Posts published in “Russia’s War on Ukraine”

The West Needs to Focus on Winning in Ukraine

The West Needs to Focus on Winning in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on March 20, 2022

A failure to defeat Putin in Ukraine will cause a worse war in the years ahead for America and NATO.

The commentariat to the contrary notwithstanding, the big risk right now is not that the war in Ukraine “escalates” and becomes “World War III.” The big risk is that weak-kneed Western leaders pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting a compromise “peace deal” with Putin.

This would be a grave mistake. The West should aim to discredit Putin; defeat Russia; drive Russian forces from Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; and force a new Russian leader to respect international law and the territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.

Otherwise, Putin will pocket whatever concessions he can gain at the negotiating table and lay low for a bit before planning his next military assault. The result will not be a genuine peace, but a worse and more dangerous war in the years ahead.

Fortunately, the Ukrainians can win. In fact, they are now winning. Russia is losing and on the defensive, both militarily and economically.

“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” concludes the Institute for the Study of War.

“U.S. officials estimate that 75 percent of Russia’s combat-ready force is deployed in Ukraine. If the estimates of 25,000-30,000 casualties are accurate, it means around a third of their main combat troops are out of action after less than a month of war,” AllahPundit reports.

The Russian economy, meanwhile, is reeling from the effects of Western sanctions. “Russian social media channels are flooded with pictures of empty shelves in supermarkets and videos of people scrambling to buy bags of sugar and grains, the Financial Times reports.

“The ruble has fallen through the floor,” Jeff Jeff Schott told the Washington Post.

Interest rates are high. Inflation is soaring. Imported goods are basically hard to find and are not being restocked because nobody is selling to Russia for fear that they will not get paid—or only paid in rubles.

“All 4 major international oilfield servicing firms,” adds Dmitri Alperovitch, “have now left Russia: Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International.”

“Russia,” he explains, “will struggle with exploration and servicing of fields without them. China cannot substitute for that lost expertise and technology.”

Thus there is real doubt about how long Russia—and specifically, the Putin regime—can hold out against the combined effects of a Ukrainian military counteroffensive and crippling Western economic sanctions.

Yet, the American and NATO response, both substantively and rhetorically, has been weak, belated, and subpar.

Rhetorically, the emphasis continues to be not on winning in Ukraine, but on preventing a larger-scale conflict that might engulf all of Europe and conceivably cause “World War III.”

And substantively, the Ukrainians still complains—more than three weeks into the fight—that they do not have all of the military equipment that they need and have requested to protect their country from Russia’s horrific military assault.

“The air defense systems [that we were] promised four days ago… are not coming; they have’t been negotiated yet,” Ukrainian Parliamentarian Oleksandra Ustinova told Fox News Saturday.

Winning. “We’re too slow in almost every step we take,” Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) said on Fox News Sunday.

Zelensky needs to win,” he adds.

The Ukrainian freedom fighters need to win. We don’t need them just to lose more slowly. We need them to win. And to win they need to kill Russians. And to kill Russians they need more weapons…

They need more Javelins; they need more ammo; they need more Stingers; they need more SAMs; they need more airplanes; they need more of everything.

And they’re fighting not just for their kids and their future; they’re fighting for the free world.

Exactly.

A Putin-Russian win in Ukraine would be a disaster for the free world. It would embolden Putin, who then would turn to subjugating Moldova and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).

It would encourage Putin imitators on the world stage; and it would signal to China, North Korea, and Iran that the West can be rolled and should be pushed, prodded and provoked.

That’s the real risk: that a Putin-Russia win ignites a less stable and more dangerous world in which anti-Wester leaders and anti-Western powers gain the initiative and gain the upper hand.

For this reason, let us hear no more talk from American and NATO leaders about their fear of a military escalation that results in World War III. Instead, let us hear about their plan to ensure Ukraine wins, Russia loses, and Putin backs down, disgraced and defeated.

Feature photo credit: Screenshot of Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), courtesy of Fox News Sunday.

Does Putin’s Nuclear Threat Mean the West Should Stand Down in Ukraine?

Does Putin’s Nuclear Threat Mean the West Should Stand Down in Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on March 15, 2022

The risk of nuclear war is minimal and cannot be an excuse for American and NATO inaction as innocent Ukrainians are slaughtered and Ukraine is destroyed.

The West and, indeed, the world is united in its revulsion over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and perpetration of war crimes to bring that proud nation to heel.

Yet, whenever anyone dares to propose that the United States and its NATO allies intervene to stop the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, the councils of caution ominously warn that we must sit on our hands because Vladimir Putin has nuclear weapons and intervening could mean “World War III.”

Now, of course, no one can completely discount the possibility of nuclear war should America and NATO intervene in Ukraine. That is a risk in any conflict involving countries armed with nuclear weapons.

But a fair-minded analysis must conclude that the risk is quite small; and that, short of invading Russia, the United States and its NATO allies can and should legitimately use military power to stop the slaughter of innocent Ukrainians.

First, some military and historical perspective: Both the United States and Russia have had nuclear weapons for the past 70+ years. Yet, despite being engaged in a Cold War for nearly four decades (roughly 1950-1990), both countries never engaged in a nuclear exchange, let alone a nuclear war.

Does this mean a nuclear war now or in the future is an impossibility? No, of course not. But this historical record is a compelling precedent and reason for optimism.

In truth, the Russians realize, no less than us, that a nuclear war would mean the annihilation of their country and ours. As Alexander Vindman explains:

I can say from my significant experience dealing with the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership that it has no interest in a bilateral confrontation with the U.S.

Russian leaders have zero desire for nuclear war, and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war. However, Russia excels at compelling the U.S. to self-deter.

Exactly. And Vindman, unlike many Western commentators, knows of what he speaks. He served as the director for European affairs for the National Security Council when Trump was president.

History. Some commentators, such as the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, note that when, in 1956, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, America and NATO stood down. Likewise, in 1968, when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, the West stood down.

Why? Because we did dared not risk a nuclear conflagration with Russia.

But those are fallacious and misplaced historical analogies, because during the Cold War, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet satellite states.

Ukraine, by contrast, is a free and sovereign state. And, through its fierce and heroic resistance to Russian military domination today, Ukraine shows that it has absolutely no desire to forfeit its sovereignty and independence to Russia.

“When the Ukrainians are willing to spill their blood, seemingly without limit, in a wholly admirable cause, American hesitation is heartbreaking,” writes Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

Nuclear weapons, he adds,

are why the United States should refrain from attacking Russia directly, not why it should fear fighting Russians in a country they invaded.

Only a few years ago, the United States Air Force killed Russian Wagner mercenaries by the hundreds in Syria; American and Russian pilots tangled in the skies over Korea and possibly Vietnam.

Nuclear deterrence cuts both ways, and the Russian leadership knows it. Vladimir Putin and those around him are ill-informed but not mad, and the use of nuclear weapons would threaten their very survival.

Military Doctrine. Other commentators, such as David French, note that Russian military doctrine reportedly allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield; and that Russia has a huge numerical advantage in tactical nukes.

Maybe so, but military doctrine is not some rigid and inviolable instruction that mandates strategic and tactical decisions; rather, it is a guide for military decision-makers.

Moreover, Putin’s use of tactical or battlefield nukes would risk a counterstrike that could utterly destroy Moscow and other Russian cities, and Putin knows this.

“Vladimir Putin can accomplish what he needs [to] by using conventional weapons as he is doing,” says retired four-star Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (2009-2013).

So he doesn’t have a tactical reason to use nuclear weapons….

The only thing I can foresee that would cause him to use a tactical nuclear weapon would be if NATO attacked Russia. [But] NATO has no interest in invading Russia.

Finally, there is the “mad man” theory, which asserts that Putin has become mad and unhinged and, if cornered, may well lash out and order a nuclear strike. So we better tread gently and appease him.

But as Michael O’Hanlon points out, there is no reason to think that Putin has lost his mind.

He clearly is “angry, arrogant and autocratic,” O’Hanlon writes, “and more reckless than we had appreciated. But his behavior can otherwise be explained simply by allowing for the kinds of mistakes that leaders often make.

“Given that he has his finger on the nuclear trigger, that’s a relief.”

It’s also important to note that although Putin is a dictator, the Russian state necessarily involves many more people, functionaries, and decision-makers.

Thus an order to use nuclear weapons would have to pass through several hands in addition to Putin’s; and there is no reason to think that everyone in and around Putin is irrational and suicidal.

The bottom line: nuclear saber rattling by the Russians is nothing new. We have encountered it before and we have survived it before without a nuclear conflagration.

Indeed, a fear of nuclear war did not stop President Kennedy from interdicting Russian ships on the high seas during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; and it did not stop Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis from ordering U.S. forces to “annihilate” Russian mercenary forces in Syria in February 2018.

We will avoid a nuclear war this time as well. What is becoming less clear, however, is whether Ukraine will avoid being utterly destroyed by a horrific Russian military assault that is deliberately targeting civilian population centers and innocent men, women, and children.

The time for the West to act is now. American and NATO intervention is long overdue. And a legitimate fear of nuclear war is not a legitimate reason for continued inaction when the risk of such a conflagration is quite low.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian maternity hospital deliberately targeted and destroyed by Russian military forces, courtesy of Social News XYZ.

Does President Biden Understand What Is at Stake in Ukraine?

Does President Biden Understand What Is at Stake in Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on March 13, 2022

His weak leadership and wishful thinking undermine America, Ukraine, and the free world.

Has America ever had a weaker, less serious, and and more reactive President at a time of war than we do now with Joe Biden at the helm?

He has been forceful and emphatic about what he does not want and will not allow—”World War III“—but fuzzy and inarticulate about American objectives in Ukraine. And, each and every step of the way he has been dragged into taking necessary action—by the Europeans (economic sanctions), the Ukrainians (military arms shipments), and the Congress (sanctions on Russian oil).

Mr. Biden is following, not leading.

Yes, this is the Russo-Ukraine war and America is a non-belligerent; however, we are not neutral. America, NATO, and the free world have a clear interest in the outcome of this conflict.

We are on the side of Ukraine; its courageous President, Volodymyr Zelensky; and the Ukrainian people. And we ought to seek to discredit and defeat the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin.

Why? Because Putin’s Russia threatens peace and stability in Europe, the rules-based international order, and American interests worldwide. Russia is too big and too important a country to ignore. Its misrule and outlaw status cannot be abided and mustn’t stand.

Yet, Mr. Biden never really says this. Instead, he appears more fearful of provoking Russia than in deterring Russia. He appears more eager to court Putin for help with his misbegotten Iran nuclear deal than in stopping Putin’s reckless war in Ukraine.

The President was tactically wise, in the run-up to the war, to loudly announce Putin’s moves before they happened. This helped to frustrate the Russian dictator by effectively denying him any pretext for his wholly unprovoked military assault on Ukraine.

But Mr. Biden appears not to grasp the strategic significance of the Russian invasion and the need for American leadership at this critical hour of maximum danger.

Instead, he appears bothered that Ukraine is diverting him away from his cherished domestic policy agenda and the need to “build back better” with “green energy.”

Sorry, but as Richard Hass points out, an American president doesn’t get to “choose his in-box,” or the issues that historical fate thrusts upon him and the nation.

Wartime Presidential Leadership. Indeed, Lincoln did not seek or choose the Civil War and Harry Truman did not seek or choose the Cold War or the war in Korea. Yet, both Lincoln and Truman recognized that these wars could not be ignored or downplayed; they had to be confronted—and American leadership was a moral and geo-strategic imperative.

We are at a similar historical inflection point with Putin’s brazen assault on Ukraine. As Eli Lake observes:

We are living in a different world now. In the new world, Putin’s Russia is not part of the community of nations. It is a threat to the community of nations.

Consequently, the international system created after World War II must be revised. The free world is again engaged in a cold war with a country whose capital is Moscow.

⁩Mr. Lake outlines a long-term strategy to defeat Russia, as well as Russia’s ally and enabler, Xi Jinping’s China. He recommends, among other things, that the West pursue a policy of “economic separation” from both China and Russia.

“Energy independence and new supply chains are two crucial elements when it comes to protecting the free world’s economies from China and Russia,” Lake writes.

Unfortunately, energy independence is the furthest thing from Joe Biden’s mind. When he came into office he announced, essentially, a war on fossil fuels: “shutting down pipelines, denying new drilling permits and promising a renewed regulatory and tax attack on any who dare to drill.”

Predictably, this has driven up the price of oil and made America more dependent upon foreign sources of energy. Yet, Mr. Biden says that “transforming our economy to run on electric vehicles powered by clean energy… will help.”

This is a pipe dream that ignores the current political and economic realities.

Electric Vehicles. It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that ostensibly clean electric vehicles will replace gas-driven automobiles decades from now. But in truth, the United States—as well as every other country on earth—is dependent upon fossil fuels, and this won’t change anytime soon.

Mr. Biden is in denial. Worse yet, his thinking is divorced from reality; and, as a result, he is not leading.

Mr. Biden must do better because America, Ukraine, and the free world need much better. We need a serious wartime president who understands what is at stake in Ukraine and why America must lead. Now.

Featured photo credit: Screenshot of Joe Biden speaking from video on his Facebook page.

Should the West Worry about Putin’s ‘Red Lines’ or Its Own?

Should the West Worry about Putin’s ‘Red Lines’ or Its Own?

By John R Guardiano on March 10, 2022

America and NATO need to focus on what they will do to defeat and discredit Putin.

The commentariat has been fiercely debating whether to impose a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. This is an interesting tactical question that is worthy of debate; however, the more fundamental and important question is strategic:

Do America and NATO wish to defeat and discredit Putin in Ukraine, or are we simply looking to “deescalate tensions” and give Putin an “off-ramp” so that he can “save face”?

Unfortunately, too many in the West are intent on trying to appease Putin instead of defeating and discrediting him. Their ostensible reason for doing so is to “stop nuclear war” (the New York Times’ Ross Douthat) or at least prevent a wider war (U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken).

Off-Ramps. Of course, as is becoming increasingly clear, Putin himself has absolutely no interest in any “off-ramp” or “deescalation of tensions.” The Russians have willfully violated ceasefire agreements even as they deliberately target civilian population centers and commit war crimes.

The Washington Post reports:

“It’s important to remember that throughout this crisis created by Putin and Russia, we’ve sought to provide possible off-ramps to President Putin,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

“He’s the only one who can decide whether or not to take them. So far, every time there’s been an opportunity to do just that, he’s pressed the accelerator and continued down this horrific road that he’s been pursuing.”

Exactly. “Off-ramps” and “face-saving measures” are useless if Putin has no interest in that. They also are dangerous and provocative because they communicate weakness and a lack of resolve.

Nuclear War. Indeed, contra Douthat, a nuclear conflagration in Ukraine is more likely to result if America and NATO are not crystal clear about what will invite a devastating Western response.

For this reason, the West needs to draw its own “red lines” involving unacceptable Russian behavior and actions. Otherwise, Putin may be tempted to test fate—and us.

Instead, though, the Biden administration, and Western policymakers in general, have been obsessed with Putin’s red lines, real and imagined, and with what Eliot A. Cohen rightly calls, “self-deterrence”: explaining in detail what we absolutely will not do.

For example: we will not deploy ground troops; we will not deliver MiG fighter jets; we will not conduct long-planned nuclear tests; we will not impose a no-fly zone; we will not sanction Russian oil (until we did two days ago)…

As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board puts it: “Instead of deterring Mr. Putin, Mr. Biden is letting the Russian deter the U.S.”

This is, needless to say, self-defeating. As Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) explains:

There’s a sentiment that we’re fearful about what Putin might do and what he might consider as an escalation. It’s time for him to be fearful of what we might do.

The only way to get Putin to act in a way that may be able to save lives of Ukrainians is if he fears us more than we fear him…

He’s got to think about what happens if he provokes us: because they [the Russian military] could be obliterated by the forces of NATO.

Exactly. The Russian military has been exposed in Ukraine as subpar and not at all ready for prime time. Their operations have been slow, plodding, disjointed, unimaginative, and utterly unimpressive.

U.S. officials estimate that, in these first two weeks of fighting, as many as 6,000 Russians have been killed. In its nearly two decades in Afghanistan, by contrast, the United States lost fewer than 2,500 soldiers.

In fact, because of the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainian military, as well as the courage and spirt of the Ukrainian people, the prospect of a strategic Russian defeat is likely—even if, as still appears probable, Russia ultimately wins a short-term but pyrrhic military victory and conquers Ukraine.

The West should relish the opportunity to defeat and discredit Putin. For two decades now, he has been a clear and present danger to the rules-based international order worldwide and to peace and stability in Europe.

Under his reign, Russia has waged war on its neighbors and threatened free and sovereign nations throughout Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Ukraine should be a wakeup call not to find a way to accommodate Putin, but to force him from power by making his position untenable.

Russia can have a new leader and a new leadership class. That is desirable and possible—but only if America and NATO stop self-deterring and worrying about Putin’s “red lines,” real and imagined.

Instead, the West needs to focus on its strategic, wartime objectives: a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine; the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; and a new Russian government that respects international law and the territorial integrity of its neighbors.

This, in turn, will require a focus on deterrence and drawing our own inviolable “red lines.”

Featured photo credit: Screen shot of Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

Is Fox News’s LTC Daniel L. Davis (Ret.) on Putin’s Payroll?

Is Fox News’s LTC Daniel L. Davis (Ret.) on Putin’s Payroll?

By John R Guardiano on March 6, 2022

It’s not just Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. Fox’s pro-Putin appeasers include a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel named Daniel Davis.

There has been a lot of criticism of Fox News primetime hosts Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson for their jarring pro-Putin, anti-Ukraine commentary.

This criticism is well-deserved. But retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a featured Fox News military commentator, is a far worse Putin shill or stooge.

And, alarmingly, insofar as I have seen, Davis’s pro-Putin propaganda on Fox goes unchallenged by the network’s anchors and reporters:

I report and truth decides. Here is Davis on Fox News, Feb. 24, 2022:

Davis: I think that we’re really misreading what’s going on with Putin here. I don’t think that he’s after trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. I think he means what he’s been saying for 15 years: that NATO and Ukraine is a redline that he will fight to prevent. And he proved it in 2008 with Georgia.

He proved it in 2014 with Crimea. And even as recently as last December, he was saying, “You guys just aren’t believing me. I was serious about this. This is a redline.” And then when he started building up these forces, he was showing us.

We [the United States] had every opportunity to just acknowledge reality and we should have pulled the NATO offer off the table for Ukraine.

That could probably have been the one thing that might have prevented this war entirely. But instead, we wanted to hold with principles and stuff and now the people of Ukraine are paying for that.

Now, let me be very clear: Nobody is responsible for the blood except for Vladimir Putin. Nobody. But we could have mitigated this. We could have.

Fox News Anchor Trace Gallagher: And, you know, Tulsi Gabbard kind of echoed that, Colonel, if you will. She was saying, you know, maybe somebody should have listened at least a little bit to what the President of Russia was saying.

Because if you were saying: Listen, I don’t want weapons. I don’t want NATO weapons that close to my country.

And you know, an example somebody gave tonight was: listen, the United States didn’t want Cuba to have NATO weapons [sic] that close to their country. So, you know, countries are very territorial and they don’t want that.

So, nobody is letting Putin off the hook by any stretch here, Colonel. But what you’re saying is that there might have been a pathway to resolve, earlier in this diplomatic debate.

Davis: One-hundred percent. I’ve been saying for months on this network that that very thing right there: that we had a shot to deescalate this and remove Vladimir Putin’s reason for actually launching an invasion.

Notice: Davis gives a quick and obligatory, pro forma denunciation of Putin as the person responsible for the Russian war against Ukraine. However, the thrust of his commentary is altogether different.

NATO Expansion. The thrust of Davis’s commentary is that America and NATO could have stoped Putin from invading Ukraine if they had simply recognized his “red line” concerning NATO membership.

But this is patently untrue, and we know it is untrue because Putin himself has explicitly said that his concern about Ukraine extends far beyond NATO. Putin views Ukraine as an allegedly lost Russia territory whose sovereignty and independence must be destroyed regardless of what becomes of NATO.

As I’ve explained here and in the Wall Street Journal, NATO’s expansion after the Cold War resulted from Russian threats and aggression; it did not cause Russian threats and aggression.

For Putin,

NATO expansion was always a convenient pretext, but never the reason, for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine… NATO [moreover], saved Europe from Russian military domination, and it would have deterred Russia this time had Ukraine been a NATO member.

Yet, despite this clear and unambiguous history, Gallagher adds insult to injury by agreeing with Davis (!) and saying “somebody should have listened at least a little bit to what the President of Russia was saying.”

Cuba. Gallagher then references Cuba and says, essentially, that when, back in 1962, the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, the United States took this as a hostile act. So of course, he argues, Russia views NATO encroachment in its near abroad as a hostile act.

Finally, Davis chimes in:

We have to acknowledge that if Russia was trying to have a military alliance with Mexico, and they were gonna put Russian troops on the ground there, there is no way we would ever be satisfied and okay with that.

And it is unrealistic for us to expect Putin to have the exact same thing on his border and be okay with it.

What Davis and Gallagher conveniently ignore: NATO is a defensive alliance of free, sovereign, and independent states.

Putin knows full well that Poland and other NATO countries have absolutely zero intention of ever invading Russia. Nor do non-NATO countries, such as Ukraine, have any interest in invading Russia or acting as a platform for a NATO invasion of Russia—and again, Putin knows this.

Historically speaking, in fact, the East European countries have never threatened Russia; Russia has threatened them, and that remains true today.

The Soviet Union, by contrast, was bent on world domination, which is why President Kennedy, in 1962, acted to ensure that Russian missiles were removed from Cuba.

So no, NATO in Europe near Russia today is not at all the equivalent of the Soviet Union in the Western hemisphere near the United States at the height of the Cold War. This is an utterly false equivalence.

Nor does Mexico have reason to fear an American invasion, which is why there never will be any Russian troops in Mexico. Again, this is a ludicrous analogy divorced from all political and historical reality.

Davis goes on:

All we have to do is just treat Russia the way we did all during the Cold War… We cooperated with them and we had an understanding: We wouldn’t get into their territory and they wouldn’t get into ours, and that was that balance there.

We have to now recognize that this is not 1994 anymore, and we can’t just tell them what is gonna happen, or we’re gonna have an even worse situation than we have now.

Again, this is factually and historically inaccurate and it is the counsel of appeasement. Seldom has so much disinformation and blatant pro-Putin propaganda been crammed into so few words.

What Davis euphemistically calls “cooperation” is appeasement, and that is not what guided American and NATO policy during the Cold War.

Instead, the United States and NATO checked the Soviets—in Greece, Turkey, Korea, Berlin, Cuba, Africa, Asia, Central America, and around the globe. And it is because we checked the Soviets that the Cold War ended and Eastern Europe was freed of Russian domination.

Yet, Davis says that Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, is “their territory,” meaning Russian territory. Putin, of course, agrees; but this is a lie. The countries of Eastern Europe—including Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine—are free and sovereign states, not “Russian territory” that ought to be ruled by Moscow.

So I ask you: is Daniel Davis a Russian stooge? Is he on Putin’s payroll? Or is he simply too historically illiterate and ill-informed to separate fact from fiction?

More to the point, why does Fox continue to feature Davis as a military commentator when he spouts such blatantly pro-Putin, anti-America propaganda? Does this enrich the public dialogue and debate? Is this fair and balanced?

Feature photo credit: Fox News military commentator Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (L) and Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher (R), captured via screen shots of a Fox News broadcast, Feb. 24, 2022.