Displaying posts categorized under

FOREIGN POLICY

In Poland, Biden Wants To Be Reagan, But He’s Still Carter Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/poland-biden-wants-be-reagan-hes-still-carter-daniel-greenfield/

When Biden showed up in Poland, the speechwriters dug through Reagan’s old speeches in the hopes of making him sound Reaganesque.

Too bad generations of speechwriters have already been farming that territory for too long. There were a few resonant unoriginal lines in what was otherwise a rambling and repetitive address that more closely resembled the rhythm of a Brezhnev speech.

What made Reagan speeches compelling wasn’t just words, it was the authoritative delivery and the moral authority behind the words. Reagan had built his political career around speaking things that the political elites didn’t want to be uttered: especially when it came to the Cold War. There was bold moral clarity in Reagan labeling the Soviet Union as evil because for so long the liberal elites had resisted stating the obvious. There’s no great moral triumph in pointing out that Putin is bad and that his invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Even few of Russia’s allies are especially enthralled with defending the move.

No more dithering over Ukraine Help Ukraine win while ensuring NATO forces do not fight the Russians Charles Lipson

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/no-more-dithering-over-ukraine/

The extraordinary skill, courage and effectiveness of Ukraine’s fighting forces have given the US and NATO an extraordinary opportunity to reestablish military deterrence in Europe and show the Kremlin that unprovoked military aggression will be repelled and ultimately defeated. But President Biden and NATO leaders are dithering. They are simply not acting with the urgency needed to fully support Ukraine’s military.

It’s the same failure they displayed for the year prior to the invasion, when Putin was building up tens of thousands of troops along Ukraine’s border. Even now, the US and NATO are hesitating to provide the full complement of essential weapons to Ukraine, including air-defense systems, MIG fighters and a lot more drones, anti-tank and anti-ship weapons. Those are needed now.

Putin’s threats seem to have deterred Washington and Brussels from providing the weapons Ukraine needs to take back its country. It was certainly prudent for Western powers to resist some Ukrainian demands. A no-fly zone, which Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly sought, is too dangerous because it could lead to lethal encounters between NATO and Russian pilots. That, in turn, would risk escalation between nuclear powers. But if NATO is not going to shoot down Russian planes itself, why not give the Ukrainians the weapons to defend their own skies?

President Biden’s Putin speech in Poland is a catastrophe Michael Goodwin

https://nypost.com/2022/03/26/president-bidens-putin-speech-in-poland-is-a-catastrophe/

He came, he saw, he confused. 

Joe Biden’s call-to-arms speech in Poland was long on soaring rhetoric about the virtues of democracy but woefully short on what more the West will do to help Ukraine defeat the Russian invasion. But by the time he got to the finish, most of that was forgotten. 

What mattered most and what will be remembered for a long time was a single line the president of the United States said about the president of Russia: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” 

In the context of the speech and the slaughter of Ukrainian civilians, it’s impossible to understand that line as anything other than a call for regime change, a move that would dramatically raise the stakes with Russia at a time when Biden has been at pains to lower them.

It also raises the question of whether toppling Putin, a subject never before mentioned by the White House, is suddenly the new policy of the United States and NATO. 

Ah, no. 

Shortly after the speech, a Biden aide told pool reporters that “the president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

Did Biden just escalate in Ukraine? Because of the US president’s recent remarks, it is likely that this conflict will drag on by Brandon J Weichert

https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/did-biden-just-escalate-in-ukraine/

On Friday, reports began emanating from Russia’s military command that they were changing the objectives of what many Western analysts claim has been Moscow’s flagging invasion of Ukraine.

Whether or not the West’s instant claims that Russia had failed at the outset of its illegal invasion of its proto-democratic neighbor Ukraine, the fact remained that Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, was clearly under political pressure to succeed in Ukraine as quickly as possible.

In fact, earlier last week, it was reported that Putin had ordered his military to have the unpopular war wrapped up by May 9 – just 11 weeks after the massive invasion began – and the anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War.

Meanwhile other analysts, such as this author, have fretted that the longer the conflict wore on inconclusively, the more likely the Kremlin was to order unconventional escalation involving cyberspace attacks on the United States, potential tactical nuclear strikes on NATO supply depots in Poland, and the use of chemical or biological weapons against targets of opportunity in Ukraine.

Biden Says Putin ‘Cannot Remain in Power,’ White House Walks It Back Moments Later By Zachary Evans

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-in-speech-on-ukraine/

President Biden said Russian president Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” in a speech on the invasion of Ukraine on Saturday.

“Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. For free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness,” Biden said at the end of a speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland. They “have a different future, a brighter future, rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light, of decency and dignity and freedom and possibilities.”

Then Biden added, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

A White House official issued a comment minutes later saying that Biden was not calling for regime change.

“The President’s point was Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” the official said.

Earlier in the address, Biden repeated a pledge to defend NATO allies. While Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance, Poland and the Baltic states on Russia’s border are members.

We need to build an exit ramp from Ukraine for Putin By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/we_need_to_build_an_exit_ramp_from_ukraine_for_putin.html

The horrors we see daily on our television screens of damage to Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities are bad enough, but the prospect of escalation into a nuclear conflict now seems within the realm of possibility.  That would make the damaged cities and millions of refugees that upset us today seem like the good old days if nukes start flying between two superpowers, each with thousands of warheads in inventory.  Making sure that doesn’t happen should be the top priority of everyone at the NATO Summit Thursday, and in Kyiv and Moscow officialdom, too.

It looks as though Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not going well, with thousands of Russian deaths and casualties; multiple dead generals; and lots of equipment, including one significant ship, destroyed.

But we must take every report from both Moscow and Kyiv with a huge grain of salt.  It is the responsibility of wartime propagandists to lie whenever it might benefit their side, after all.  And there are analysts who see Russia as methodically achieving its goals of partitioning Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine off from the rest, and neutralizing the rest as a buffer between itself and NATO.  This color-coded map of voting results in the 2010 Ukraine election closely resembles the language preferences, with blue regions that supported Yanukovych speaking Russian and red regions that voted for Tymoshenko speaking Ukrainian.

Biden Administration’s Nuclear Deal: “This Isn’t Obama’s Iran Deal. It’s Much, Much Worse.” by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18358/iran-deal-biden-obama

“By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store…. What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran’s financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales.” — Statement from 49 US Republican Senators, March 14, 2022.

With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime’s policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran’s hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran’s interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue — just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, “attitudes will change.” They did. For the worse.

Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran’s terrorist proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, Iraq’s Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, “in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region” and a promise “not to attack Americans.”

Iran’s leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier “commitment,” so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though — and a pretty explicit tip-off — they stated that they “didn’t agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead.”

Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, “not to attack Americans”? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran’s “excess uranium.” (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran’s uranium to threaten bombing his next “Ukraine”?

One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

The US proposals — negotiated for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates — have been described as: “This Isn’t Obama’s Iran Deal. It’s Much, Much Worse.” That sounds about right.

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly “refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation.”

Forty-nine Republican Senators recently told the Biden Administration that they will not back the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Elon Musk and the Chinese Temptation by Peter Schweizer

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18357/elon-musk-china

“Other American CEOs have close relationships to the [Chinese Communist] Party. But [Elon] Musk is the only one who loudly praises Beijing while running a space company with incredibly sensitive and powerful defense applications.” — Isaac Stone Fish, Barron’s, November 13, 2020.

Musk’s dilemma is not unique. The close technology-sharing relationship between Tesla and SpaceX poses national security risks to his adopted home country, but so do Google’s and Microsoft’s work with China on artificial intelligence. U.S. government policy is predictably slow in catching up to the speed of hard-charging, globe-spanning enterprises like Musk’s, and the Chinese are only too happy to increase that gap.

At some point, however, companies such as SpaceX, Google and Microsoft, and the individual Americans who own, direct, or invest in them, will face a similar choice between their obligation to America and their pursuit of more profits abroad.

Elon Musk has fans all over the ideological spectrum. People on the Left love him for popularizing electric cars with his Tesla company, or maybe for openly smoking pot on podcaster Joe Rogan’s show. Conservatives love him for his entrepreneurial dash and penchant for standing up to politicians and Big Tech censorship of the internet. And everyone loves Musk for responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and severing of its communications links by making his Starlink satellite broadband internet service available in Ukraine and donating Starlink terminals to Ukrainians. The Starlink connectivity, according to one report, may even be helping armed Ukrainian drones target Russian military vehicles.

Less is known about Musk’s business dealings in Communist China, but that might be about to change.

The Enduring Lesson in the Gulags’ Defiant Wisdom: Michael Galak

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2022/03/the-enduring-lesson-in-the-gulags-defiant-wisdom/

The guiding wisdom of the wretches who endured a living death in the Soviet Union’s labour camps was simple: Ne ver’ Ne boisya Ne prosy — Don’t trust. Don’t fear. Don’t beg.

These short sentences crystallize the collective experience of the millions who went through the gulags and perished amid the permafrost of far-north Russia, paying with their lives for the demented dreams of world conquest by Marxists fanatics. These six crisp words summarize the resolve of the human spirit when it refuses to be broken while retaining individual dignity by resisting oppression and injustice, even when the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

Pronounced together those words are an unexpectedly powerful poem. This poetry of defiance, silent by necessity in the face of brutal force, coercion and humiliation, was the only form of resistance available to the enslaved by the totalitarian State. They are also the way for the West to respond to international bullies. But political will is required to succeed, and this is where the problem lies. 

Before Going to War, Consider Who’s in Charge Let’s not go charging into the valley of death with our junto of fatuous fanatics in command.       By Stephen Balch

https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/23/before-going-to-war-consider-whos-in-charge/

America is drifting toward war, wafted by a chorus of political and punditical sirens. A great many of them are conservatives, including popular media personalities with large audiences. They’ve been warned by other conservatives about the risks of confrontation with Russia that deeper intervention in Ukraine poses.

But since few want to abandon the Ukrainians altogether, the conservative camp faces a quandary. How much risk is too much risk? Is riskiness more a matter of the quantity or the quality of support we provide to Ukraine? Is it more a matter of optics or battlefield utility? Does it matter from exactly whence it immediately arrives? Is it important how much it steers the antagonists toward possible off-ramps? These would be difficult questions for even a consummate diplomatist to answer. Not an eager player of Russian roulette, for whatever it’s worth, I incline toward overall prudence. Keep the supplies flowing at pretty much their present rate and hope deadlock leads eventually to an agreement that neither side will like but that both can politically accept. Or so it seems to me.