ResCon1

Bucha Should Cause the West to Accelerate Its Military Efforts in Ukraine

Bucha Should Cause the West to Accelerate Its Military Efforts in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on April 5, 2022

A Ukrainian military victory, not Western legal action and a negotiated settlement, is what is needed now.

The gruesome images of mass graves and murder coming out of Bucha, Ukraine, have inspired calls for war criminal investigations and war crimes tribunals.

This is, obviously, necessary and appropriate. But what is conspicuously missing are calls for Russia’s military defeat and expulsion from Ukraine.

President Biden, for instance, called Putin a war criminal, who needs to stand trial; however, he did not call upon the West to redouble its efforts to ensure a Ukrainian victory on the battlefield. Instead, the President was silent and noncommittal about Western war aims in Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stolenberg, likewise, said that “targeting and murdering civilians is a war crime. All the facts must be established and all those responsible for these atrocities must be brought to justice.”

True, but how can justice be served if Putin wins the war? Russia, obviously, must be defeated first before any war crimes tribunals can be convened.

Yet, like President Biden, in the wake of Bucha, NATO had nothing to say about altering the military balance of power to ensure Putin’s defeat.

Unfortunately, this is part of a troubling pattern or trend. Since this conflict began in February, Mr .Biden and his counterparts in Western Europe have been more worried about provoking Putin than in ensuring a Ukrainian win.

Consequently, they have been slow-walking military aid and assistance to Ukraine, while denying Ukrainian requests for heavy military equipment: tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems, anti-ship missiles, military aircraft, et al.

“The [Biden] administration is not moving quickly enough,” said Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisconsin), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, in an interview with Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot.

There is more we can do to help [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and put him in the strongest possible position going forward…

[But] the administration just continues to be guided by a fear of provoking Putin. That’s really what’s guided their efforts from the start. I think that’s why we’re somewhat behind the curve.

“The concern among Ukraine’s supporters on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon,” reports the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

is that the Biden Administration doesn’t want Ukraine to go on offense. It wants a negotiated settlement as soon as possible.

France and Germany, the doves in the NATO coalition, are in a similar place. They worry that if Russia suffers even greater losses, Mr. Putin might escalate again and perhaps in more dangerous ways that drag NATO directly into the war.

In a sense, Mr. Putin with his threats is defining the limits of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.

‘World War III’. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin sums up the conventional wisdom: “The bitter truth is that we will not risk a third world war to insist Russia fully retreat from all of Ukraine and purge itself of Putin.”

In truth, though, a wider war and a more dangerous conflagration—in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East—is more likely if Putin wins in Ukraine.

Dictators and bad actors—including China’s Xi Jinping, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and Iran’s Ali Khamenei—will learn that the West can be rolled and that aggression pays.

An emboldened Putin, meanwhile, will continue to threaten nearby NATO countries, such as Poland and the Baltic states, but from a far stronger military position in Ukraine.

The bottom line: war crimes can be punished only after a war ends, and only after those responsible have been defeated on the battlefield.

Calling Putin a war criminal and insisting that he and his generals be tried in a war crimes tribunal is all well and good, but it mustn’t obscure the more immediate and pressing wartime exigency, which is to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.

Bucha should stiffen the spines of Western leaders to ensure that Ukraine wins and Russia loses. Punishing Putin and his generals for war crimes is no substitute for military victory and is impossible in any case without a military victory.

Feature photo credit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, grief stricken after seeing the carnage caused by Russian war crimes in Bucha, courtesy of the New York Post.

Reaction to Biden’s ‘Regime Change’ Comment Is Wrongheaded

Reaction to Biden’s ‘Regime Change’ Comment Is Wrongheaded

By John R Guardiano on March 27, 2022

Biden never called for “regime change.” Instead, he acknowledged an obvious truth: that real peace in Ukraine and Eastern Europe necessitates a new Russian leader.

During his speech in Warsaw, Poland, yesterday, President Biden never called for “regime change” in Moscow.

Yet, this hasn’t stopped the peanut gallery, in the media and on Twitter, from insisting that he did. Nor has it stopped the critics from clucking over the President’s alleged gaffe.

“For America,” wailed AllahPundit,

it seems, the endgame isn’t an independent Ukraine but the decapitation of Russia’s government. The whole premise of the conflict, that NATO is a defensive alliance whose members pose no threat to Moscow, has been undermined.

Biden’s comment, agreed Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio), “plays into the hands of the Russian propagandists and plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin.”

And this “may well make it harder to negotiate with Mr. Putin over Ukraine or anything else,” warned the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.”

“At a time of war, with WMDs in the hands of our foe, this kind of gaffe—massively altering war aims in an aside—risks millions of lives. It’s a huge unforced error,” cried Andrew Sullivan.

But this outcry from the critics reflects a willful misreading of the President’s speech.

Moreover, it attributes to Russian leaders an inability to think and act rationally; and it presupposes that America and NATO ought to aim to accommodate Putin through a compromise agreement in Ukraine.

If, however, you believe, as I do, that the West ought to defeat and discredit Putin in Ukraine, then Biden’s comment is hardly a gaffe.

Instead, it is an explicit acknowledgement of a hard political truth: that Putin has no interest in peace; and that, therefore, a real peace in Ukraine and Eastern Europe necessitates a new Russian leader who respects international law and the territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.

‘Regime Change’. A peaceful Russia can be realized in myriad ways, but “regime change”—meaning a Western attempt to topple Putin from Power a la the 2003 Iraq War or the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan—which is, obviously, what “regime change” connotes—that has never been under consideration, and Putin knows it.

He knows this because again, Biden never called for “regime change.”

Here’s what the President actually said at the very end of a long speech on the need to defend NATO against Russian aggression while standing with Ukraine in its fight against Russia

For God’s sake, this man, [Putin], cannot remain in power.

When coupled with Biden’s oft-repeated insistence that American troops will never step foot in Ukraine, let alone Russia, and that America will not risk any sort of military confrontation with Russia, it becomes blindingly obvious that a Western military-forced “regime change” is not a policy option in the Biden administration.

Russian Realism. For this reason, as even the dovish Tom Nicholas admits:

So far, the Russians seem to have taken Biden’s remarks more calmly than the American media.

Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson who never misses a chance to castigate the United States said only that this was a question for the Russian people, and not for Biden.

The Russian people, of course, have no say in who rules them, but Peskov’s answer amounted to a shrug.

Ironically, albeit not surprisingly, Russian leaders are more sanguine and realistic than hyperbolic American commentators and politicians. They realize that of course America and NATO are opposed to Putin and would like to see him gone.

But they also realize that America and NATO have absolutely no intention of invading Russia; and that, regardless of what Western leaders think about Putin, the hard realities of nuclear deterrence still apply and constrain the behavior of Russia and the West.

In short, Biden was right to acknowledge that Russia needs a new political leader, and the critics are wrong to fault him for saying so.

The President’s “gaffe” was “undeniably morally true and the implications are inescapable anyway,” explains Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-New Jersey). “No president can have a normal relationship with Putin ever again,” he told the Washington Post.

Biden’s “gaffe,” obviously, won’t incite Putin to react wildly and irrationally. He still must contend with hard political and military realities.

However, by publicly calling out the Russian dictator, as he did in Warsaw, the American President may well have hastened the day when Putin is ousted from power, by Russians and from within Russia, and a new Russian leader takes the helm. Then and only then can a real peace ensue.

Feature photo credit: Screenshot of President Biden delivering an historic and consequential speech in Warsaw, Poland, March 26, 2022, courtesy of Sky News.

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.