Changes

Brennan recruited a network of retired American and foreign intelligence operatives headquartered in [[London]], so-called "informants" or "outside contiguous US lures" (oconus lures), people who wanted the US taxpayer to continue the gravy train of [[NATO]] defense spending for another generation, although [[Millennial]]s are hard pressed to identify what NATO is,<ref>https://rusi.org/publication/newsbrief/nato-and-millennials</ref> how it came into existence, and why it continues to exist 25 years after the collapse of [[communism]]. Nor why European [[Welfare state|social democracies]] enjoy free healthcare while Americans do not, because Americans pay Europeans' defense costs.<ref>"Of course, military spending is higher in the US than in Europe, even today when defense spending in the US is low by

Brennan recruited a network of retired American and foreign intelligence operatives headquartered in [[London]], so-called "informants" or "outside contiguous US lures" (oconus lures), people who wanted the US taxpayer to continue the gravy train of [[NATO]] defense spending for another generation, although [[Millennial]]s are hard pressed to identify what NATO is,<ref>https://rusi.org/publication/newsbrief/nato-and-millennials</ref> how it came into existence, and why it continues to exist 25 years after the collapse of [[communism]]. Nor why European [[Welfare state|social democracies]] enjoy free healthcare while Americans do not, because Americans pay Europeans' defense costs.<ref>"Of course, military spending is higher in the US than in Europe, even today when defense spending in the US is low by

post Second World War standards. Western Europe since the Second World War has been a “free rider” on the defense provided by the US. That is, if the US did not have to spend more on defense in order to defend Western Europe from the Soviet threats, the fifference in the overall size of government between Europe and the US would be even larger." -Even at the time this paper was written, the "Soviet threats' had ceased to exist for a decade. Racist Democrats now see the "Russian threat" in nationalist terms, or a genetic predisposition to violence rather than an ideological conflict, although [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] communists in America often accuse Russians of being authoritarian or communist. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/why_doesnt_the_u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf </ref>

post Second World War standards. Western Europe since the Second World War has been a “free rider” on the defense provided by the US. That is, if the US did not have to spend more on defense in order to defend Western Europe from the Soviet threats, the difference in the overall size of government between Europe and the US would be even larger." -Even at the time this paper was written, the "Soviet threats' had ceased to exist for a decade. Racist Democrats now see the "Russian threat" in nationalist terms, or a genetic predisposition to violence rather than an ideological conflict, although [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] communists in America often accuse Russians of being authoritarian or communist. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/why_doesnt_the_u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf </ref>

For this, the Russian bogeyman is needed, and because the Obama administration failed to live up to the Clinton-era commitment to defend Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing nukes, and in the event of Russian annexation. The Clinton-era [[State Department]] promise wasn't worth the paper it was written on, ratified by the Obama administration making the U.S. word in international agreements useless.<ref>The committment to defend [[Poland]] in 1919 at the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was honored by [[Britain]] and [[France]] twenty years later in 1939 when [[Hitler]] invaded; the commitment to defend [[Ukraine]] was guaranteed by the Clinton administration in 1994 (Budapest Protocols) if Ukraine gave up its nukes as its only deterrent against a [[Russian]] invasion. Twenty years later in 2014 Obama did nothing when the agreement was violated. Both Obama and the Clintons decieved Ukrainians, and did permanent damage to America's [[diplomatic]] prestige and credibility to honor its [[treaty]] commitments in the world.</ref>

For this, the Russian bogeyman is needed, and because the Obama administration failed to live up to the Clinton-era commitment to defend Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing nukes, and in the event of Russian annexation. The Clinton-era [[State Department]] promise wasn't worth the paper it was written on, ratified by the Obama administration making the U.S. word in international agreements useless.<ref>The committment to defend [[Poland]] in 1919 at the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was honored by [[Britain]] and [[France]] twenty years later in 1939 when [[Hitler]] invaded; the commitment to defend [[Ukraine]] was guaranteed by the Clinton administration in 1994 (Budapest Protocols) if Ukraine gave up its nukes as its only deterrent against a [[Russian]] invasion. Twenty years later in 2014 Obama did nothing when the agreement was violated. Both Obama and the Clintons decieved Ukrainians, and did permanent damage to America's [[diplomatic]] prestige and credibility to honor its [[treaty]] commitments in the world.</ref>