Tucker: The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Ukraine
Fox News host gives his take on the real motivation behind U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
Here's a happy memory. By breakfast, really even brunch, on Election Day 2016,, virtually nobody in Washington, D.C. thought Donald Trump could win, and they didn't think that because the entire press corps had been telling them for months that Trump had, as they always put it, literally no chance—not even as an abstract, theoretical matter.
This wasn't actually a race. In fact, come November 8th, you'll remember this. Donald Trump was going to be drowned by a towering blue tsunami and swept away forever, along with the rest of the Republican Party — the collaborators, anyway—and polling numbers seemed to confirm that this was going to happen and so, by the way, did the private betting markets. At least one of those markets had set the spread at 80-20 for Hillary Clinton that morning.
In the end, of course, they were not only wrong, they were hilariously wrong. By midnight, Trump had won and a lot of highly educated, extremely well credentialed people suddenly looked ridiculous. Hillary Clinton herself was so shocked by the results that night that she refused to give a concession speech. She went to bed hoping it was just a dream.
Now, you probably remember all of that very well, but it was what happened next in the days between the election and Thanksgiving that it turns out in a lot of ways was much more important.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign event. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
What happened during that period set the course for where we are right now. Where we are right now is speeding toward one of the great disasters in our history. So, the leaders of the Democratic Party couldn't, in effect, handle the outcome of the 2016 election. They snapped under the strain of it, under the crushed expectation. But rather than look inward and assess their own role in the disaster —" What did we do wrong? Why did voters reject us?" and other questions that emotionally mature adults might have asked — Democratic leaders instead immediately set out to find somebody else to blame for the election results. And soon they settled on Russia.
Vladimir Putin got Donald Trump elected, they told us. Hillary Clinton said that repeatedly. Now, at first it was hard to take any of it very seriously. We tried, but there was no evidence it was true at all and so a rational person concluded the obvious. This was a childish psychological defense mechanism. It was not a factual claim and yet they kept saying it in the face of no evidence and over time they began acting on it like it was true. Then, even over more time, they paralyzed the entire federal government for years, fruitlessly trying to prove the core claims of Russiagate, but they never could because those claims weren't true. And yet, critically, they clung to those claims.
They never stopped repeating the talking point. The Russian government, "hacked our election." That was Jen Psaki not long ago, saying it out loud like it were true. Now, here's the context. As she said that, Psaki was trying to explain why the Biden administration is, in effect, working to overthrow the Russian government right now and for once, Jen Psaki was telling the truth. That is why. Democrats have convinced themselves that Russia stole the presidency, which rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton, and they mean it when they say it. And that's why they are taking us to war with Russia.
Now, there are a lot of things going on here, a lot of threads as in any big story, but on some level, the core motivation is just that simple. Here's what we know it's not. We know the war in Ukraine is not about saving democracy. Please. We know it's not about protecting the sacred borders of a sovereign country. We know the Biden administration doesn't care about those principles because they run our country, and we see how they act. And we know for dead certain and this comes as sad news to a lot of Americans who are compassionate, but we know now that the war in Ukraine is certainly not about helping the Ukrainian people, those poor people. Many more Ukrainian civilians will die certainly, thanks to the Biden administration's policies.
If you wanted to save Ukraine, its people, its infrastructure, its nation, you would push for a settlement now. You would have done it two months ago, but they're not doing that. They've rejected it out of hand. So that's not their goal, saving Ukraine, saving human lives. No, that's not their goal. Instead, the war in Ukraine is designed to cause regime change in Moscow. They want to topple the Russian government. That would be payback for the 2016 election. So, this is the logical, maybe the inevitable end stage of Russiagate. Now, we should have seen this coming because they said it out loud years ago. Here's Adam Schiff from two years ago, predicting it, saying it. Watch this.
SCHIFF: As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting on the current situation in Russia's iron and steel industry via videoconference in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Wednesday. (AP/Mikhail Klimentyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo)
So, we arm Ukraine so we can fight Russia. Now, how many Americans (whatever you think of Putin, probably not much, justifiably. Probably don’t have a lot of interest in moving to Russia), but how many Americans then or now want to "fight Russia?" A very small group, but Adam Schiff said it out loud at the time in the House of Representatives. We don't arm Ukraine so we can help the Ukrainians. They're merely unfortunate pawns in all of this. We arm Ukraine so that we can punish Russia. Why? For stealing Hillary Clinton's coronation.
If only we had taken Adam Schiff seriously, as he said it again, and again, and again. But now we can't help but take Adam Schiff seriously because he's one of the prime movers of this war. Adam Schiff spent this weekend in Eastern Europe checking on the progress of the war he has done so much to bring about. He traveled there with Nancy Pelosi and a number of other of the most conspiracy-minded Democrats in Congress. These are the Russiagate true believers seeing their theory come to fruition. That's what this is. Here's the group, Pelosi, Schiff and the rest, meeting with the president of Ukraine.
ZELENSKYY: Welcome. Nice to meet you. Thank you for coming.
PELOSI: My pleasure to see you.
MCGOVERN: Jim McGovern, Massachusetts.
ZELENSKYY: Nice to meet you thank you.
MEEKS: Good to see you again, Mr. President.
ZELENSKYY: Hi again good to see you too. You’re welcome.
CROW: Jason Crow from Colorado
ZELENSKYY: Nice to meet you.
SCHIFF: Adam Schiff from California. Honor to meet you
How did Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi wind up in charge of America's foreign policy as we stand on the cusp of a third world war? And why are Republicans supporting them? What happens when you put people with a demonstrated lack of boundaries or self-control or wisdom in charge of something as important as the fate of nations? Well, here's what happens.
Watch as one after the other, the Democrats you just saw on tape, announce that this regime change is not nearly over. In fact, this war has just begun. Watch.
CROW: But one thing is really clear that this delegation wanted to send, but also President Biden has made very clear with his most recent aid package request. It is a historic request that we're going to push hard in the United States Congress to help pass and it sends a very simple message. We are not interested in stalemates. We are not interested in going back to the status quo. The United States of America is in this to win and we will stand with Ukraine until victory is won.
That was Congressman Jason Crow, a confirmed buffoon, telling us that we are not in it to achieve a stalemate. "We're?" Really? Some of us were under the impression, based on their public statements, that we were defending the sovereignty of another country, Ukraine, that it's not up to us, it's up to the voters of Ukraine because Ukraine is a democracy, but here's Congressman Crow telling us we're not going to accept a "stalemate." We're in it to win it. We're going to win. We're here until we get victory. Well, that raises the obvious question. What is winning? What is victory? How do we know when we've won? Well, Jason Crow didn't tell us and neither, by the way, did Nancy Pelosi. She just said, we're going to keep sending weapons to Ukraine "until the fight is done."
PELOSI: We believe that we are visiting you to say thank you for your fight for freedom, that we are on a frontier for freedom and that your fight is in fight for everyone and so our commitment is to be there for you until fight is done.
How did we get here exactly? Do you feel betrayed? If you're one of the millions of good-hearted Americans who put a Ukrainian flag pin on your lapel or put one in front of your house expressing solidarity with the poor, oppressed people of Ukraine, you probably didn't think you were signing up for this. Nancy Pelosi telling us we're in a war with a nuclear-armed power with no clear end date. Seen that movie before? Oh, we just finished one after 20 years in Afghanistan. Will it look like that? This is an open-ended conflict, said Nancy Pelosi. Just like the war on terror and just in case you missed it, they all repeated that line. Here's your nightmare again. Adam Schiff in charge of the war against Russia. Watch.
PRESIDENT BIDEN HOSTS BILL CLINTON FOR LUNCH AT THE WHITE HOUSE
SCHIFF: All of the freedom loving world has an interest in the outcome of this war and ensuring that Ukraine is victorious and we are determined to do everything in our power to make it so. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and will until victory is won.
These people are playing dress-up. They have no idea what they're talking about, and they don't care. They get to pretend to be statesmen for a day. But when Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi— again people with a demonstrated years long record of being willing to say anything for personal power, anything to improve the fortunes of their political party—when they're standing up with a foreign head of state saying, "Here's an open check, you fill in the number," you've got to wonder where this is going.
We know where it could go. This is the most reckless foreign policy in our lifetimes, in American history. You are watching a group of decadent, in some cases senile leaders, casually dismiss the consequences of going to war with the nuclear-armed nation, dismiss the consequences of nuclear war, like it's not even worth thinking about, but it is worth thinking about. They tell us daily, Vladimir Putin is evil and insane and that may well be true. But this same man has threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States and western Europe if this continues and why don't we believe him? You may have missed this. The New York Times didn't seem to have time to cover it, but here's Russia's foreign minister just last week, underscoring the point.
SEN. JOHNSON BLASTS DHS'S NEW 'ORWELLIAN' MISINFORMATION BOARD
MARCUS MOORE, ABC REPORTER: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a chilling warning, The risk of nuclear war is a real one. Speaking to state run media, Lavrov said, "The danger is serious. It is real. It cannot be underestimated. "He added that he did not want to see these risks of nuclear war "artificially inflated."
He does not see it as an artificially inflated sense risk, says Lavrov. So, what they're saying is "we will use nuclear weapons against you and your allies if you don't back off." If, for example, this seems existential like you're trying to overthrow our government. It's hardly a defense of Russia to say that's a real possibility and has been for quite some time. So, it's two years ago that Vladimir Putin revised Russia's nuclear deterrent policy.
Now the new policy allows Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike. That means some sort of non-nuclear provocation. Now, in March, Russia's former president, Dmitry Medvedev, who sits on Russia's Security Council, reminded our country of this policy. He warned Joe Biden that Russia would indeed use nuclear weapons against the West in response to any "act of aggression that is committed against Russia and its allies."
Now, what would that look like? Would it include helping to shoot down a Russian transport plane carrying hundreds of Russian troops? The Pentagon has admitted doing that. You don't have to be for Russia to see that as a pretty reckless act and not just doing it, but then bragging about it to NBC News. Where does that get us? We should find out.
We do know that Putin has placed Russia's nuclear forces on high alert and again, Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and again, why wouldn't he use those weapons? They tell us daily he is evil and insane and he may well be a risk. Yeah, but no one in Washington seems worried in the slightest. In fact, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who has clearly something to live for at this point, is now calling for a blank check, an open-ended conflict in Ukraine using the same legal justification that got us into Iraq for nearly 20 years. He wants an authorization to use military force. Watch.
TWITTER PAGE MOCKING BIDEN ADMIN'S NEW DISINFORMATION BOARD REELS IN 150K FOLLOWERS IN TWO DAYS
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Kaine was with us and he said it is too soon to begin talking about potential use of force in Ukraine. Do you think he's right?
ADAM KINZINGER: No, I don't. I don't think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage or permission to use it if WMDs, nuclear, biological or chemical are used in Ukraine. It doesn't compel the president to do it. It just says if it is used, he has that leverage. There may be a point that we have to recognize, you know look, this is, prior to World War II, there were moments nobody ever wanted to get involved and eventually came to realize they had to. I hope we don't get to that point here, but we should be ready if we do.
"Prior to World War II," says Adam Kinzinger. So last year, Adam Kinzinger was a guy who'd been redistricted out of his own district and was trolling for some kind of cable news contributor. The future looked grim for Adam Kinzinger. Now, Adam Kinzinger is on the Sunday shows every weekend doing his Winston Churchill imitation. So, you can see there's a built-in incentive for mediocre and intellectually limited members of Congress to play the war hawk. But you have to ask yourself: why, all of a sudden, is everybody talking about chemical and biological weapons?
It was just a couple of weeks ago that Joe Biden, the United States, promised to respond "in kind" to the potential use of chemical weapons by Russia. In other words, United States would use its chemical weapons against the Russians if they used theirs against the Ukrainians. And then because you're supposed to admit that you have chemical weapons, Joe Biden's national security adviser, whose memory still works, walked it back and told us. "Oh, no, no, the president misspoke" just like he did when he told us this was a regime change war. We would never use chemical weapons, said Jake Sullivan, but for some reason, a lot of people in Washington, in both parties, are still talking a lot about the U.S. using chemical weapons in Russia.
Here's one of the most limited members of Congress Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, widely regarded as a mouthpiece for the Intel agencies. Listen to what he says.
MCCAUL: What would happen if a chemical weapon was dropped in Ukraine and or a short-range tactical nuke? The question there is, would the world idly sit back and watch that happen without doing anything?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: What should we do?
MCCAUL: I just find it hard to believe, and when I talk to the secretary general of NATO, their job is really to defend NATO's not trigger Article Five, but in my judgment, that's beyond the pale. That crosses a red line and I think if that happens, we would have to respond in kind.
JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE FORMALLY REQUESTS TESTIMONY FROM GOP REPRESENTATIVES
So, stories like this give people like Michael McCaul a chance to give you a moral lecture on television, which is the whole appeal, but again, all of a sudden, you have sitting members of Congress with access to high-level intelligence talking casually about using chemical weapons or nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed state.
So, it's not a defense of Russia. You don't have to believe Russia was justified in invading Ukraine. They weren't. It's not a defense of Putin to think to yourself, "Hold on a second here. How did we get here? Talking about nuclear war on the Sunday shows. Should we be? Are we ready for that?"
It's clear no one in the Biden administration cares or is worried about it at all. The escalation continues at a remarkable pace, and you know that if you watch the money. We're continuing to shovel cash to the government of Ukraine, which just last year Democrats described as one of the most corrupt in the world, but whatever and we're sending money to Ukraine at levels that are astounding.
Joe Biden signed off on a funding package in March for $13.6 billion in aid for Ukraine. Then he sent an additional $1.3 billion in late April. Then he sent $350 million in February. He also said $800 million in March. In addition to all of that, Joe Biden has requested another $33 billion for Ukraine and that request includes funding for "longer-range artillery" of a heavier caliber than the howitzers we've already been sending there.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR TOUTS THEORY THAT POLICE 'INHERENTLY ARE HARMFUL'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks from Kyiv, Ukraine on Thursday. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)
In other words, we're sending artillery to Ukraine that could easily strike Russian territory and we're sending $33 billion to do it. Now, how much is $33 billion in a moment when Congress is writing checks for trillions? Well, to put it into context, $33 billion is more than double what the Biden administration spends protecting our national borders and that's just one check to Ukraine, but it's double the annual budget to protect our borders. The Biden administration, in fact its more than double, just requested $15 billion for the entire budget for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and just $8 billion for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
So, we're spending twice on their borders what we spend on our own in one request in one week. How much is $33 billion? Well, it's more than we spend on Veterans Affairs every month taking care of our own veterans and the saddest point of all of this is it hasn't caused the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine, and no one's claiming that it will. It hasn't bankrupted Putin. It hasn't crippled the Russian economy. It certainly hurt our economy.
What's going on here?
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Russian President Vladimir Putin use state-run media to spread the Kremlin’s message. (Photo by ALEXEI NIKOLSKY/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)
Well, The Daily Mail is reporting that a Russian oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin, he's on the bad guy list right? No, because he met with the president's son in Moscow several times to discuss investment deals. So that oligarch, strangely, is being sanctioned by the U.K., but not by the Biden administration. The Biden administration, for all its bellicose talk about Russia decided not to sanction the one oligarch who's friends with the president's son.
Just to restate. This has nothing to do with Ukraine. The war in Ukraine does not have anything to do with Ukraine, The long-term fortunes of the country or the health and safety of its people. Ithas to do with a lot of other things.
The Biden administration's request, for example, for Ukraine aid – didn't see this coming – includes a pathway to citizenship for Afghan refugees, their spouses and children. "The secretary of Homeland Security in the secretary's discretion may adjust the status of an Afghan national to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence."
Oh, so in an aid package meant to defend the borders of another sovereign nation, we continue to degrade our own. Bet you didn't think defending Ukrainian democracy meant admitting tens, of thousands of more foreign nationals into this country overnight.
If you want to know why our leaders are determined to escalate this conflict, there's your answer. It means more power for them. It means revenge for the 2016 election, and if that means triggering a nuclear conflict between our nation and theirs, so be it.
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.