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

Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from Alder Hey Hospital and the fight for Alfie Evans

April 25, 2018
Jonathon Dunne

Contributor

Today, media and social media are filled with shiny irrelevant objects that catch our attention and spur lively “debates.” We talk about Stormy Daniels, listen to an FBI director hawk a book about “honor,” celebrate the Royal wedding and discuss who is and is not invited.

Can we have a discussion about something more meaningful?

There is a major story in the UK that is only now starting to get mainstream attention and it affects everyone in America and around the world. It is the account of young Alfie Evans who is fighting for his life. I want to tell you why this matters and what everyone in America can learn from it.

Who Is Alfie?

You may remember the tragic saga of Charlie Gard who we lost last year. Alfie Evans is in a very similar situation, and if we do nothing, we will also lose him.

Alfie is the baby boy of Tom Evans (21) and Kate James (20). Over his first few months on this planet, young Alfie missed several key developmental milestones. After catching a chest infection, he was admitted to Alder Hey Hospital in December 2016 and sadly has never left. To this day, doctors have not diagnosed him with any illness (apart from saying he has severe brain damage), and now want to want to remove his life support machines because it is supposedly "unfair" on Alfie.

Photo credit: Thomas Evans

The Pope has gotten involved several times, pleading for Alfie's life and there is an open offer from the Vatican-linked Bambino Hospital in Rome to care for and to try to diagnose him. But the hospital refuses to release Alfie. Earlier this week, Italy officially gave Alfie Italian citizenship, but this changed nothing. His parents have gone to every court possible, starting with local courts and all the way to the European Courts to fight for Alfie's right to life, but at every juncture, they have sided with the doctors and Alder Hey.

There are countless issues and principles to be discussed, including:

  • Is life precious?

  • Is life worth fighting for?

  • Parental rights?

  • Socialized medicine

  • How doctors and judges are NOT GODS

  • Why doesn't the media care?

I have been following these events very closely for several weeks, and on Monday, I traveled to Liverpool for the day to find the truth. Here is what I learned.

Shocking Absence

I arrived at Alder Hey around 10 am, and found a group of people playing music off a portable speaker, which was connected to an iPhone (or iPod), and singing along in the park beside the hospital. Among the popular songs played throughout the day was "Hero" by Enrique Iglesias and "Simply the Best" by Tina Turner. The group used famous chants and songs and adapted the words to include Alfie.

Behind the group were several banners and posters of support for Alfie, including a tall picture of Jesus with the words, “I stand with you.”

Where are the Protestant pastors? Where are any religious leaders? Why are they silent?

I am a quiet and reserved person at the best of times, so I stayed quiet, respectful and simply observed. This did not last long. A gentleman came up to me and asked if I was a priest (I wear a cross a lot), and I told him I was not a priest but that I do my best to share the word as a Christian. This started several conversations with a common question no one knew the answer to --- where are the Catholic priests? The Pope spoke out for Alfie --- where are they? Where are the Protestant pastors? Where are any religious leaders? Why are they silent?

Every time I heard this comment, one phrase kept repeating in my mind: “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.”

Photo credit: Thomas Evans

When you research the account of Alfie, I hope you realize the magnitude of work we must do to fix our broken society. If you are reading this and are a Christian, I really hope you understand why we must lead by example and get OUR HOUSE in order. We can rightly point blame at others, including doctors, judges, laws or socialism, but where are the leaders of the Church stepping up to make a difference and be the leaders? Remember we are told in scriptures to worry about the log in our eye before worrying about the speck in another’s eye.

Media Bias

The media is something to behold when you see them up close. It was clear from looking at them, they had an agenda and that agenda had little to do with standing up to this injustice. Sadly, pro-life issues don’t equal ratings, and this is a reflection of our society. A small scattering of media --- nothing compared to the press camped outside another hospital waiting on the birth of a prince --- were there to do the bare minimum and wait for something “news-worthy” to report.

Sadly, they got what they wanted on Monday.

The people protesting are very passionate and care deeply about Alfie and his family. I believe they are there are many reasons --- in part because they want justice, in part because they know politicians have forgotten about them and don’t care about them so they are rallying around as a community, but also because they know this could happen to any of them or their children and they know they would not want to be alone.

We were told by the family Alfie's life support machines were going to be turned off at 1:30 pm. People were filled with emotions ranging from hurt, despair, frustration and anger that this was actually going to happen. With a minute to go, they felt they were out of options and I heard someone near me say, "we have to do something" --- ever hear that argument before? "Let's run and storm the hospital."

As soon as this started, a quiet media went into over-drive, took their pictures and videos and started typing their stories, highlighting how these people charged the hospital. After reading many reports online, it is clear those there did not see, did not care or just ignored the facts.

Roughly half of the people protesting did not storm the hospital, but shouted loudly using colorful language to “come back,” “there are sick children in there.” I was alone, so I did not get recording right at the start, but I started a Facebook Live so we have the proof, which you can view here:

I am not defending the decision to storm the hospital (it is not something I would do). Look at this video and ask yourself an honest question --- do the majority look like they are storming the beaches of Normandy, or more like following the crowd because a group decided it was a good idea to go to the hospital doors?

Hard Life Questions

This whole experience has been life-changing for me. I have despised politics for a long time. I am blessed with a weekly show on TheBlaze where my focus is based on eternal principles and trying to find self-evident truths. People in America and around the world spend so much time focused on politics, which for many includes supporting the answers their side is currently promoting, automatically assuming the other is wrong and then condemning them as stupid and evil.

Photo credit: Thomas Evans

If we continue on this path, we will dehumanize the individual to a point where we only see the humanity and show empathy to those who agree with us. This will lead to balkanization, sides will weaken, extremes will gain attention and eventually, a strong man will take charge. If you don’t believe this, take a journey through history.

On Monday I spent 12 plus hours with protestors outside Alder Hey standing for Alfie’s right to life. We did not discuss any politics, but if we did, I would have been shocked if even one person I met shared any of my principles when it comes to the size of government and basic economic issues. I am sure many who attended might have even openly described themselves as socialist, and I am sure some would have said they don’t like Donald Trump and America. If your priorities are helping a young baby for the fight for life, does any of this matter?

Yesterday, we stood together as one (despite our disagreements) to stand for a common uniting principle.

Yesterday, we stood together as one (despite our disagreements) to stand for a common uniting principle: Alfie Evans and his parents' right to decide what is best for their children, their right to a second opinion and to seek additional treatment. These are all eternal principles. Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped looking for the Right-wing or Left-wing principles and focused entirely on basic human principles or the principles of nature’s law.

Or, we can continue to have teams, see everyone who has a different opinion as the enemy and seek to destroy them --- and then we ALL lose.

It Could Never Happen in America

This story should be a wakeup call for everyone, because it can and will happen anywhere, including America. If you know anything about me, I hope you know how much I love America. That being said, sometimes some people have an arrogance that thinks America is different, and that things like that could never happen. Please do not believe this line.

The situation in America is very similar to the UK, and BOTH parties are to blame. The government has been expanding into your health care for decades now with George W. Bush expanding Medicare, Obama introducing Obamacare and now, the GOP running on repeal and doing nothing. You combine this with a $21 TRILLION (as in $21,000,000,000,000) national debt, Congress's refusal to enforce basic budging principles like a balanced budget amendment, and judges ruling more and more with the side of government. This is the path both parties have put you on and if you don’t act soon, these stories could and will start happening in America.

Helping Alfie

If you are touched by this and want to help, please see below ways you can help:

  • If you are a person of faith, please pray for young Alfie, for his family and that doctors and judges see the error of their ways. We have witnessed a MIRACLE already. Doctors said when Alfie’s life support was switched off he would only survive a few minutes --- here we are nearly 48 hours later and Alfie is still fighting.

  • Please do your own homework and share it with as many people as possible. We need as many eyes and ears on this as possible to touch hearts. (Here is an 8-minute fact-based audio clip on the subject.)

  • Lastly, if you are in a position to financially help the family, please consider making a donation right now.

Keep the prayers coming, let's hope this miracle is the spark to make a change and turn the world to the side of life.

Jonathon Dunne is an Irishman with a lifelong dream of becoming an American citizen. After waiting for over 13 years, Dunne received a job offer from Glenn Beck so he could achieve his dream, but unfortunately, he did not meet the requirements to apply for a visa. Unless laws change or Dunne decides to break the law (he won't), his American dream is dead. Despite this setback, he still loves America and seeks to be a positive influence on society by promoting the idea of America and God-given freedoms. While on a recent vacation, Dunne delivered sixteen presentations (for free) in eight different states across the U.S. During this time, he kept notes and we asked him to share some of his experiences. As you read the column below, imagine the words are being spoken in a thick, Irish accent. If you're having trouble imagining how that sounds, you can hear it for yourself by tuning into Dunne's free weekly podcast, "Freedom's Disciple," on TheBlaze Radio, available on SoundCloud, iTunes, iHeart Radio, Google Pla

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.