ResCon1

How to Prevent a Nuclear War in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 21, 2022

Deterrence, strength, and resolve are critical now, not weakness and fear.

With the Russian military reeling from massive casualties, defeats, and a surprise Ukrainian counteroffensive, Vladimir Putin has resorted, once again, to nuclear saber-rattling. Putin himself warned today that he is “not bluffing” about his willingness to use nukes. A key Putin ally, meanwhile, threatened London with a nuclear strike.

Of course, such talk is utterly reckless and dangerous and ought to draw worldwide condemnation. But how should the West—and specifically the United States and NATO—respond? Well, we need to remember several key things:

First, Russian nuclear saber-rattling is nothing new. It was commonplace in the Cold War and, unfortunately, remains a staple of Russian foreign policy today. Yet, despite decades of this reckless talk, Russia never actually resorted to using nukes; and there is little reason to believe it would resort to using nukes in Ukraine today.

Second, during the Cold War, Russian nuclear saber-rattling did not paralyze American presidents, Democrat and Republican, and it should not paralyze President Biden now. Nor did Russian nuclear saber-rattling paralyze NATO during the Cold War, and it should not paralyze NATO now.

The West cannot be intimidated and forced to back down each and every time Russia threatens to use nukes. If the West had respond in this way during the Cold War, the West would have lost the Cold War.

Third, Russian nuclear saber rattling is a reflection of Russian weakness, not Russian strength. As Dr. Mike Martin of King’s College in London points out in The Telegraph this morning:

The Ukraine war has already hollowed out much of the Russian armed forces. This includes the sending of its training battalions into combat, and so the trainers of these mobilised reservists are, in many cases, already dead.

As for equipment, very few Russian soldiers even get body armour, and so much equipment has been destroyed by the Ukrainians that they are already having to press Soviet-era equipment into service.

Most of it belongs in a museum not on a modern battlefield.

Putin is sending these people to their deaths. The Ukrainian armed forces have killed tens of thousands of professional Russian soldiers with the best equipment that Russia could supply. What will they do with this mobilised reserve?

…Putin has shown us this morning that he is not strong, but that he is weak.

Exactly. Russia is losing the war and its military faces the very real prospect of collapse. Putin is resorting to nuclear saber-rattling out of desperation.

Fourth, if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, this will not change the course of the war. It will not reverse Russia’s battlefield losses or its inability to conquer Ukraine.

Instead, all it will do is result in a more horrific loss of life and the very real danger of nuclear contamination blowing back on Russian military forces and the Russian populace. Putin surely knows this, or at least his military advisers surely know this.

Fifth, Putin alone cannot launch nuclear weapons. He would need the buy-in of an entire military, and possibly civilian, chain of command. And it is by no means obvious that all of these officials would be so stupid and so reckless as do the unthinkable.

Sixth, if Russia becomes the first and only country to use nuclear weapons since the Second World War nearly 80 years ago, it will seal its fate as a country thoroughly isolated and shunned for two or three generations at least.

Russia currently enjoys the good offices of China, Turkey, Israel, and India. All of these good offices end the minute Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and does the unthinkable. Putin knows this, and it is a big reason why he is highly unlikely to employ nukes in Ukraine.

Seventh, the West does not have to respond in kind, with a retaliatory nuclear strike, if Russia employs nuclear weapons in Ukraine. In fact, the West should not do so and almost certainly will not do so.

Why? Because that is completely unnecessary from a military standpoint. NATO has more than sufficient conventional military means to destroy the Russian military in Ukraine and should do so if Putin launches a nuclear weapon there.

Moreover, by responding in kind, NATO and the United States cede the moral and diplomatic high ground in Ukraine. Why do so when that is completely unnecessary?

Ceding the moral and diplomatic high ground risks driving away China, Turkey, Israel, and India, all of whom can then say, in effect, “A pox on both your houses.”

Eighth, the only time the West should launch a nuclear strike on Russia is if Putin launches a nuclear strike on a NATO country.

In other words, if Russia nukes Warsaw or London, then the West responds in kind with a retaliatory nuclear strike on Moscow. But if Russia nukes Ukraine, then NATO enters the war, destroys the Russian military there, and quickly ends the war with conventional weapons.

That at least is what should happen. Let us hope and pray that that is what President Biden, Prime Minister Truss, and other NATO leaders are communicating privately to Russian government officials.

Ninth, the way to prevent nuclear war is through the time-tested method of deterrence, which served us well during the Cold War. Weakness and fear are provocative and could well result in a miscalculation by Putin.

The Russians should be under no illusions. If they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, NATO will enter the war, quickly decimate and destroy the Russian military there, and end the war. And if Russia ever dared to launch a nuclear strike on a NATO country, it would result in the utter destruction of Moscow.

That is how we can and will prevent the unthinkable from ever happening. Pray for peace, but prepare for war.

Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshot of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, courtesy of CNN.

Russian Nukes are No Reason to Scale Back Western Support for Ukraine

Russian Nukes are No Reason to Scale Back Western Support for Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 15, 2022

Nuclear weapons are not a military game changer in Ukraine and Putin and his generals know it.

The Ukrainian counteroffensive has sparked renewed fears that a desperate Vladimir Putin might resort to nuclear weapons; and that, to forestall this possibility, Ukraine should be careful not to beat back the Russians too far too fast. Otherwise, Putin might lash out and do the unthinkable.

As dovish New York Times’ columnist Ross Douthat put it:

The danger is that desperation might push Moscow toward nuclear brinkmanship—especially given the Russian strategic posture that envisions using tactical nuclear weapons to reverse battlefield defeats.

As the United States learned to its cost in the Korean War, when our push to the Yalu River reaped an unexpected Chinese intervention, the question of how far a victorious army should push is not an easy one, and whether in Crimea or the Donbas, there may be a line that’s perilous to cross.

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson agrees: The Ukrainians, he warns,

are getting very close to the Russian border, and that raises the question: You have an ailing dictator, [Vladimir Putin], with 7,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s largest arsenal. And there are some scenarios that we don’t think about.

Is he just going to say, “I lost 100,000 dead, wounded, and missing. I’m sorry. We lost,” and then quit. I don’t think so…

I think he’s going to say:

“You’re getting very close to the Russian border. You’re hitting targets with NATO and American weapons inside Russia. You’re attacking ships,” and we’re back to 1962, [the Cuban Missile Crisis].

And he’s going to do something dramatic [engage in nuclear brinksmanship if not the use of nuclear weapons].

Excuse me, but this is ludicrous and nonsensical. Douthat and Hanson are serious-minded analysts, but what they are doing here is unserious. It is scaremongering, not serious analysis.

Nuclear Weapons. First, what is at issue in Ukraine are tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons. No one is suggesting that Russia might launch nuclear weapons at the United States or any NATO country.

That would be suicidal for the Russians because it would invite, obviously, a devastating counterstrike that would destroy Moscow. Putin knows this and so, it won’t happen.

The question is: might Russia use tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons on Ukraine?

International Politics. Of course, no one can never say never, because leaders sometimes do stupid things and make horrendous mistakes. But such a move would make no military sense, and it would isolate Russia, politically, to an extent rivaled perhaps only by Kim Jong-un’s hermit kingdom in North Korea.

Russia currently enjoys the good offices of China, India, Israel, Turkey, and other countries that are trying to have it both ways vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine. Heck, even the Germans and the French sometimes suggest that they are ready, if not eager, to abandon Ukraine for the sake of “peace.”

All of these good offices end the minute Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and does the unthinkable. Putin knows this, and it is a big reason why he is highly unlikely to employ nukes in Ukraine.

Military Disadvantage. Moreover, Russia gains nothing, militarily, by using nuclear weapons.

“They [tactical nukes] don’t really do that much,” explains military analyst Ralph Peters. “You can do more in many cases,” he explains, “with a HIMARS, [the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System]…

A tactical nuclear weapon, he adds, “is not gonna stop the Ukrainians… and it won’t change the course of the war.” Again, Putin knows this, or at least his military advisers know this.

Russia also “would have to worry about the fallout coming from the [nuclear] explosion drifting onto Russian soldiers, pro-Russian separatists, and Russian citizens,” notes Brent M. Eastwood.

Finally, as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis observes, Putin’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon, “while highly unlikely… would probably bring NATO into the conflict with the creation of a no-fly zone.”

Of course, the last thing Putin and his military commanders want is a direct engagement with NATO. The Russian military is being beaten by Ukrainian citizen soldiers and would be quickly decimated were NATO to enter the conflict.

The bottom line: Putin has every reason not to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And, to the extent he may be deluded on this score, it is important for the United States and NATO to disabuse him of his delusions: by communicating to him and his military commanders the inevitable consequences should he dare to cross the nuclear threshold and do the unthinkable.

In short, although Russia has the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, this is of no real political or military significance in Ukraine. What matters is that the Russian military is incompetent at waging war.

What matters is that the Russian economy is incredibly weak and anemic and cannot long sustain Putin’s war of conquest, war of choice.

What matters is that although public opinion polls suggest most Russians support Putin, the Russian people have no appetite for fighting in Ukraine, which is why Putin has not imposed a draft or mass mobilization of the populace.

Support Ukraine. The possibility of a nuclear war always exists, of course, but it is highly unlikely and should not be used as a pretext to scale back Western support of Ukraine and limit Ukrainian political and military objectives.

Ukraine should aim to drive every last Russian out of their country, and America and NATO should stand by the Ukrainians until this objective is achieved.

In other words: don’t listen to the scaremongers. They don’t know what they are talking about. Slava Ukraini.

Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshots of military historian Victor Davis Hanson (L) and New York Times‘ columnist Ross Douthat (R).

President Biden Is Getting His Comeuppance for His Politically Sinful ‘Soul of the Nation’ Speech

President Biden Is Getting His Comeuppance for His Politically Sinful ‘Soul of the Nation’ Speech

By John R Guardiano on September 12, 2022

By drawing attention to himself and his failed policies just when the GOP was imploding over Trump, Biden risks snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2022 midterms.

Abraham Lincoln famously said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

President Biden is fooling no one, except maybe himself. Consequently, he is getting what he deserves. He is getting his just deserts. He is getting his comeuppance.

How so? By taking the spotlight off of Trump and drawing attention to himself and his dismal record as president, Biden is paving the way for GOP Senate and House victories in November.

Biden’s Barren Political Soul. The site was Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Sept. 1, 2022. There, Biden pretended to deliver a statesman-like, non-partisan presidential address about the “soul of the nation” and the fate of American democracy.

In truth, Biden delivered a rankly partisan campaign speech designed to demonize his Republican opponents and motivate his Democratic base, while using young enlisted Marines as political campaign props.

Biden may have motivated hardline “progressives,” but they are going to vote Democrat anyway, just as they did in 2020 when Biden kept a low profile, hid in his basement, and let Trump become the issue.

Not any more. An emboldened Biden has decided to become the Democratic point man who takes the fight to the Republicans.

Problem is: Biden’s slash-and-burn rhetorical attacks have drawn the righteous ire of Republicans and even the disapproval of liberal reporters and editorialists at CNN and the Washington Post.

Consequently, this time, Biden and the Dems may not sleepwalk their way to an easy victory as they did in 2020. This time, they may have to fight it out in the political arena and on substantive issues of public policy, not Trump’s noxious and repugnant personality.

But given the state of the economy, that’s easier said than done.

Dem Policy Disaster. Biden and the Dems’ wild and reckless spending schemes, coupled with their war on U.S. energy producers, have ignited the worst inflation in 40 years. Gas prices reached a record high before declining and a recession is looming.

China, meanwhile, threatens Taiwan; Russia is waging war on Ukraine; and Iran and North Korea are on the brink of deploying nuclear weapons.

Is it any surprise, then, that Biden’s approval rating is a mere 43 percent and has been mired in the low 40s for some time now?

GOP political strategist Karl Rove notes that “President Trump’s average at this same point in 2018 was 40.3%. Republicans lost 42 House seats that November.

“Does a roughly 2- [or 3]-point difference between Mr. Biden’s approval now and Mr. Trump’s then mean Democrats can turn defeat into a historic victory?” Rove asks. Color me—and Rove—skeptical.

The bottom line: by drawing attention to himself and his disastrous record as President, Biden may have sown the seeds of Democratic defeat come November. And for that, he has no one to blame but himself.

Feature photo credit: Biden delivering his “soul of the nation” speech Sept. 1, 2022, at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, courtesy of the New York Times.

The Republican Party is Getting Its Comeuppance in the 2022 Senate and House Races

The Republican Party is Getting Its Comeuppance in the 2022 Senate and House Races

By John R Guardiano on September 5, 2022

By highlighting former President Trump, the GOP is getting what it deserves: unanticipated and unprecedented defeats in a midterm election it otherwise should sweep convincingly.

We see it every day in American politics. Politicians, activists, journalists, and political parties do things that are wrong, misguided, condemnable, and contemptible, and for that, they pay a steep price.

They get what they deserve. They get their just deserts. They get their comeuppance. And here at ResCon1, we are gonna call them out, starting with…

The Republican Party—for putting Donald Trump back on the ballot, making him the issue in the 2022 Senate and House races, and diverting attention away from Joe Biden and his disastrous record as President.

Their comeuppance: Six months ago, there was widespread talk of a “red wave” or even a “red tsunami,” with the GOP poised to take decisive control of the House and a comfortable majority in the Senate.

“One of the most ironclad rules in American politics is that the president’s party loses ground in midterm elections. Almost no president is immune,” reports FiveThirtyEight.

Except, perhaps, for Joe Biden, who is benefiting from the Republicans’ boneheaded decision to make Trump the centerpiece of their campaign. Consequently, and unsurprisingly, the GOP is trailing in key Senate races and has given the Dems a plausible, albeit still long-shot, chance of keeping their House majority.

But even if the Republicans take the House, they likely will do so now with a slim majority that may prove more politically troublesome than it’s worth.

“Must-pass bills to prevent government shutdowns and address a looming debt ceiling crisis could create massive headaches for Republican leaders” if they have only a slim House majority, CNN warns.

“The involvement of former President Donald Trump makes 2022 different than almost any other midterm” election, notes FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver.

“Trump is on the ballot this fall in every key Senate race and in almost every top-tier gubernatorial contest,” admits The Dispatch’s Chris Stirewalt. “That makes 2022 a referendum on Trump at least as much as it is about President Biden.”

Unfortunately for the GOP, this does not bode well for November:

The Republicans are “getting killed in money, they’re getting killed in some of these contests when it comes to fundamentals,” Jessica Taylor told The Dispatch. (Taylor is the Senate and governors editor for the Cook Political Report.)

“There is a reason Democrats are eager to keep Trump at the center of the conversation,” observes conservative pundit Ben Shapiro.

“Half of independents say Trump is a major factor in their vote, and they’re breaking 4-1 for the Democrats. Republicans shouldn’t play that game. If they do, they’re cruising for a bruising.”

Exactly. The GOP is getting what it deserves. It’s getting its just deserts. It’s getting its comeuppance.

Feature photo credit: Former President Donald Trump, courtesy of Business Insider.

Why Pro-Lifers Should Embrace the Far-Left Dobbs Dissent

Why Pro-Lifers Should Embrace the Far-Left Dobbs Dissent

By John R Guardiano on June 26, 2022

It provides the rationale for reading into the Constitution a right to life for the unborn.

In its landmark Dobbs v. Jackson decision overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the Constitution “neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion… The Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice.”

That’s the decision of the Court today. However, one of the ironies of history may be that, 25 or 50 years from now, a new Supreme Court might cite the left-wing dissent in Dobbs to find that the Constitution implicitly prohibits abortion as a violation of the the unborn child’s Constitutional right to life, which is protected under the 14th Amendment.

That may sound farfetched, but not if you take the Dobbs dissent seriously—and not if you realize that new currents in conservative jurisprudence—Adrian Vermeule’s common good Constitutionalism, for instance—are moving beyond originalism to achieve a more results-oriented approach to judging.

The ‘Living Constitution.’ In Dobbs, the Court noted that there is no specific or enumerated right to abortion. Nor is there an implicit or unenumerated right to abortion. Why? Because, as the Court points out, abortion is neither “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” nor “essential to this nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.'”

In fact,

until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right…

By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided.

The left-wing Dobbs dissenters don’t dispute these facts. Instead, they argue that the Constitution is a living document that evolves to reflect changing societal norms and expectations.

The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes. So they did not define rights by reference to the specific practices existing at the time.

The Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. And over the course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers’ invitation. It has kept true to the Framers’ principles by applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal understandings and conditions.

The Constitutional Right to Life. Yes, indeed, the world changes! And what if it changes in a more conservative direction, toward an understanding that the unborn child is a person wholly deserving of Constitutional protections, including that most basic Constitutional protection: the right to life?

What, then, is to stop a more results-oriented Court, with a majority of “common good Constitutionalists,” from finding this right in the Constitution?

After all, as the left-wing Dobbs dissenters observe, rights evolve in their scope and meaning, and the Court has an obligation to apply key Constitutional principles “in new ways [that are] responsive to new societal understandings and conditions.”

Advances in medical science continue to elucidate the humanity of the unborn. And surely, the history of America is one of increasing inclusion and the expansion of rights to previously marginalized members of our community.

Blacks, women, gays, the unborn—all have been recognized as members of the American family worthy of Constitutional and civil rights protection.

The Court has seen to it that Constitutional justice was done for blacks, women, and gays; it has yet to get there for the unborn, but it will in time. And the far-left Dobbs dissenters have shown us the way.

Feature photo credit, courtesy of CNN, (L-R): Far-left Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan have shown exactly how a future Supreme Court can read into the Constitution a new right to life for the unborn.