Posts published in “Russia’s War on Ukraine”

Tucker Carlson’s Real Target Is Not Winston Churchill; it’s Ukraine

Tucker Carlson’s Real Target Is Not Winston Churchill; it’s Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 15, 2024

Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper want to rewrite the history of World War II so that they can justify appeasing Vladimir Putin today.

Tucker Carlson’s plaudits for an obscure crackpot writer, Darryl Cooper, who argues that Winston Churchill, not Adolph Hitler, is the “chief villain” of World War II, have been widely condemned and rightly so. The historical narrative that Cooper presents is riddled with glaring errors, not the least of which is a basic timeline or chronology of events.

Indeed, as historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts points out:

Cooper’s first argument was that Churchill “was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland.” Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister.

Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain’s navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground.

But the bigger question that has not been addressed is: why, at this moment in time, is Carlson elevating and promoting the false and inaccurate notion that Winston Churchill is the “chief villain” of World War II?

Ukraine. The answer is not hard to discern. He is doing so because of Ukraine.

“I’m just highly distressed,” Carlson told Cooper, “by the uses to which the myths [sic] about World War II have been put in the context of modern foreign policy, particularly the war in Ukraine.”

Churchill, remember, was a fierce critic of the British government’s policy of appeasement in the years leading up World War II. He warned repeatedly of the grave and gathering Nazi German threat. Hitler had to be stopped, not appeased, Churchill argued.

Carlson and Cooper, by contrast, are modern-day appeasers. They want to appease Putin. They recognize the obvious parallels between Europe in the 1930s and Europe today.

They understand quite well that if yesterday’s appeasers can be vindicated and Churchill vilified, then it will be easier for today’s appeasers to prevail in Ukraine and in other parts of Eastern Europe (the Baltic States and Poland), which Putin views as rightful parts of a new Russian empire.

As Faulkner famously put it, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Myopic Critics. Yet, inexplicably, even critics who heap opprobrium on Carlson and Cooper feel compelled to downplay or deny this obvious fact.

For example, in an otherwise superb takedown of Cooper’s false and inaccurate history, Mark Antonio Wright writes:

I will go ahead and concede at the outset Carlson and Cooper’s complaint that the “Munich 1938: Churchill vs. Chamberlain and the Appeasers” dynamic has been used and abused in the post-war period, often to our detriment. Not every foreign adversary is Adolf Hitler, and not every international negotiation is Munich 1938.

This is obviously true, but Wright concedes too much. He ignores the obvious parallels between Nazi Germany and modern-day Russia. He ignores the echoes of Adolph Hitler in Vladimir Putin. He ignores Russia’s horrific war crimes and attempted genocide of Ukraine.

1930’s Style Appeasement. In truth, Putin’s Russia is attempting to conquer and subjugate Eastern Europe, just as Hitler’s Germany tried to do in the 1930s and ’40s. Then as now we heard all of manner of excuses for appeasing the fascist aggressors. But the appeasers were wrong then and they are wrong today.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has observed, our present-day historical moment is similar to that of 1938:

This is 1938, but Czechoslovakia [read: Ukraine] has chosen to fight… So you have an imperfect democracy… [that], when threatened by a larger neighbor [read: Russia], it chooses to resist. In that world, where Czechoslovakia resists, there’s no Second World War.

Snyder’s argument is that we can avoid a great powers war with Russia in Europe if we learn the lesson of the 1930s and stop Russia in Ukraine. A Russia that has subsumed Ukraine, he explains, will be a far more formidable enemy to combat, just as Nazi Germany was a far more formidable enemy to combat after it had subsumed Czechoslovakia.

Modern-Day Appeasers. Carlson and Cooper see this obvious historical parallel even if Wright and other critics choose to ignore it. But unlike most of us, and unlike most historians, Carlson and Cooper don’t care.

They don’t care about Europe, especially Eastern Europe. They believe, erroneously, in a fortress America that can largely ignore what happens in Europe.

Their erstwhile ally, Trump Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance, agrees with them. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” he said when running for the Senate in 2022.

Indifference and History. But their indifference to the fate of Europe is contrary to the British and American historical experience. It runs counter to our historical understanding. Churchill cared and Franklin Delano Roosevelt cared because they understood that the fate of Britain and the United States is inextricably linked to the fate of Europe.

Carlson and Cooper think differently. That’s why they are attempting, unsuccessfully, to rewrite the history of World War II and to cast Hitler as misunderstood and Churchill as the villain.

The implications of their historical analysis for what is transpiring in Ukraine today are clear and frightening, and we ignore these implications at our peril.

Feature photo credit: Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson, courtesy of their online Twitter interview.

Who is Failing Ukraine: Biden or Congressional Republicans?

Who is Failing Ukraine: Biden or Congressional Republicans?

By John R Guardiano on January 8, 2024

The media blame Congressional Republicans for failing to support Ukraine; but the real failure of support lies in the Oval Office with Joe Biden.

The media and most foreign policy analysts would have you believe that farsighted Joe Biden supports Ukraine, while myopic Congressional Republicans don’t; and that a lack of GOP support is why Ukraine enters this, its third year of war, on the defensive, facing a Russian military onslaught.

In fact, the opposite is true. Joe Biden says he supports Ukraine; yet he has deliberately withheld from Ukraine critical weapon systems such as the ATACMS or long-range Army Tactical Missile System.

He has been seriously tardy and parsimonious about the weapon systems he has provided (e.g., a few dozen Abrams tanks and just 20 ATACMS), while imposing range and use restrictions on other provided weapon systems (e.g., the HIMARS or High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems).

As Biden himself publicly acknowledged Nov. 9, 2022: “There’s a lot of things [i.e., weapon systems] that Ukraine wants that we didn’t do” or provide.

Consequently, as Phillips P. O’Brien observes, “while Russia can strike anywhere in Ukraine, the U.S. has denied the Ukrainians the weapons they need to hit Russian targets, even in the parts of Ukraine that Russia occupies.”

Biden’s dithering and delay has been quite costly. It has given Russia the time and space that it needed to massively mine occupied Ukraine and to erect massive defensive fortifications, which the Ukrainians simply have not been able to overcome, especially given their lack of Western and American aircraft.

The President, of course, has his reasons, or excuses, for practicing self-deterrence. He says he wants to avoid a wider war, “escalation” and “World War III.” But whatever the reason or excuse, the bottom line is still the same: The West has given Ukraine enough to survive, but not enough to win.

For the most part, Biden’s center-left supporters have implored him to speed up the delivery of weapon systems to Ukraine while they refrain from criticizing him directly. Instead, they aim their rhetorical fire at Congressional Republicans for not supporting Biden’s most recent Ukrainian aid request.

As David Frum argues, “A ‘yes’ on both Ukraine and the border is still within reach, if only pro-Ukraine Republicans will press their colleagues to grasp it.”

Congressional Republican Politics. There is some truth to Frum’s argument. Some Congressional Republicans are, indeed, opposed to aiding Ukraine, while other GOPers are playing politics and trying to use Ukraine aid to score political points against Biden.

But the more important and consequential issue which Frum and other center-left Biden supporters ignore, is that most Congressional Republicans are fed up with Biden’s weak, timid and half-hearted approach to aiding Ukraine.

Congressional Republicans don’t want another “forever war”; they want a clear and decisive Ukrainian win. Yet Biden has never laid out a strategy for ensuring that Ukraine wins and Russia loses. Instead, he repeats his vague mantra about “standing by Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

But this begs the question: as long as it takes to achieve what, exactly? Win? Lose? Tie? Negotiate? Biden never says.

Biden’s Timidity. Occasionally, the president will tip his hand. During a June 13, 2023, Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Biden said explicitly that aid to Ukraine is designed to achieve not a military victory for Ukraine, but a negotiated settlement instead.

“It’s still early days,” he told reporters, “but what we do know is that the more land that Ukrainians are able to liberate, the stronger hand they will have at the negotiating table.”

In other words, Biden isn’t playing for a Ukrainian win; he’s playing for a tie and a negotiated settlement that will force Ukraine to cede large amounts of its territory and millions of its people to the tender mercies of Putin’s Russia.

As O’Brien frankly acknowledges, “The Biden administration doesn’t want Ukraine to win.”

Most Congressional Republicans, however, do want Ukraine to win, and this explains their frustration with Biden and their reluctance to support additional aid request for Ukraine.

“Absolutely, we have to stop Putin,” Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Florida) told Fox News’ Mark Levin Dec. 11, 2023. But “it’s our job to say ‘to what end?’ What’s the strategy? How are you going to get there?’—and also to question what he [Biden] has done so far.”

“We are in a stalemate that will be very long and very expensive,” Waltz adds.

“I’d say from the very beginning, they’ve [the Biden administration] been engaging in half-measures while Ukraine has been half-succeeding,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) Feb. 16, 2023.

“That has been a pattern with this administration from the beginning,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) Feb. 26, 2023.

They have slow-rolled critical military weapon systems… [and] it’s a long list. It’s Patriots, it’s HIMARS; it’s tanks; and now it’s F-16’s. And to me, that is a real blunder.

We need to get them what they need now and listen to the Ukrainians… They’ve proven their ability to fight bravely, and I think we need to do a much better job.

It took nine months to get them the Patriots…

In short, Biden says he supports Ukraine but fails to follow through with specific policies that would make that rhetorical support real and tangible. Most Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, support Ukraine but have grown weary of a president who refuses to commit to victory.

As Frum rightly notes, “If leadership was ever needed, it’s needed now.” But that leadership has to come from the President, the Commander in Chief. It cannot come from Congress.

Featured photo credit: President Joe Biden (L) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) (R), courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon (Getty Images). Biden and Cotton represent polar opposite approaches to Ukraine. Biden, the Democrat, wants a tie and a negotiated settlement. Cotton, the Republican, wants a Ukrainian win and a Russia defeat.

Ukraine, Israel, and the National Security Myopia of Populist Republicans

Ukraine, Israel, and the National Security Myopia of Populist Republicans

By John R Guardiano on October 22, 2023

Both Ukraine and Israel are key American allies who need and deserve U.S. military aid—now.

The inconsistency is head spinning. Populist “New Right” Republicans have rushed forward to voice their support for Israel after that country came under attack by Hamas, an Iranian proxy force based in Gaza.

Yet, with a straight face, these same populist Republicans say we must stop funding Ukraine.

Israel. v. Ukraine. Israel, you see, is an historic and democratic ally; but Ukraine is a corrupt country that, historically, has never been considered an American ally.

Israel is waging war against Hamas, a ragtag terrorist group with little real military capability. Ukraine, by contrast, is fighting Russia, a nuclear power that could well ignite “World War III.”

Continued military aid to Ukraine, moreover, would mean short-changing Israel of critical weapons systems and munitions, which are in short supply, and which, therefore, must not be diverted to Ukraine.

So argue the populist “New Right” Republicans.

Biden Funding Request. The issue has come to a head because President Biden Thursday gave an Oval Office address calling for $61.4 billion in new funding for Ukraine, $14.3 billion in new funding for Israel, and $7.4 billion in new funding for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.

Populist “New Right” Republicans have criticized Biden for lumping these funding requests together.

They want separate funding bills for all three countries or theaters of operation, but especially Ukraine, and the reason why is not hard to discern: They want to fund Israel and defund Ukraine.

This is wrongheaded, dangerous, and myopic.

The truth is that both Ukraine and Israel are key American allies who need and deserve U.S. military support—now. Both countries are being savagely and barbarically attacked by an axis of aligned countries that threaten vital U.S. national security interests.

Russia wants to drive the United States out of Europe, subsume Ukraine and the Baltic States, and bring Eastern Europe back under its heel.

Iran, meanwhile, wants to drive the United States out of the Middle East, destroy Israel, and become the region’s dominant, hegemonic power.

Russian and Iran are both opposed to the American-led, rules-based international order.

Iran uses Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad, and other proxy forces to wage war against Israel, America, and the West.

Russia uses the Wagner Group, other mercenary forces, and a conscript army to wage war against Ukraine, America, and the West.

Iran and Russia. Iran provides Russia with kamikaze suicide drones to destroy Ukraine and murder innocent Ukrainian civilians.

“Both of these heavily sanctioned pariah states depend on oil revenue to stay afloat. Global instability,” Jonah Goldberg observes, “keeps the petrodollars flowing.”

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of 1,400 Israelis, “Russia said nothing… Putin then blamed Hamas’s atrocities on the United States,” Matthew Continetti reports.

Israel and Ukraine are different countries that face unique situations, but as far as the United States is concerned, “this is one war,” he writes.

There is more than enough evidence of a vast international effort to overturn the American-led post-World War II international system.

The rabid dogs tearing at the seams of world order are Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Holding the leash is Communist China, whose leader Xi Jinping welcomed Vladimir Putin to Beijing the day before Biden touched down in the Holy Land.

Republicans who are serious about protecting the United States, and ensuring that we win and that our enemies lose, must recognize this reality. They must recognize that stopping Iran and protecting Israel necessarily means stopping Russia and protecting Ukraine.

To give one leg of this axis of evil a pass would mean that the other leg could still stand. Both legs must be opposed and taken out; otherwise, they will continue to give succor and support to each other.

Ukraine. Populist Republicans complain that Ukraine has not historically been an American ally. This is true, but so what?

Ukraine is now an American ally because of the crucible of war and necessity. And the same was true of South Korea at the onset of the Korean War in 1950.

South Korea had never been a great or historic American ally before the Communist North Korean invasion.

Yet, in the intervening decades, South Korea has become a key American ally in Asia. And the alliance between our two countries is now more important than ever, given the growing threat posed by Communist China.

Democratization. South Korea is instructive in another way, too. For decades, it was ruled by an authoritarian regime marred by corruption. Yet, over time, it democratized and became more open, transparent, and politically pluralistic.

Ukraine today is far more of a liberal democracy than South Korea was during the Korean War; and, with American and European help, it will continue to democratize in the years and decades to come.

As for a shortage of weapons systems and munitions needed to aid both Ukraine and Israel, this, too, is a false flag.

“For the most part,” reports the New York Times, “Ukraine and Israel are fighting different kinds of wars, and have different capabilities and needs, according to current and former U.S. national security and congressional officials.”

“There’ll be very little overlap between what we’re going to be giving Israel and what we give to Ukraine,” Michael J. Morell, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said last week.

And, to the extent there is a shortage of weapons systems and munitions, this only underscores the need for a much larger and more robust American defense budget.

The United States currently spends less than three percent of its GDP on defense. “That’s only about half of the burden of defense spending that the U.S. shouldered during the final decade of the Cold War,” David Frum writes.

Finally, the fear of “World War III” from opposing Russia doesn’t make any sense. The United States, after all, opposed Russia for decades throughout the Cold War without igniting “World War III.”

In truth, appeasing Russia is more likely to ignite a larger-scale war. And while Hamas by itself may not have much military wherewithal or capability, it has to be been seen and understood as part of a larger-scale Iranian military force that is, indeed, threatening and worrisome.

The bottom line: American military aid to Ukraine is critical for precisely the same reasons that American military aid to Israel is critical: because both countries are key American allies fighting enemies of the United States, Russia and Iran, respectively.

Populist “New Right” Republicans who try to suggest otherwise just don’t get it and cannot be trusted with American national security.

Feature photo credit: Leaders of the Axis of Evil (L-R): former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and Chinese Communist Party boss Xi Jinping, courtesy of the Century Foundation.

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

By John R Guardiano on September 20, 2023

Russia’s war on Ukraine was never about a “territorial dispute” between the two countries. Instead, it is a battle between good and evil; and, in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent.

One of the most fallacious, disgraceful, and repugnant assertions made by some isolationists or anti-interventionists is that, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, both countries are morally and ethically besmirched; and so, the United States should refrain from taking sides in their “territorial dispute.”

Of course, such moral equivalence has absolutely no basis in fact. It has been cut out of whole cloth by populist “New Right” Republicans eager to have America disengage from messy and bloody overseas conflicts.

Horrific Russian War Crimes. In truth, as anyone familiar with Russian history and Vladimir Putin well knows, Russia is a criminal state that has habitually committed horrific war crimes, and this is true in Ukraine today.

Indeed, Russia deliberately and routinely launches missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian population centers, schools and hospitals; pillages Ukrainian cities and homes; rapes Ukrainian women; tortures and executes Ukrainian men; and abducts and kidnaps Ukrainian children.

And these are not scarce or isolated incidents or the work of a few bad actors who have gone rogue. Instead, these horrific war crimes are widespread and the deliberative actions of a Russian state that has long seen barbarism and criminality as necessary instruments of war and statecraft. As Rich Lowry observes:

Where the Russian military goes, war crimes are sure to follow. It is a reflection of a twisted Russian political culture that has never developed an appreciation for individual worth, democratic accountability or humanitarian norms.

Vladimir Putin is not to be confused with Lenin or Stalin—he paints his horrors on a much smaller canvas. But his cold-eyed brutality is characteristically Russian…

What the Russian lacks in planning and proficiency, it makes up in barbarity and utter disregard for humanity. War is hell, but almost all advanced nations try to keep it within some bounds of decency. Russia is an outlier. For it, the cruelty is the point—and the reflexive practice.

The Associated Press reported in April that, according to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andrea Kostin, “nearly 80,000 cases of war crimes have been registered in Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.”

Ukrainian military action against Russia is in no way comparable. The Ukrainian military does not rape, torture and pillage; it does not target schools and hospitals; and it does not employ terror as a weapon of war.

Instead, the Ukrainian military fights to liberate its country and to free its people of Russian tyranny.

The worst that can be said of Ukraine is that, after a year of horrific Russian war crimes, it began to launch retaliatory drone strikes against Russian airports and military infrastructure inside Russia. But none of these drone strikes compares in intensity or firepower to the horrific missile strikes launched by Russia against Ukrainian civilian targets.

False Moral Equivalence. Yet despite the sheer moral clarity of this war and the stark differences between Russia and Ukraine, populist “New Right” Republicans have tried to draw a moral equivalence between these two countries.

In practice, this has meant seizing upon any evidence that Ukraine might be anything but a pure and perfect liberal democracy; and arguing that the war between Russia and Ukraine stems from a messy “territorial dispute” that is of little interest to the United States.

In truth, Ukraine is a fledgling liberal democracy that aspires to be part of the West, and which fundamentally shares our liberal democratic values.

And we Americans should care about Ukraine because, as the world’s most powerful and influential nation, the United States has a preeminent interest in maintaining a liberal, rules-based international order. American economic preeminence, after all, depends on international trade and commerce, especially with Europe.

Moral clarity also is an integral part of American foreign policy. Countries and people the world over know that the United States does not covet land, territory, or people. They view us as an honest broker who can be trusted, more so than any other country, to be fair and just and to do the right thing.

Our moral standing, in fact, gives us tremendous leverage and influence, militarily and diplomatically. Which is why we mustn’t squander it by trying to pretend that Ukraine and Russia are equally culpable and blameworthy; and that Russia’s war on Ukraine is of little interest to the United States.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This war is fundamentally a battle between good and evil; and in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent. This is, as Ronald Reagan once said, a time for choosing.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian civilian population center targeted and destroyed by the Russian military, courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters, published in The Globe and Mail.

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on August 5, 2023

In Ukraine, President Biden is drawing exactly the wrong lessons from President Truman’s mishandling of the Korean War in 1951.

Opponents of American aid to Ukraine often tout the Korean War as a model for ending the war in Ukraine. The United States, it is argued, wisely refrained from “escalating” in Korea, instead signing an armistice that ended the conflict, thus allowing for a cold but endurable peace.

The Communists retained control of North Korea, but failed to achieve their objective of conquering all of Korea.

In the same way, argue the opponents of American aid to Ukraine, Russia should be allowed to retain control of Crimea, the Donbas, and other parts of southeastern Ukraine nominally or firmly in its control.

This will allow a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine to coexist alongside Russian-occupied Ukraine—just as free, sovereign, and independent South Korea has coexisted for decades alongside Communist North Korea.

Then and only then, they insist, can the war end and peace be realized or achieved.

In fact, the Korean War is instructive to American policymakers, but not in the ways that opponents of American aid to Ukraine think.

The Korean War is an example of American self-deterrence that needlessly prolonged the war and the horrific human cost of that war. The United States eschewed a relatively quick victory for a bloody and prolonged stalemate or tie.

For this reason, the Korean War is a cautionary tale of what America should not do when aiding and abetting a country fighting for its survival against a tyrannical foe.

For starters, the war dragged on for three long, inconclusive, and interminable years in which American casualties mounted. Why? Because U.S. President Harry Truman refused to pursue victory out of a misguided fear of “escalation” and “World War III.”

Truman and Biden. Most historians today laud Truman’s caution and restraint in Korea—just as most observers today laud Biden’s caution and restraint in Ukraine. But Truman was wrong then and Biden is wrong today.

Truman is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who failed to anticipate the Chinese intervention in Korea, and whose insubordination and bellicosity subsequently resulted in his dismissal by Truman.

Biden, likewise, is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Putin and his henchmen often intimate that he might use nuclear weapons. Zelensky, meanwhile, is constantly beseeching Biden to send Ukraine more and more advanced weapons.

For this reason, Biden is often seen as wiser and more sober-minded than Putin and Zelensky. Truman, too, is typically remembered as more rational and level-headed than MacArthur.

Limited or Total War? But the choice between a prolonged war of indecision on the one hand and a global nuclear conflagration on the other hand is a silly and fallacious choice that did not exist then and does not exist now.

“Between the extremes of Truman’s restraint and the possibility of global war,” write Rep. Michael Gallagher (R-Wisconsin) and Aaron MacLean, “numerous options existed.

Truman’s decision to renounce nuclear threats and to restrict combat operations to Korea and its airspace prolonged the war and, paradoxically, extended the period in which it could have escalated.

In truth, shortly after MacArthur had been relieved of his command by Truman on Apr. 11, 1951, the United States was well on its way to routing the Chinese and North Koreans, reuniting the Korean peninsula, and ending the war with Korea wholly free and intact.

However, Truman and his military appointees on the Joint Chiefs of Staff put the kibosh on Lieutenant General James Van Fleet’s May 28, 1951, request “for a major offensive into North Korea to complete the destruction of the Chinese Armies,” reports Robert B. Bruce in Army History magazine (Winter 2012).

Instead of military victory, the United States pursued a negotiated solution in Korea and thus gave Communist forces a sanctuary in North Korea. As a result, the war dragged on for two more long years and at a horrific human cost.

In Ukraine, Biden, too, has called for a negotiated solution, while deliberately withholding from Ukraine advanced weapons—including, for instance, long-range precision artillery, tanks, jets, and aircraft, which would allow the Ukrainians to more quickly and aggressively attack Russian positions and drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.

Biden also has refused to use U.S. air and naval forces to safeguard the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea. The reason: he fears “escalation” and “World War III.”

But in truth, Russia is exhausted militarily and is in no position to “escalate” its war on Ukraine.

Sure, Russia has nuclear weapons, but the use of tactical or battlefield nukes serves no military purpose and gives Russia no battlefield edge other than shock value.

Korea 1951. And the same was true of Chinese and North Korean forces in June 1951. They were exhausted, militarily, and did not even possess nuclear weapons. Russia, a North Korean ally and supporter, did have nuclear weapons, but in numbers dwarfed by the United States.

Moreover, although Russian leader Joseph Stalin conceived of the Korean War as a way to expand Communist influence and control, internationally, Russia was not directly involved in the Korean War and had no intention of becoming involved, as its focus was on Europe.

Ironically, as Gallagher and MacLean note, the Korean War ended only when former World War II Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president (in 1952) and “contemplated and discussed the possibility of escalation, even approving the development of war plans that involved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Then, too, Stalin died on Mar. 5, 1953. This was significant because Stalin was the foremost obstacle to peace in Korea. He had “insisted that the war continue despite the misgivings of Chinese and North Korean leaders,” writes Mark Kramer.

Putin, likewise, is the foremost obstacle to peace in Ukraine. Thus his death, resulting in regime change in Russia, certainly would greatly enhance the prospects of a peace agreement.

The bottom line: President Truman’s mismanagement of the Korean War 72 years ago does, indeed, hold lessons for President Biden as he manages the war in Ukraine today. But those lessons teach Biden what not to do.

Unfortunately, our president is drawing the exact opposite conclusion and the result is a needlessly prolonged war of indecision at a horrific human cost to innocent Ukrainians.

One of the chief lessons of the Korean War is that the fear of “escalation” against a weak and exhausted military enemy is a catastrophic mistake. In truth, the risk of “escalation” rises if the war is allowed to drag on and the enemy is permitted to regroup.

Ditto “World War III”. That was not a realistic concern in 1951 and it is not a realistic concern today, in 2023. However, by allowing the North Korean regime to survive, Truman increased the risk of World War III significantly in the intervening decades.

Likewise, in Ukraine. If Russia is not clearly and explicitly defeated, militarily, and expelled from all of Ukraine, it will regroup and resume its fight in Ukraine at a later date when it is better prepared. “World War III” then becomes more likely.

In short, there is no substitute for victory and there is no reason not to pursue victory. That was true in Korea 1951 and it is true in Ukraine 2023.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L), courtesy of the Associated Press and President Harry S. Truman (R), courtesy of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, published in NPR.