Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rep. Allen West in tight race

November 02, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Florida Congressman Allen West joined Glenn on the radio program this morning. West is currently in a tight race in his Florida district, causing Glenn, and likely most of his radio audience, to question everything they know about common sense and America. The Congressman shared his thoughts of the presidential election, the situation in Benghazi, and the countries need for principled leadership.

We have Allen West on the phone. As we talk about Benghazi, there's nobody better to tell us exactly what we're prepared for and that we he don't leave any man behind than Allen West who's running again in Florida in a tight race, which makes me question everything that I think I know about America. But Allen, welcome to the program, sir.

WEST: It's always good to be with you, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: I'm very good. Before we even start, thank you for everything you've done in the Service but thank you for being somebody who actually says the tough things. You're one of the only people that will really say the tough things. You and people like you, Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint, you'll go right out on the front lines and you don't mind if you're shot even by your own side, and I appreciate that.

WEST: Well, that's what it takes. We have to have principled leadership that will go out there with courage and conviction and character.

GLENN: So tell me about Libya, Benghazi.

WEST: Well, I have to tell you first and foremost, you have to ask your he feels why was an ambassador at a consulate that was established basically in a combat zone. You know, one of the things I did not agree with first and foremost was that we did get involved in Libya. It was, you know, past the War Powers Act. So the president actually violated that. And I think he's kind of taking a hands‑off approach thereof. The most important thing is, you know, me being a former combat battalion commander, if you ever have men and women that are pinned down, if I ever send anybody out on a patrol that got pinned down and they called and asked for additional resources, the only response is how soon we can get it to them. And when I think about the highly technologically advanced military that we have, I just don't see how we were not able to provide the resources necessary for those individuals that are being engaged by radical Islamist terrorists, and we knew Al‑Qaeda was there, we knew that Al (inaudible) who was released in 2007 from Guantanamo Bay had stabbed and Al Sharia.

PAT: Allen, what do you make of Panetta's comments is one of our deals is that we don't send our military into any situation where we don't know the details?

GLENN: That's ridiculous.

PAT: That doesn't ring true to me at all. Is that accurate?

WEST: No, it does not ring true. And that really is not what the military is about. We go to the sound of the guns and we don't wait for the perfect situation. If you have people that are on the ground, that are engaged and they are requesting the help, you know, you don't sit around and try to develop the best possible scenario.

I'll give you another example in a short history back during the Clinton administration. I think everyone remembers the battle of Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down, the book and the movie. Well, those Rangers and Delta Force operators, General Garrison had asked for a C‑130 gunship support and also armored support. Then it was Secretary of Defense Les Aspen during the Clinton administration who denied that. And what was the result? 18 rangers and operators were killed, 75, 76 I believe were wounded. Yeah, they did kill over 2,000 Somali militiamen but it should have never gotten to that point. And I think that there's something deeper here that we have to look into.

Also no one's talking about the fact that the commander of Africom, General Carter Ham, who I know somewhat well has stepped down from commander of the African command and now just yesterday it says he's retiring. You don't find a combatant commander that is relieved out of his position early and then the next thing you know he's being retired. So there's a lot of questions we have to answer. But first and foremost, Glenn, we've got to relieve the current commander‑in‑chief.

GLENN: Okay. Let me just, let me clear something up. We've done a lot of work on General Ham, and General Ham's wife is terminal. This was something that he had been talking about for a while. However, it was expediated, I believe by his choice, and we have sources saying that he did stand up against Panetta and say, "What are you talking about?" And that's what has moved things forward. But it was his choice to leave. I just wish some of these guys would actually come out and say something because, you know, Napoleon's line has come to my head a lot. When they said, you know, where are you going to be? And he said, "Listen for the sound of the guns. That is where you'll find me."

WEST: You're exactly right and that's what leadership is. Leadership is being where the action is and that's how you are able to make the best possible decisions. And look, Glenn, always, you trust the person that's on the ground, the person that is engaged. And when you have two former Navy SEALs who are, you know, quite skilled and from what I understand they also had the targeted capability to lase these mortar positions and enemy positions. We could have gotten them support if just F‑16ing to go by and do a low fly‑by over those individuals to disrupt their operations.

GLENN: Thank you. You know, I was talking to a Navy pilot ‑‑ or an Air Force pilot the other day and he said, Glenn, you know what we should have done? We should have launched our fighter jets. He said we do this all the time. You fly at the speed of sound; they never see you coming.

PAT: 100 feet off the ground.

GLENN: 100 feet off the ground. He said we would have broken every window for blocks and he said we do it all the time. You're not hurting anybody, you're not launching anything. He said it freaks people out and you disperse a crowd that fast. Why didn't we do that?

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, how easy is that? That's ten minutes away.

WEST: You know, furthermore if as President Obama said that he gave an order to get the people on the ground everything they need, well, first of all, where is that written order? And if the commander‑in‑chief gave an order and some people subordinate to him disobeyed the order, then I want to though who disobeyed the order. This cannot go away. But I say most importantly we've got four days to make an incredible decision about the path of this constitutional republic. But then even after that, we're going to continue to press on and get the answers on this Benghazi thing. Because we cannot have something like this ever happen again.

GLENN: See, I have to tell you this is ‑‑ this goes to the election because I think we've lost common sense and common decency. I mean, the president is saying that he didn't ‑‑ we had to find out if it was a terrorist attack. Fox is now reporting this morning that they have a cable or they have seen a cable, they're not ‑‑ some of these cables are not being released but they're being shown to reporters. They have seen a cable from the State Department identifying the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack four hours into the seven‑hour gunfight.

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: So he absolutely knew. But this goes to decency. The president was out on the campaign trail just the other day saying, you know ‑‑ he said this in four different speeches exactly the same way all on prompter: "You know, you've got to know if you can trust the president of the United States, and you know what I mean what I say." Really?

WEST: Well, you know, it's that. And also, I mean, all of a sudden you see him taking the pictures in the situation room for Hurricane Sandy. Why was he not in the situation room in on the 11th anniversary of September 11th we had countless amounts of embassies being attacked, being ransacked, we have the American flag being torn down. That's an act of war. That's your sovereign American territory. When you have a country like Sudan saying that we're not going to allow you to land your Marines to protect your embassy, that's where you've got to have leadership and that's what we are lacking right now and that's what we've got to replace in the White House.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ who is the guy running ‑‑ you don't have to give him a name shout‑out but who is the guy running against you and what is different with you and the other guy?

WEST: Well, what you're looking at in my opponent, Mr. Murphy is, you know, a privileged young man who has had his father pretty much give him and do everything for him. His father has been funding, you know, six‑figure dollars into a House majority PAC which is a liberal Democrat PAC and then also establish for his son against me.

GLENN: Isn't he the guy ‑‑

WEST: He is a person who doesn't talk about any of the issues. All he is talking about is the reason why people should hate me. And I think that when you look at the high unemployment that we have in this country still and down here in the Treasure Coast area, the lack of opportunity for people to get out and get work, the tax situation, the regulatory environment, he stops talking about solutions, he just tries to demonize me, which is what you see all across with liberal progressive socialists, the Saul Alinsky school of thought. And we're going to do fine against him. We're going to be successful next Tuesday night. Don't worry.

GLENN: I'm not worried. I think that, I believe in the protection of divine and I believe there are millions of Americans that are ‑‑ still believe in that and are still harkening to the spirit and harkening to God and God is not neutral in freedom of all of mankind. And if America falls, freedom all over the world takes a mighty blow and it may take 1,000 years to be able to recover from it. And he's not neutral. His work isn't done. And as long as we are decent, God‑fearing people, we will be preserved to do his will. And I think that's exactly what you're going to see on Tuesday. I do.

WEST: Well, you're absolutely right. And as I always share with people, one of my favorite scriptures is Isaiah 54‑17 where it says no weapon formed against me shall prosper and every tongue which rises against me in judgment, you know, I shall condemn. But that's the heritage of those who will call and love the Lord.

So you know, I stand with my faith and my conviction. And I just want to thank you and so many others that are out there praying very hard for us down here. We've even got people that came in from Texas to help volunteer to get out in some neighborhoods for us. But this is a great event that it's going to be a great testimony to the strength and the courage of the United States of America next Tuesday night.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Allen West, appreciate it, and you have a good ‑‑ and you'll have a good election day.

WEST: Always a pleasure. Thanks, Glenn. God ‑‑

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Bye‑bye. Congressman Allen West on the program.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.