NY Times floats a trial balloon: 'Hey, let's give Ukraine nuclear weapons!' Seriously!

If you're like most Americans--who get all their "newz" from the Lying Mainstream Media--you have no idea what's going on.

But once in awhile the Democrats who run this country tip their hand, in the same Mainstream Media--even when it contradicts current policy.

Uh-oh!  Dilemma for loyal Democrat readers:  Do we believe yesterday's *absolute, total assurance* that Democrat policy was (whatever), or do we believe today's new story that totally reverses yesterday's policy?

Example: Ukraine.  Russia invaded after biden was installed, and both the biden regime and most Americans understandably wanted to help the smaller nation defend itself.  Perfectly reasonable.  But as we should have learned in Vietnam, pouring billions into a country half-way around the world doesn't guarantee the result you want.

But Democrats don't want to give up, so biden's handlers have been giving Ukraine an array of increasingly sophisticated weapons to defend themselves.  For example, a year ago there was a heated debate in congress over whether the U.S. should give the Ukes F-16 fighters.  

Critics--all GOP, of course--were concerned that Russia would almost certainly consider that a huge provocation.  The Media sneered that anyone who opposed giving ever more arms and cash to the Ukes was "Putin's stooge."  Remember that?  And not a single Democrat in congress or the Media dared to say a critical word, fearing they's get the same treatment.

Of course biden's hidden handlers got what they wanted with the F-16s.  Unless you're a political junkie you've almost certainly forgotten that by now.

Next we gave 'em hundreds of new, highly accurate missiles (HiMARS) with a range of 60 miles or so.  And just a month or so ago biden's handlers gave 'em a new missile with a range of 180 miles, but making 'em promise not to fire 'em into Russia.

Then two weeks ago biden's handlers handed him a document to sign giving the Ukes permission to fire those missiles into Russia.  And *surely* you heard about that, right?

Putin responded by firing a new missile back.

So here's how the NY Times "analyzed" the situation four days ago, 30 'grafs down in the piece, 5th 'graf from the end:
>>U.S. and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.
   Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could *return nuclear weapons to Ukraine* that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.>>

Wow, "serious implications," say the brain-trusts at the Times.  Gee, ya think?  Yet the Times buries this huge escalation in the 5th 'graf from the end of a long and otherwise boring article!  Insane!

So let's examine that cunningly worded ambiguity *"return* nuclear weapons to Ukraine." The deliberate use of the word "return" makes it sound like the U.S. took 'em away, and thus that by merely "returning" them we'd simply be restoring the status quo ante, eh?  So no big deal, right?

But that's crap: the U.S. didn't take the nukes.  Russia took 'em, with the full approval and illusory "guarantees" by Bill Clinton.  So "returning" nuclear weapons would actually be *giving* the Ukes nukes--a vast escalation.  Yeah, Putin probably would be fine with that, right?

Now: There's no way to know who the alleged, unnamed "several officials" are, or even if they really exist.  The Times routinely reports outrageous lies as true, as long as they can attribute the lie to a never-revealed third party.  So they could easily have made this up, but even a dumb liberal Democrat should be able to see that the risk is huge, so for the Times to have simply fabricated this would be terribly risky.

But regardless, the idea is definitely a "trial balloon," purpose unknown.  Do the nameless "officials" think it might nudge Putin to the negotiating table?  Or are they trying to see how the American public will react?

Either way, it would seem to hugely escalate the situation.  

Now: The chances of biden's handlers being able to ram such a crazy idea thru in the 56 days before biden is out are *almost* nil.  But not zero.  After all, there is no statutory authority on a U.S. president giving another nation nuclear weapons.  And we all know Porridgebrain will sign anything put in front of him.  

And finally, when the Democrats have their minds set on a goal--no matter how crazy--they almost always get what they want.

Source: NY Times

https://archive.is/yool2
--------
(For young Americans: Bill Clinton--a.k.a. Slick Willy--lied under oath about having oral sex with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinski.  As far as Democrats were concerned, the fact that it happened in the Oval Office simply added to the brazenness.
   Actually Monica testified that the two had gotten it on nine times.  
   Democrats saw nothing wrong with their oh-so-sexy (?) prezzy getting a bj in the Oval Office.  In fact one liberal female member of the press was caught on camera saying she'd do the same for Bill.
   And as for Bill committing perjury--lying under oath--the Democrat elites airily waved it away by saying "everyone lies about sex."  And as you could have guessed, a generation of young Americans got the message.
   I note this because virtually no leftist Trump-hating college female knows squat about this, and instead believes Democrat pols are pure and only Republicans cheat on their wives.  How would college students know?  No one teaches it, and the Media don't say anything.)