Peace, Peace

As European leaders discuss jointly securing Ukraine from Russian aggression, they ignore some risky secondary effects that military cooperation will bring. Our feature this morning, by Richard Palmer and Josué Michels, exposes the danger in Britain trusting in Germany as a defense partner.

[BRIEF]

The dam is still holding, for now: The Western world’s commitment to enforcing peace through negotiation is enjoying a bit of a resurgence, thanks to Donald Trump.

Vladimir Putin visiting American soil to chat with the president, eight European leaders rushing to Washington to meet him in the Oval Office on Monday—these are extraordinary signs of confidence in a peace process driven entirely by the world’s most powerful man.

“I think in the past two weeks, we’ve probably had more progress in ending this war than we have in the past 3½ years.”
—Alexander Stubb, president of Finland

Expectations are high that these efforts will end the bloodshed in Ukraine. And they could, in the short term. However, Putin’s track record is clear, and his refusal to agree to a ceasefire and his increased aggression on the battlefield show that his heart is unchanged. An agreement on Ukraine, should it materialize, will not quench his long-term ambitions, nor reverse Russia’s march toward its biblically prophesied future leading an Asian military juggernaut.

Nor will such an agreement slow Europe’s scramble to arm itself to the hilt. In fact, as Richard Palmer wrote yesterday, “Boots in Ukraine would give Europe another reason to rearm.”

Don’t forget: All the talk for months has been about the death of nato, the return of nationalism, the surge in militarism, the retreat to the trenches and bunkers, and the looming threat of world war. Cracks in the dam of the international order were giving way.

President Trump’s exertions to talk his way to peace, even his ostensible successes, appear to have patched the fissures. They have not. All those underlying realities, whatever becomes of the Ukraine war in the short term, remain.

Dams burst suddenly, furiously. History repeatedly reminds us that assurances of peace are most grandiloquent just before the most shocking eruptions of violence. It is as 1 Thessalonians 5:3 prophesies: “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them ….”

Japan—we need nukes: One example of how quickly the dam could tumble is nuclear technology. What was cutting-edge science two generations ago is undergraduate physics today. The knowhow to build nuclear weapons is widely available—it’s simply a matter of complying with established international norms. But as global dangers grow, one can easily envisage several nations casting those restraints aside. Once one nation does it, the dam will burst.

Reuters published a special report yesterday discussing growing concerns in Japan and South Korea about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees. In light of President Trump’s America First policies, including imposing tariffs, some Japanese lawmakers want to reduce reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella by developing a nuclear weapons program.

“Trump is so unpredictable, which is his strength maybe, but I think we have to always think about Plan B,” [ruling party lawmaker Rui] Matsukawa said in an interview at her Tokyo office. “Plan B is maybe go independent, and then go nukes,” she added ….

Japan’s advanced nuclear technology and 45 tons of plutonium could enable it to build a nuclear weapon within months.

Public opinion in Japan is also shifting. A March poll showed 41 percent support for revising Japan’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, double the 20 percent it was three years ago. This is a significant shift for a country that has had a nonnuclear stance since World War II—as the only nation to suffer atomic bomb attacks.

In South Korea, up to 75 percent of the public supports developing nuclear weapons. Expect more nations to follow suit. And study why the Bible says this is a trend we should take very seriously.

Obama’s men lose their security clearance: Yesterday, at President Trump’s direction, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former National Security officials, effective immediately. She called it a necessary step to depoliticize the Intelligence Community, accusing the officials of betraying their constitutional oath or leaking classified information.

Conservative Treehouse reported, “Many of these names are from the fraudulent Intelligence Community letter that dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. … Most of the names on the list are unknown to the general public, but these are the people buried deep inside the intelligence information system who are tasked with interpreting intelligence data. … These are the sources of politicized, often manufactured, intelligence interpretations.” It continued:

When former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, dni James Clapper and former cia Director John Brennan said, “Give me this outcome,” the targeted names today are the people who constructed the fraud. Some of the names, like Beth Sanner, are currently working as “National Security analysts” for various media operations, like cnn.

The silencing of Barack Obama continues, as Gerald Flurry said.

IN OTHER NEWS

High Court: British hotel can no longer house migrants: After public protests sparked by an alleged sexual assault by an asylum seeker, the High Court ruled yesterday that the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, must stop housing asylum seekers. The ruling is a major blow to the government. It does not apply nationwide, but it opens the door for local councils to have courts get migrants kicked out of hotels in their region too. What’s interesting is the reason the High Court used: It said that housing migrants was a breach of the site’s planning permission to operate as a hotel. In other words, the government’s obsessive desire to bring in more migrants ran into perhaps the most powerful force in Britain: red tape. Nevertheless, this ruling comes as flag protests spread across the country, where locals raise English and British flags while the government tears them down. Could Britain turn around on some of its anti-British policies?

Trump to reign in America’s “WOKE” museums: “The Smithsonian is out of control, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been—nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future,” he posted on Truth Social. It follows an August 12 letter to the Smithsonian and a March executive order directing museums to give a positive view of American history. It is a welcome change. “History today is often rewritten or ignored,” wrote Trumpet executive editor Stephen Flurry. “But God wants us to have a positive view of history and learn its valuable lessons. If we do, we will have the necessary context to understand the world around us, and the uplifting vision of the future to inspire us to move forward even through depressing times.” Read his article “Why Study History” for more.

Meanwhile, Britain elsewhere is still moving in the opposite direction:

“Husband and wife” and “Mum and Dad” are offensive and should not be used, local government staff at the London borough of Greenwich have been told. A 45-page “inclusive language” guide obtained by the Sun urges staff not to use terms like “ladies and gentlemen,” to avoid asking for someone’s “Christian name,” and to keep their terminology gender-neutral. This isn’t just about policing language. It’s about policing thought—and ultimately, about redefining family.