Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2022

The West Must Safeguard Ukrainian Grain Exports

The United States and NATO have the moral and military means to force Russia to stand down in the Black Sea. What they seem to lack is the will.

Russia’s threat to withdraw from its grain deal with Ukraine underscores Russian criminality and Western weakness. But the West is weak-willed; it is not militarily weak.

In fact, quite the opposite: the United States and NATO possess overwhelming military superiority and could quickly destroy the Russian military in Ukraine if they chose to do so.

Western Inaction. This is not to argue for a preemptive Western military strike on, say, Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet. Instead, it is to argue for a more forceful and assertive Western posture vis-à-vis Russia and the flow of Ukrainian grain to the rest of the world.

The fact is: the West occupies the moral high ground. Russia’s threat to block Ukrainian grain exports serves no military purpose.

However, it does serve to jeopardize the survival and well-being of millions of people worldwide—especially the poor and impoverished in less developed nations that struggle to overcome poverty and malnutrition.

Russian War Crimes. This latest Russian threat, moreover, cannot be divorced from ongoing Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure and residential neighborhoods in Ukraine. These attacks are quite literally criminal. They, too, serve no military purpose. They are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For this reason, the West ought to be far more insistent than it has been about safeguarding the right of Ukraine to export grain through the Black Sea ports of Chornomorsk, Odesa, and Yuzhny/Pivdennyi to the rest of the world.

This means not simply protesting against Russian threats, but declaring, unequivocally, that the United States and NATO will ensure that Ukrainian grain exports continue unmolested; and that any Russian ship that tries to stop or interfere with this crucial humanitarian mission will be destroyed.

As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board observes:

Denouncing Mr. Putin isn’t likely to change his mind about the grain initiative.

If he insists on a food blockade, the best response is for the U.S. to organize a coalition of the willing to escort grain shipments from Odessa and through the Black Sea.

It needn’t be a NATO operation, though the U.S. would have to lead it.

Wartime Ironies. One of the ironies of this war has been that Russia is economically and militarily weak, but brazen and aggressive. The West, by contrast, is economically and militarily strong, but timid and tentative. Consequently, the West too often has yielded the initiative to Russia.

This has been a big mistake. It is long past time for the United States and NATO to recognize that they have the whip hand, both morally and militarily, vis-à-vis Russia and to act accordingly.

A good place to start would be in the Black Sea: by ensuring that Ukrainian grain shipments to the rest of the world continue unabated without Russian interference.

Feature photo credit: TheWorldofMaps.com.

Wit and Humor are Ron DeSantis’s Keys to the White House

Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is widely seen as the Republican Party’s strongest presidential candidate in 2024.

As a highly successful governor who is cruising to reelection in America’s third-most populous state, DeSantis has executive experience and a proven record of accomplishment that none of his likely GOP rivals (speechifying senators, mostly) can match.

There is, however, one thing that might hold DeSantis back and keep him from ever reaching the Oval Office: his lack of wit and a sense of humor.

“It’s not apparent to me that DeSantis has a sense of humor,” Dexter Filkins told Andrew Sullivan on The Dishcast. “He’s not a very jokey guy, at least not in public.”

Filkins knows of what he speaks. In June, he published the most insightful reportorial piece to date on Florida’s governor.

Filkins told Sullivan that, based on his reporting,  DeSantis would wipe the floor with most of the Democrats who would likely run against him in any general election matchup. However, he warns, DeSantis’ “entire persona is strident and angry,” and the governor does not excel at small talk.

This is a glaring red flag and a real problem for DeSantis. Wit and a sense of humor, after all, are integral to political success, especially for conservative Republicans. Why?

Because conservative Republicans are seen as more hard-edged and tough-minded. A sense of humor thus helps to soften their image and humanize them in the public mind.

Social conservatives in particular run the risk of being caricatured as harsh and judgmental, rigid and dogmatic. Wit and humor can compellingly show otherwise and put the lie to this caricature.

Ronald Reagan. It is no accident, after all, that the most successful conservative politician in American history, the man who won reelection as president in an historic 49-state landslide, was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had a wonderful sense of humor that endeared him to the American people, even those who strongly disagreed with his conservative political philosophy and public policies.

Consider, for instance, how the 73-year-old Reagan handled concerns about his advanced age during a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale:

I want you to know that, also, I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

As Politico reports: “Many members of the audience, gathered in the cavernous Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City, Mo., applauded and laughed. So did Mondale.”

And, as a result, Reagan won more than the debate. He won, by an overwhelming margin, a second term in the White House.

Buckley and Scalia. After Reagan, the next two greatest conservative public figures in recent decades are author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And what distinguishes these two men aside from their towering intellects?

Their wit and sense of humor, which showcased a humanity and a warmth of personality that made them impossible to demonize.

When asked, for instance, what would be the first thing he would do “if he actually won his rollicking, long-shot campaign for mayor of New York City in 1965,” Buckley responded: “Demand a recount!”

As for Scalia, “he had a great sense of humor,” admits left-wing comedian Stephen Colbert:

People have actually broken down the transcripts for [Supreme Court] oral arguments and he told more jokes and got more laughs than any of the other justices.”

“In a big family,” quipped Scalia, the father of nine children, “the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it’s not perfect, that’s okay. There are a lot more coming along.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he amusingly wrote in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

That quip even drew a chuckle from Chief Justice John Roberts, who had written the Court’s decision that aroused Scalia’s ire.

Ron DeSantis. If DeSantis wants to succeed at the highest level of American politics, if he wants to win the presidency and move America in a socially conservative and economically dynamic, free-market direction, then he has no more urgent task than to emulate Reagan, Buckley, and Scalia.

He needs to understand that for a conservative Republican especially, having and demonstrating wit and a sense of humor are of paramount importance.

Wit and Humor. To be sure, wit and humor are not things that can be instantly conjured up and created. They take time, effort, and practice. They are a reflection of life and personality, playfulness and camaraderie, joy, triumph, anguish, and even pain.

“Humor: a difficult concept to learn,” Spock tells Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. “It is not logical.”

True, but wit and humor can be developed. Jokes can be incorporated into political stump speeches. Witty remarks can be crafted and used out on the campaign trail. A politician can consciously cultivate a more joyful public persona that wins converts even as it disarms critics.

And make no mistake: this matters, politically. Why? Because, as one website helpfully explains:

Humor is a great leveler. It is almost impossible to remain angry with someone who is making you laugh.

Donald Trump. Exactly, and yet, this is precisely what Donald Trump did not do. Trump did not disarm his critics. He did not make people laugh in recognition of his humanity.

To the contrary: Trump angered and repelled too many voters by his insistence on being “tough” (read: nasty and unpresidential) and refusing to show “weakness” (read: humanity). Consequently, a record number of voters turned out to vote in 2020 precisely so they could vote against Trump.

Ditto the 2018 election cycle, which flipped the House of Representatives from Republican to Democratic control. A critical mass of voters turned out to vote Democrat for Congress because Trump so angered and repelled them.

DeSantis needs to avoid Trump’s mistake or politically fatal character flaw. He needs to show voters that he cares; that he has a heart; that he’s human; and that he is worthy of leading this great nation. And the best way, the most effective way, to achieve this is through wit and humor.

Is there a political market for this? Absolutely.

Consider, for instance, the astounding success of the The Babylon Bee, a conservative Christian satirical website, as well as the sky-high ratings of  Fox News’ Greg Gutfield, whose late-night show is tops in the nation.

Gutfield! is “beating CBS’ The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Livewith FNC outpacing the broadcast networks even through their fall premieres,” Forbes reports.

As for The Babylon Bee, it is the most popular satirical site on the Internet, with more than 20 million page views per month, reports Ben Shapiro. “Fake news you can trust,” is the site’s witty tagline.

Conclusion. Politics and culture increasingly intersect. The political marketplace is waiting for a conservative Republican politician who can do politically what The Babylon Bee is doing journalistically and Greg Gutfield is doing for late-night television or streaming.

DeSantis has crucial executive experience and a highly successful track record as governor. These make him a compelling Republican presidential candidate.

But he is wants to be a winner and not just a contender, DeSantis will have to demonstrate that he can make people smile and laugh, even as he himself smiles and laughs. He will have to showcase a sense of humor that, thus far, has been conspicuously absent in his public appearances.

Can he do it? Yes, but only if he works at it. Only if he consciously makes liberal use of humor to achieve conservative political ends.

Only if recognizes that a politician elevates himself through self-deprecation, not self-promotion; and that while successful public figures take ideas seriously, they do not take themselves too seriously. Just ask Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Antonin Scalia.

Feature photo credit: (L-R): Author and columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, courtesy of National Review, FramedArt.com, and YouTube, respectively.

Why the Right-Wing Critics of Ukraine are Wrong

They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Most Americans support Ukraine, and most Congressional Republicans support Ukraine. Yet a small but vocal contingent of so-called America First conservatives opposes U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Like former President Trump, these so-called conservatives call for a negotiated solution to the conflict now before, they say, it “escalates” out of control and leads to “nuclear war.”

These so-called conservatives are grievously and historically wrong. Here we expose and debunk their arguments for abandoning Ukraine and appeasing Putin’s Russia.

Right-Wing Lie #1: Ukraine is corrupt and illiberal and thus undeserving of American support.

Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine, but so what? Corruption exists in many countries, including the United States. But this is very different from saying a country is defined by its corruption.

In truth, Ukraine is a relatively new and fledgling democracy. Like many new and fledgling democracies, it has problems—including corruption—that it is working to overcome. For this reason it deserves our support.

If we held every country in the world to an impossible standard of utopian perfection, then we would have no foreign policy or engagement with other countries, since they all would fall short.

As for being illiberal, this is nonsense. Ukraine is fighting to be part of Europe, part of the West, which is defined by its commitment to (classically) liberal principles of personal autonomy, personal responsibility, and democratic self-rule.

Do Europe, America, and the West deviate from these principles in ways that are sometimes alarming and disconcerting? Does Ukraine?

Of course they do—we all do—but again: so what? If an impossible standard of utopian perfection is what must guide U.S. foreign policy, then we have effectively jettisoned the idea of a foreign policy.

Right-wing critics who complain about alleged Ukrainian corruption and illiberalism also miss the crucial clarifying context, which is Russia.

Indeed, the alternative to Ukrainian self-rule is not American-style democracy; it is Russian imperialism, which is orders of magnitude more illiberal and authoritarian than anything proffered by the Ukrainians.

Oscar Wilde famously said, “You can judge a man by his enemies.” So, too, with a country. Ukraine’s enemy is Russia, and that tells us a lot about what Ukraine is fighting for and against.

Ukraine is fighting against a truly corrupt and illiberal authoritarian dictatorship (Russia), and it aspires to be a liberal democracy that is an integral part of Europe and the West. Enough said.

Right-Wing Lie #2: Ukraine and Russia are enmeshed in a heated “border dispute” that does not implicate American national security

Calling Russia’s war on Ukraine a “border dispute” is like saying the American Civil War was about “regional differences.” Both assertions are literally true, but they obscure far more than they reveal.

In truth, Ukraine is fighting for its nationhood and its very existence as a free and sovereign country. The so-called border dispute exists only because Russia seeks to erase from the map any and all Ukrainian borders.

This is a dramatic moral difference that talk of a “border dispute” hides or conceals. In the same way, talk of “regional differences” obscures the larger-scale moral truth that the American Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

As for the American national security interest in Ukraine, it is real and significant.

The truth is: America is an international commercial power, with a clear and demonstrable stake in the international order. To allow Russia to subsume Ukraine would be to invite America’s enemies to do the same (illegally seize sovereign territory)  in other parts of the world.

Think China vis-à-vis Taiwan, for instance.

Moreover, U.S. foreign trade with Europe dwarfs our trade with any other region and is a driver of American prosperity. The idea that the United States can be indifferent to the fate of Europe in the 21st Century ignores the economic facts of life, the military facts of life, and the importance of alliances to keeping Americans safe and secure.

Right-Wing Lie #3: Ukraine is not America’s concern, it is Europe’s problem; and it is a diversion from our real 21st Century strategic challenge, which is the rise of China.

Again, in a world where millions of Americans travel and do business internationally, the idea that we can indifferent to the fate of Europe simply is not credible. And the idea that the Chinese will not draw lessons and inspiration from any Western appeasement of Putin in Ukraine is delusional.

In truth, Russia and China are aligned, formally and on paper. So by ensuring Russia loses in Ukraine, we weaken the Sino-Russian alliance and send a powerful signal to Beijing about Western resolve in the face of aggression.

Right-Wing Lie #4: Putin’s Russia is not an enemy of the United States; it is a potential ally whom we foolishly risk losing because of our misplaced concern for Ukraine.

This is unadulterated nonsense. In fact, well before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin had demonstrated, by his words and his actions, that he viewed the United States as an enemy.

For this reason, Russia has worked assiduously and unceasingly to undermine American national security interests—in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East; within Europe and NATO, Taiwan and the South China Sea; in the United Nations and other international bodies; and on social media (Twitter and Facebook).

A few throwaway lines about cancel culture, woke ideology, and LGBT designed for gullible American and European conservatives does not make Putin’s Russia a potential U.S. ally.

In truth Putin’s Russia is  clear and demonstrable enemy of the United States. Thus inflicting a catastrophic defeat on Russia in Ukraine will help to weaken one of our nation’s most significant and implacable adversaries.

Right-Wing Lie #5: Whatever the merits of aiding Ukraine, the United States cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars more on another “endless war.” We already are $30 trillion in debt. On this path lies financial ruin, which will truly devastate American national security.

True, the national debt is a very serious problem that must be addressed. But the idea that it is caused by excessive military spending, let alone excessive aid to Ukraine, is simply untrue.

The United States spends less on a defense as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than it did during the Cold War. Meanwhile, entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—have been skyrocketing and consuming an ever-increasing share of the federal budget.

Entitlement spending, not military spending—and certainly, not aid to Ukraine—is what is driving America’s growing debt crisis.

For greater context, aid to Ukraine amounts to tens of billions of dollars in a federal budget that is trillions of dollars. And it is money well spent to safeguard the rules-based international order that drives American prosperity.

Ukraine, moreover, is not asking for Americans to fight and die on its behalf. Instead, Ukraine is asking for armaments and battlefield intelligence.

We aid Ukraine now to forestall and prevent a worse crisis later, which will cost us much more, potentially, in dollars and lives lost should Russia win and Ukraine lose.

Right-Wing Lie #6: The war in Ukraine is another “endless war” that we should exit before it needlessly saps our blood and treasure.

Projecting the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan onto Ukraine is a big mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is a European country with a relatively advanced and capable military that has no need for American combat troops to fight on its behalf.

In fact, recent Ukrainian battlefield successes demonstrate that the country’s military can and will inflict a catastrophic defeat on Putin’s Russia—provided the West maintains its support and assistance.

And so, we can see a clear end to the war, a time when (within the next 9-18 months, most likely) all Russian troops are expelled from all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

Right-Wing Lie #7: The biggest danger right now is that America “escalates” the conflict in Ukraine, thereby risking a “nuclear war” with Russia. This is madness! We must step back from the brink and find ways to “deescalate” the conflict.

This is an emotional appeal that defies reason. Escalation sounds bad, but what it actually means is accelerating our shipment of arms and munitions to Ukraine, so that the Ukrainians can successfully drive the Russian invaders out of their country.

This is a good and necessary thing, not a bad and dangerous thing.

As for the risk of “nuclear war,” this is another emotional appeal that defies reason. Any time you are confronting a nuclear-armed state (which Russia is) there obviously is a risk of nuclear war. But that risk is negligible if the United States and NATO have a real and credible deterrent, which they do.

Moreover, the real risk is not a strategic nuclear war, which would threaten cities in Russia and the United States, but rather a regional nuclear war in Ukraine involving tactical or battlefield nukes.

A regional nuclear war in Ukraine would be bad, obviously; but it is not nearly as bad or as dangerous as a full-fledged strategic nuclear war that could endanger Washington, D.C. and Moscow.

Finally, Russia derives no military advantage from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And any Russian nuclear strike would require the connivance of hundreds of individuals in the Russian military and civilian chains of command. Such connivance is unlikely to say the least.

So the idea that Putin could launch a nuke in a fit of pique or because his “back is against the wall” is silly. As Timothy Snyder points out:

States with nuclear weapons have been fighting and losing wars since 1945, without using them.  Nuclear powers lose humiliating wars in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and do not use nuclear weapons.

Putin’s Russia today will be no different.

Or, if it is different, it will be so in a small and militarily insignificant way. Putin will detonate one or more tactical nukes to try and scare the world and intimidate the West into backing down. Sorry, but that won’t work—nor should it.

Right-Wing Lie #8: America should force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate now and reach a compromise solution that will end the war.

This sounds good. Who, after all, doesn’t want to end this horrendous war, which has wrought so much death and destruction on Ukraine? But what, exactly, is there to negotiate? And, at this point, what could a “compromise solution” possibly mean?

Russia wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be free and independent of Russia. This an irreconcilable difference that cannot be negotiated or compromised away.

Russia either will take Ukrainian territory or it will be driven from Ukrainian territory. The only thing Ukraine can compromise on, after all, is its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thus the problem with forcing Ukraine to negotiate now is that it means Russia wins and Ukraine loses.

That is and ought to be a nonstarter.

The bottom line: authentic American conservatives support Ukraine. They recognize that critical America national security interests are at stake, with ramifications that extend far beyond Ukraine. Failure, they realize, is not an option.

Right-wing populist imposters, by contrast, are stooges for Putin. They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Consequently, their criticism of American foreign policy a vis-à-vis Ukraine is grievously and historically wrong. Their objections to Ukraine and to American support for Ukraine cannot withstand critical scrutiny.

In truth, America First necessarily means Ukraine wins and Russia loses.

Feature photo credit: So-called America First conservatives (L-R): Ned Ryun, Laura Ingraham, and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (Ret.) via a Fox News screenshot.

Why America Is Right to Honor Christopher Columbus

Leftist lies to the contrary notwithstanding, Columbus was a great explorer who heralded the Age of Discovery, the rise of Western Civilization, and the birth of America.

Columbus Day (today) is still a federal holiday. Yet, few Americans understand why we honor Christopher Columbus.

Moreover, to the extent people are familiar with the great Italian explorer, it is through the politically correct lens of modern-day progressivism, which sees Columbus as an avatar of colonialism, white supremacy, genocide, and Christian European privilege

None of this is true, of course. These are malicious lies fabricated by leftists to impugn and discredit Western Civilization, so that they can remake the West in their own radical, woke image.

Debunking Leftist Lies. In truth,  as Jarrett Stepman observes, historians like Carol Delaney have debunked the leftists lies about Columbus:

Rather than cruel, Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. While deprivations did occur, Columbus was quick to punish those under his command who committed unjust acts against local populations.

“Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect,” Delaney said.

“There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.”

The Age of Exploration. The truth is: we recognize and honor Columbus because he was a great explorer, who heralded what historians call the Age of Exploration or the Age of Discovery, which led, in turn, to the establishment of the new world, aka America.

As the late great historian Samuel Eliot Morison explained in one of his many magisterial works of history, Christopher Columbus: The Voyage of Discovery 1492:

Five hundred years ago an obscure Genoese mariner sailing in the service of Their Catholic Majesties, the Sovereigns of Spain, made the single greatest voyage of discovery the world has ever known.

The consequences of the First Voyage of Columbus were so momentous that even today they are difficult to grasp.

From that voyage stemmed not only a great Age of Exploration that would shortly transform other men’s understanding of the planet on which they lived, but indeed the entire history of the United States, of Canada and of all the nations of the Central and South America.

It is no wonder that October 12 is celebrated annually throughout the length and bread of the Western Hemisphere.

Samuel Eliot Morison. Morrison’s works of scholarship are highly impressive and dwarf those of any modern-day historian. The man won two Pulitzer Prizes: first for Admiral of the Ocean Sea, a 1942 biography of Columbus, and A Sailor’s Biography, a 1959 biography of John Paul Jones.

When World War II broke out, Morison, then a professor of history at Harvard, volunteered to serve for the express purpose of writing an operational history of the wartime Navy.

He was commissioned as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve, called to active duty, and permitted to go where he wanted when he wanted to fulfill his mission.

Morison’s skill as a sailor who had retraced Columbus’s voyages made him conversant with ships and navigation. Consequently, he was welcomed by the operational Navy and saw combat multiple times on vessels large and small. He subsequently published a 15-volume History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II.

Clearly, if anyone is in a position to evaluate Columbus”s achievements as an explorer and a navigator—and and what these achievements mean for Western Civilization—it is Samuel Eliot Morison. Here is what he wrote about Columbus:

We are right in so honoring him, because no other sailor had the persistence, the knowledge, and the sheer guts to sail thousands of miles into the unknown ocean until he found land. This was the most spectacular and most far-reaching geographical discovery in recorded human history.

Moreover, apart from the magnitude of his achievement, Columbus was a highly interesting character. Born at the crossroads between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, he showed the qualities of both eras.

He had the firm religious faith, the a-priori reasoning and the close communion with the Unseen typical of the early Christian centuries.

Yet he also had the scientific curiosity, the zest for life, the feeling for beauty and the striving for novelty that we associate with the advancement of learning. And he was one of the greatest seamen of all time.

In short, we Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Christopher Columbus. His courage, derring-do, Christian faith, and commitment to progress and exploration gave rise to the new world and  the pride of place we now call America.

Western civilization, moreover, grew, prospered and developed in large part because of his efforts and the efforts of other great explorers.

Let us hope and pray that we Americans never forget this; and that, generations from now, our posterity will continue to recognize and honor Christopher Columbus and the Age of Discovery.

Feature photo credit: Renowned historian Samuel Eliot Morison (L) and the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus (R), courtesy of Harvard Magazine and the Knights of Columbus, respectively.

Biden’s Riff on ‘Armageddon’ Shows Why His Ukraine Policy Falls Short

The President’s misplaced fear of “World War III” and “Armageddon” has seriously undermined his administration’s support for Ukraine.

Most foreign policy analysts who recognize the importance of ensuring that Ukraine prevails over Russia credit President Biden for his leadership. But the President’s remarks Thursday (Oct. 6, 2022) to Democratic Party donors helps to illustrate why Biden deserves significantly less credit than most analysts think.

While the President has been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, he has been overly timid and tardy about arming Ukraine with long-range precision weapons—HIMARS, tanks, jets, drones, and fighting vehicles—that would allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and quickly end the war.

Ukraine Leads; Biden Follows. The President’s hand, moreover, has been forced by Ukrainian battlefield victories that Biden did not expect or anticipate. And so, each and every time the Ukrainians succeed in battle and either stymie or defeat the Russians, they have urgently requested more and better weaponry.

Biden then follows through, belatedly, with quantitatively more and qualitatively better armaments. It is almost impossible to say no, after all, to an ally who is winning and whose moral standing in battle is as laudatory and exemplary as the Ukrainians’.

But why has Biden been so timid and so tardy to arm Ukraine?

Because, as he essentially told party donors Thursday, he’s worried that if the Ukrainian military moves too far too fast, that could force Putin into a corner, so to speak, and the result could be “Armageddon,” by which Biden means Russia’s use of nuclear weapons.

Thus, Biden continued, “We’re trying to figure out: ‘What is Putin’s off-ramp? Where does he get off? Where does he find a way out?'”

This has been Biden’s approach to Ukraine all along—from prior to the Russian invasion, when he pulled U.S. military advisers out of the country, to early in the conflict, when he said no to a “no-fly zone” and ruled out sending military jets to Ukraine.

Self-Deterrence. Biden, in fact, has been more clear and emphatic about what his administration will not do (ostensibly to prevent “World War III”) than in what it will do to ensure a Ukrainian win.

Eliot Cohen calls this “self-deterrence,” and it has been self-defeating. It signals a lack of will and resolve and it surely has emboldened Putin.

The fear of “cornering Putin” and provoking “World War III” never made much sense. In truth, Putin has cornered himself by his intransigence and insistence on erasing Ukraine as a sovereign and independent country.

The West can either stop Putin or appease him. There is no middle ground that allows him to “save face.” Putin, after all, has no interest in “saving face.” He is interested in conquering Ukraine.

As for World War III, what does that mean, exactly? The implication is that if the West is too supportive of Ukraine, it might find itself enmeshed in a difficult, multi-year conflict that engulfs all of Europe. But is that really a legitimate concern? And is it NATO or Russia that should fear a broader conflict?

The Russian military, after all, has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and incapable of defeating Ukrainian citizen soldiers. It would be quickly overwhelmed and defeated by a far superior conventional NATO military force.

Alternatively, the implication is that “World War III” would be a nuclear Armageddon that could result in worldwide destruction, and not just the destruction of Ukraine. But the rules of nuclear deterrence have not changed since the atomic bomb was developed to end World War II.

Deterrence. Any Russian nuclear strike on a NATO country means a devastating counter-nuclear strike on Russia by NATO.

That is a clearly understood by Putin and his generals. And it is why, from the advent of the Cold War in the late 1940s to the present, Russia has never launched a nuclear strike on a NATO country.

We have absolutely no reason to think that Russian thinking has suddenly changed; and that they are now suicidal and willing to risk the destruction of Moscow in order to subsume Ukraine.

Misplaced Fear. In short, the fear of “World War III” and a nuclear “Armageddon” is misplaced and counterproductive. Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Schloz, and others are using this fear as an excuse to delay arming Ukraine. But all this delay does is prolong the war and the deliberate Russian slaughter of innocent civilians.

So while it is good that Biden has stood by Ukraine, it would have been far better had he matched his pledge of support with more resolute and timely action. Yet even today, despite everything we know about Putin and Russia, Biden continues to look for ways to placate and appease the Russian dictator.

Too often, consequently, Biden is following and not leading.

What the President should do, instead, is look for ways to ensure that Russia loses and is forced to withdraw from all of Ukraine. That is the only “off-ramp” for Putin and the only way to end this war.

The bottom line: credit Biden for standing by Ukraine. However, fault him for his misplaced fear of “World War III” and “Armageddon,” which have caused him to dither and delay on critically-needed military support for Ukraine.

The President deserves a B, not an A; one or two cheers, not three, for his foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.

Feature photo credit: Salon/Getty Images courtesy of Salon.