing threat.” This European motivation to enhance military engagement in Asia has aligned with a growing sense of urgency among U.S. regional allies to counter and deter China’s aggressive maritime behavior—notably Japan and the Philippines, who have been facing tense maritime disputes with China. This was demonstrated clearly at last month’s meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Condemning China’s “destabilizing activities” across Indo-Pacific waters, the two leaders vowed to elevate regional security cooperation, including joint military maneuvers. Similarly, the Philippines has also sought to expand maritime security cooperation with European actors, reaching an agreement in August 2024 with Germany to conduct joint training.   As a result of these trends, throughout the Biden administration European states dramatically increased their military engagement in the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate their commitment to international law, freedom of navigation, and the so-called “rules-based international order.” In 2021, the UK sent a warship through the Taiwan Strait for the first time in over a decade, citing “enduring security interests” in the region. In 2024, two German ships sailed through the Strait for the first time in over two decades. That same year, the French conducted their own such journey after the Dutch and U.S. navies conducted joint operations in the South China Sea.  European leaders should rethink such activities. The supposition that expanding joint military cooperation and activities between Europe and Asia would strengthen the rules-based international order and collective deterrence against China reflects misguided assumptions about deterrence and a counterproductive approach to ensuring established rules and norms prevail.  Deterrence requires the combination of sufficient military capabilities and political will. While the optics of more European vessels conducting joint maneuvers in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait alongside the U.S. and Asian partners may appear to improve deterrence against China, the reality is that at present Europeans hardly have the necessary resources to manage the Russian threat on their own, let alone to viably contribute to deterrence against China, a global superpower, in a far-flung, largely maritime-based theater. Moreover, if European states were not willing to intervene militarily on their own continent in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is presumable that those same states would be even more reluctant to intervene in a potential military conflict in faraway Asia. Therefore, the symbolic presence of European vessels in Asian waters would actually do little, if anything, to help deter Chinese aggression. Such actions could arguably increase peacetime tensions and instability in Asia by creating more pretexts for China’s escalatory maritime activities. For instance, in June 2024, a Dutch naval patrol in the East China Sea was confronted by Chinese fighter jets, leading to a diplomatic spat between Beijing and Amsterdam. Thus far, China has shown no signs of moderating its assertive maritime posture in regional seas, despite significantly elevated naval cooperation between the U.S. and its Asia-Pacific allies in recent years. The involvement of European navies, most of which possess limited power projection capabilities, is unlikely to change this dynamic. Ultimately, the policy of interlinking the European and Asian security theaters is illogical and counterproductive. The reality is that neither NATO states nor U.S. Asian allies have the luxury of investing their capabilities and resources into the others’ military theater. Nor would doing so help strengthen regional deterrence.  As we wrote last year, Washington’s allies in Europe and Asia should prioritize conflict resolution and deterrence in their respective regions without needlessly interlinking the two. Given the increased concern across Europe about Russia’s military intentions, it would be far more helpful to the United States and the Europeans themselves if they put their resources where their mouth is and undertake the serious investments and reforms necessary for Europe to stand on its own two feet. This would eventually help allow the United States to commit the resources it requires for preserving deterrence in Asia. European military reforms and investment will also ensure that NATO’s European member states are valuable allies and can contribute to the collective defense. This is exactly what Vice President J.D. Vance spoke about in April when he said, “It’s not in Europe’s interest, and it’s not in America’s interest, for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.” The Europeans, with sustained American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, are capable of ensuring their security while continuing to invest in their own defense industrial base and integrated force development. But this will require that European states maintain their focus on the Euro-Atlantic region and entrust their American ally and Asian partners with ensuring security in the Pacific. The post Elbridge Colby is Right: Europe Should Focus on Europe appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Are Neocons Losing ‘Antisemite’ As a Blanket Smear? War hawks have long insisted that those who question American foreign policy have bigoted reasons. That may have come to an end. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images The conservative radio legend Mark Levin recently insinuated that President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, might be anti-Semitic. Witkoff is Jewish. Describing the “neocon element” in an interview with Breitbart, Witkoff said, “In their minds, anything that is of a military nature to be a solution to that problem, they have a bias towards that. They give no consideration whatsoever on what the consequences are on that.” Witkoff then added, “The neocon element believes that war is the only way to solve things.” Levin, who is also Jewish and a longtime advocate of neoconservative foreign policy, said of Witkoff’s remarks, “lol. The envoy talks like the fifth column isolationists. Nobody believes war is the only way. We wait with great interest to see the deal you’re negotiating with the warmonger Iranian terrorist regime.” Levin would then add in a repost of Witkoff’s remarks, “By the way, neocon is a pejorative for Jew. Unbelievable.” The Community Notes feature of X rightly gave Levin’s accusation proper context, “Neocon,’ short for ‘Neo-conservative,’ is a term for a political philosophy focused on active foreign policy to spread liberal democracy. While many Neocons have been Jewish, nowhere near all have been.” Calling someone, particularly someone who is Jewish, an antisemite because they prefer diplomacy to war is little different than Democrats who call Donald Trump a “white supremacist” based on, well, nothing really at all. The point is that “white supremacists” are bad, and therefore Trump is bad. For so many on the left, no further logic or reasoning is required. In this century and the last, neoconservatives have often accused anyone who opposed their hawkish agenda of being antisemitic. Whether or not these realist or restrainer figures were actually malicious towards Jews was always beside the point. The point is antisemites are bad, therefore anyone who opposes the neocons’ wars are bad. There are genuine antisemites who are also antiwar, just as there are genuine white supremacists who support Trump. But just conflating all of this to use as a junky verbal battering ram is not only untrue but dishonest. If this sounds dumb or simplistic, that’s because it is. But this was characteristic of the overall pre-Trump conservative environment that Levin came of age in and that shaped him, with the Bush-Cheney administration at the apex of the era. Putting Witkoff’s own Jewishness aside, there is literally nothing in what he said that could fairly qualify as antisemitism. Levin was simply using the same old smear tactic borrowed from the left that neoconservatives have long relied on, often successfully. But even a conservative voice as powerful as Levin has not made a dent on Witkoff or Trump’s larger MAGA movement. Witkoff is respected on the right and if he has something to say about the “neocon element” and the problems they cause, conservatives are going to listen. Which is probably part of what drives Levin mad. This would not necessarily have been the case even a decade ago. Neoconservatives have long seen themselves as gatekeepers. The neocon David Frum would write after Rand Paul won his first Republican Senate primary, “Is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?” That was in 2010. Trump has just begun his second term. Has the American right entered a new era? Tucker Carlson wondered the same in a recent interview with libertarian activist and comedian Dave Smith. “If Mark Levin is calling the Trump administration antisemitic, Steve Witkoff, we’re at the end of something and the beginning of something new,” Carlson observed. He continued, “I almost called Mark when I saw it because I really, I know him, but I really love Steve Witkoff and I think his decency. I don’t agree with him and everything at all, but his decency is just palpable. I mean, it just comes through his concern for people. His reasonableness is just so obvious. And the effects of what he’s done have been so great. Great for America, great for the world.” “So I almost. I was so offended,” Carlson said, giving Levin the benefit of the doubt. “And then I thought, I’m not going to solve anything by calling Mark Levin and scolding him. Probably scream at me, but. But I did think, like, he’s not stupid.” He continued, “If you’re calling Steve Witkoff an antisemite on Twitter, like, you know, you’re losing. Right? Is that what that is?” Dave Smith did not disagree. Carlson would add, “So you have Mark Levin calling Steve Witkoff an anti-Semite. We’ve reached peak crazy, I mean, I think Witkoff is Jewish, right?”  “Peak crazy” is one way to put it. But for Levin or any other neoconservative who still stubbornly insists on equating the use of the term “neocon” with antisemitism, it got worse for them on Tuesday. Donald Trump said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, “The so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.” The president continued, “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders,’ neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad, so many other cities.” Dave Smith could not contain himself. “The other day Mark Levin responded to Steve Witkoff by saying ‘neocon is a pejorative for Jew’ essentially calling him an antisemite,” Smith posted on X. “Today, Donald Trump blasted neocons in his speech in Saudi Arabia. So, is Trump a woke right antisemite too?” “I bet these cowards won’t dare,” he added. For decades, the same people who helped craft and promote some of the worst foreign policy mistakes in American history, who still assume no responsibility and have faced zero accountability for their mistakes, and who, at one time, wore the badge of neoconservatism as an honor, decided that now that their term is so sullied, anyone who uses it must be a bigot.  “Isolationists” is another barb they have loved. “Unpatriotic conservatives” was another they invented. Straight up calling war critics “traitors” has happened. Yet blanket and usually baseless accusations of antisemitism against anyone who questions U.S. foreign policy has long been the favorite weapon of neoconservatives, and perhaps most effective. But is this over? Antiwar sentiment now flourishes on the right. Did the president just declare war on the neocons? Is what Trump said something we can discuss openly, now? Mark Levin, is Donald Trump “antisemitic”? The post Are Neocons Losing ‘Antisemite’ As a Blanket Smear? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs It’s Time for America to Walk Away Completely From Ukraine–Russia Each side is still convinced it can get more than is on offer. Credit: Alexander Lukatskiy President Donald Trump, along with much of his administration, is clearly frustrated with the slow pace of peace talks to end the Russo–Ukrainian War. Trump has, at various times, castigated both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for refusing to truly seek peace. Trump’s frustration has been matched by Vice President J.D. Vance, who has personally argued with Zelenskyy and recently said that Russia was “asking for too much.” Likewise, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spearheaded the idea that the Trump administration could walk away from mediating between the two sides. But since that time, Trump has sought to organize a meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Istanbul, and has even floated going there himself to oversee the talks, in a last-ditch effort to secure peace between two sides the administration seems to believe do not want it. The Trump administration’s desire for peace is understandable—but so is their belief that both sides are not seeking it. While some of the Russian government’s demands, such as the recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, are reasonable, others are complete non-starters. Among these is the amorphous “denazification” of Ukraine, which seems akin to demanding some sort of constitutional regime change in Kiev, something the United States likely would not sanction and which would not be accepted by Ukraine’s population. Likewise, Putin’s actions—such as bombing definitively civilian areas and, as Trump has discussed in private, killing children—do not indicate he is interested in finding peace. Unfortunately, this should not be a surprise. Russia is winning the war. Some voices in the West have tried to argue otherwise, or at least have tried to portray the war as a stalemate. While this was once true, it is no longer: Russia is slowly, but consistently, taking more land in Ukraine, inch by inch. Short of a miracle for the Ukrainian armed forces, there is no feasible way that most of the occupied territories, particularly the Donbas and Crimea, will ever leave Russia’s control. This, among other facts, is something the Ukrainian side has stubbornly refused to accept, which has also caused annoyance with Kiev in the Trump administration. Claiming that all of Ukraine’s land would be reconquered was once an understandable attempt at raising morale, but it has now become an albatross for peace talks. Crimea and the majority of the Donbas have been fully integrated into the Russian Federation. But Zelensky’s peace plans have completely ignored this reality. His 10-point “peace formula,” which he marketed for years, included the restoration of all of Ukraine’s conquered territories and Russia agreeing to be held accountable by international courts—two utter impossibilities. Zelensky’s newest plan, from earlier this year, was a response to the Trump administration’s aforementioned framework. While it dropped demands to get back all of Ukraine’s territory—though without accepting Russian control—it once again included an American-backed security guarantee. This was particularly galling, as practically every major foreign policy official in the Trump administration, including Trump himself, had repeatedly shut down the possibility of an American-backed security guarantee. Part of the Ukrainian government’s intransigence comes from political necessity. Zelensky has put himself in an impossible situation: Accepting the loss of about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory would effectively end his political career and, after years of promising total victory, could engender some sort of revolution in the capital. It will almost certainly create a stab-in-the-back narrative dominating the years to come, which could induce further political chaos in the country. Nor is Europe in a position to come to Ukraine’s aid if demanded by a security guarantee. The most Ukraine will get is the recently signed minerals deal, which Zelensky, correctly, has deemed not to be a true security guarantee. Yet Trump is not responsible for Zelensky having put himself in such a difficult political position, and is certainly not responsible for his political future in Kiev. Zelensky did heed Trump’s demand to meet with Putin in Turkey, although Putin did not. But even if Putin had, it is unlikely either side would have agreed to an end. Neither has reason to do so: Ukraine is not losing at a fast enough pace to jolt the Ukrainian establishment into seeking peace, and Russia is not winning at a slow enough pace to make them desire a quick end to the war. If Ukraine squints, they can still see a way to get back more land. If Russia squints, they can still see a way to burst through Ukraine’s defenses. Until one (or both) sides can no longer see such eventualities, neither will truly want peace. And while this moment most probably will eventually come, there is no way of knowing how or when; it could take months or years. And already, the war has been a huge distraction, eating up much of the energy and momentum of the first few months of the administration. This is likely what caused Rubio to make his initial threat of walking away. But the administration has yet to follow through on that threat, as the minerals deal signing and the constant updates about the pace of peace negotiations demonstrates. Peace may seem tantalizingly close, which could be a reason why the administration, though it has threatened to swear off playing a mediating role, is still keeping its foot half in the negotiating room. But it is abundantly clear that neither side is interested in truly ending the war. As a result, it’s time to walk away entirely so long as Russia and Ukraine remain unable to compromise and articulate a mutually acceptable vision for a settlement. The post It’s Time for America to Walk Away Completely From Ukraine–Russia appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, National Police Week: A Tribute to Our Law Enforcement Heroes, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. This National Police Week, we pause to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. We remember the brave officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and we express our deepest gratitude to those who continue to serve with unwavering dedication. … Continue reading National Police Week: A Tribute to Our Law Enforcement Heroes ...

?? Bourkey with the truth! UTL COMMENT:- Beware - lots of TRUTH BOMBS ? and F-BOMBS ?!! Notice how the traffic has just gotten worse and worse and I look around me in the cars and I mostly see non-Whites?