The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Search Results


Brad Pearce

  • Prev
  • 1
  • Next

Georgia: The Color of Foreign Influence


There is a distressing and familiar sight in the nation-state of Georgia. Young protestors have take over a central area and are chanting anti-Russia slogans, often obscene and in English, as they wave Ukraine and EU flags and clash with the police.

At issue, a now-withdrawn draft law on foreign influence which would require that entities receiving more than 20 percent of funding from abroad register and explain their funding source. This received overwhelming support in the legislature, though the largely symbolic pro-Western President said she would veto the legislation, however the legislature had a veto-proof majority. The legislature of Georgia, which has a large border with Russia and has so far remained relatively neutral, is under attack from angry anti-Russia mobs. While we are supposed to believe nefarious Russian influence reaches into everything, the sheer fact that this legislation which would treat all foreign interference equally is seen as being a Russian influence ploy shows that there is massively more US and EU influence in Georgia. As ever, “democracy” simply means doing whatever the Western oligarchs want.

It seems we are looking at what is known as a “Color Revolution,” where US soft-power funds pro-Western protestors to overthrow the government of a former Soviet state. The legislature was wise to withdraw the legislation in an attempt to calm the situation, though it did not cause the protestors to leave the streets. This is a rare time my piece will be about how a government’s decision is correct. Escalating is the worst decision the Georgian legislature could make now that this conflict has arisen, and they will find that if they can simply deal with the internal pressure and let time pass, they should be able to wait out the Russia-Ukraine War and then carefully look at their options for reducing outside influence on the country.
read on...

Just Like Herding Leopards


In a great moment of historic irony, Germany has given into criticisms that it is not sufficiently militaristic. After a large amount of hemming and hawing around the world, where the US refused to send tanks to Ukraine unless Germany would at least allow its Leopard tanks from other countries to be sent to Ukraine, both Germany and the United States have agreed to send modern tanks to Ukraine.

This tank situation is ridiculous for several reasons, most of all that we’ve seen this movie before, where all the pro-Ukraine gear autists on the internet are sure sending Ukraine a charity collection of some equipment will change the course of the war. In my opinion this represents a continuation of what I previously described as a sort of “demented arms control program” whereby NATO sends its equipment to Ukraine to be destroyed, though perhaps it really makes the difference this time.

However, between delivery and training it will be months before this equipment can be deployed, if it ever is.

With these weapons transfers NATO continues to sacrifice its military readiness on Ukraine. Though the ghouls in the scribbling and “national security” classes tell us this is a “cheap” way to counter Russia this could potentially harm NATO’s combat readiness for several years without doing anything meaningful to help Ukraine. [That we must counter Russia is an unquestionable assumption in all these arguments.] The efficacy such tanks will have against the world’s largest tank force and Russia’s massive artillery advantage is questionable at best. Perhaps efficacy is not the point; for dubious advantage to Ukraine, the United States has pressured Germany to escalate and allow Leopard tanks it manufactures to be used against Russia. It is unlikely these tanks will be replaced with other Leopards: they seem more likely to be permanently replaced with American manufactured tanks.
read on...