Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

When Assessing Russia’s War on Ukraine, Ban the Word ‘Escalate’

When Assessing Russia’s War on Ukraine, Ban the Word ‘Escalate’

By John R Guardiano on February 5, 2023

The West’s fear of ‘escalation’ makes no sense and is seriously undermining Ukraine’s ability to win the war.

As we’ve previously observed, the tendency to see Russia’s war on Ukraine through the antiquated prism of the Cold War has led many analysts astray, and nowhere is the more true than in the oft-expressed concern that the West do nothing that might “escalate” the conflict.

Of course, this concern is idiotic and counterproductive: because in practice, anything that might help Ukraine win and bring this conflict to a swift and successful conclusion is castigated as “escalatory” and, therefore, bad and dangerous. For example:

  • Ditto aircraft, which are critical to a Ukrainian combined arms offensive that could quickly overwhelm Russian forces. Aircraft are deemed “escalatory” and thus a no-go, says President Biden.
  • ATACMS. What about the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which would increase Ukraine’s long-range precision strike capabilities by a factor of more than four, from 45 miles to 190 miles? Nope. No can do. Too “escalatory.”
  • Russian Military Targets. Should Ukraine strike Russian military targets that lie within clear view just beyond the Russian-Ukraine border? Absolutely not! That would be the ultimate “escalatory” move.

In short, this fear of “escalation” has seriously narrowed the bounds of permissible Western military action vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine and with the catastrophic consequence of a longer, more costly, and drawn-out war.

‘Escalation’. But it makes no sense. The fear of “escalation” is a relic of Cold War thinking. It does not reflect current political, military, and strategic realities.

Politically, Ukraine is a free and sovereign country, not a Soviet satellite state, and its existence does not pose an existential threat to Russia, and Russia knows this.

Strategically, there can be no peace and stability in Europe unless and until this conflict is resolved, and this means that either Ukraine or Russia must win. There is no middle-ground or modus vivendi as there was during the Cold War.

The two sides have clear and irreconcilable differences: Russia wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine, and Ukraine wants to be free and independent of Russia.

Militarily, Russia has shown itself to be weak and incompetent, and its possession of nuclear weapons does not change or alter this balance of power.

Russia is not about to risk a strategic nuclear war and the destruction of Moscow for the sake of conquering Ukraine, and tactical nukes give it no real military advantage in Ukraine.

Russia. Russia, in fact, has every reason to fear a larger-scale war with NATO, which is why such a war won’t happen. Russia can barely handle the under-armed Ukrainian Army. It is not about to pick a fight with vastly superior NATO military force.

Russia also fights alone. It has no allies of any military significance other than Iran, which provides Russia with cheap, subpar drones.

China, meanwhile, has wisely decided to sit this one out as it looks askance at Russian military weakness and ineptitude. Chinese state-owned companies are providing Russia with military-applicable parts, but not weapon systems or battlefield assistance.

Fear. Consequently, there is no reason to fear a larger-scale war resulting from “escalation.” There is, however, reason to fear a long and costly, drawn-out war that results from the West’s refusal to adequately arm Ukraine.

A fear of “escalation,” in fact, is a fear of Ukraine winning and Russia losing, and this fear makes no sense. As General Douglas MacArthur observed:

Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very objective is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory.

The bottom line: it is long past time for President Biden and other Western leaders to overcome their utterly misplaced fear of “escalation” and to commit to a Ukrainian victory over Russia.

Give the Ukrainians all of the military weapons systems—tanks, aircraft, long-range precision artillery, armed Reaper drones, et al.—that they need to bring this conflict to a swift and successful conclusion. And do this now, not six or 12 months from now.

The alternative is morally and militarily unconscionable. It is to allow Ukraine to be destroyed and innocent Ukrainian civilians to be slaughtered by the Russian war machine as this conflict grinds on interminably for years. That is in no one’s interest and it is as unnecessary as it is wrong. The Cold War, after all, ended more than 30 years ago.

Feature photo credit: President Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and French President Emmanuel Macron have refrained from fully arming Ukraine because of their utterly misplaced fear of “escalating” the war. (Pic courtesy of ChannelsTv.com, Johanna Heron, Hannibal Hanschke, Nicolas Kamm / AFP.)

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Legacy was Political, Not Economic or Moral

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Legacy was Political, Not Economic or Moral

By John R Guardiano on January 16, 2023

King was a virtual socialist and probable sex offender, but that’s obviously not why we (rightly) honor him with a national holiday.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday illustrates how federal holidays are properly used for civic purposes—and how they are politically misused for partisan and ideological purposes.

For civic purposes, we recall why, exactly, our nation honors King with a federal holiday. For partisan and ideological purposes, we recall other, more unsavory things about King that have nothing to do with the reasons we honor him and his legacy.

King’s universally lauded legacy involves completing the second American revolution that began during the Civil War, but which was stunted and reversed by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the disaster that was Reconstruction. A century of state-sanctioned and -enforced legal discrimination against blacks followed.

King ended this discrimination through his leadership of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.

In so doing, he harkened back to the promise of the American founding as articulated in the Declaration of Independence—the notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

Thus, by championing equal rights under the law, King was leading a thoroughly American movement fully in concert with the (classically liberal) American political tradition. This is the man and the legacy that we honor with a federal holiday; and that is why, as Dan McLaughlin observes:

The collapse of legal and political defenses of segregation and disenfranchisement between 1965 and 1969 was, in retrospect, staggering in its speed and scope.

A nation that had legal discrimination in many states in the mid-1960s had a national system of affirmative action, endorsed by both political parties at the time, by the decade’s end.

Legal discrimination against blacks was swept away so quickly because it was so obviously discordant with the American promise of equality under the law. King was summoning America to “live out the true meaning of its creed,” and his summoning resonated with a nation conceived in the classical liberal tradition.

Problematic Aspects. But of course, King was a flawed human being, not a plaster saint. And so, there are other aspects of the man and his legacy that political partisans, both left and right, seize upon for their own rank purposes.

In the last few years of his life—after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution outlawing poll taxes as a requirement for voting—King moved radically left. He pushed for the redistribution of wealth and a guaranteed income, while denouncing America’s defense of South Vietnam as morally unconscionable.

This is the King that modern-day socialists and leftists in the Democratic Party embrace and champion; and from their political perspective, of course, that is understandable. But that is not the King whom we honor with a federal holiday; and that King is inconsonant with the American founding.

King also was a notorious womanizer and sex offender whose reputation never would have survived the modern-day “Me Too” movement. Partisans on the far right use this aspect of King to try and discredit him; but again: we honor King for a very specific reason, and that reason has nothing to do with his personal moral failings.

The bottom line: Martin Luther King, Jr., like many  American political heroes, was a great but flawed human being. Not everything that he said or did warrants praise and commendation.

But the pivotal role that he played in ending state-sanctioned and -enforced discrimination against African Americans absolutely puts him in the pantheon of our country’s greatest political leaders.

We rightly honor this aspect of King’s legacy with a national holiday; but we ought to summarily reject the attempt by political partisans, both left and right, to hijack the King holiday for their own noxious purposes.

Feature photo credit: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memorable words delivered during his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Aug. 28, 1963, courtesy of KPLC Action News, southwest Louisiana.

What Does History Portend for Ukraine?

What Does History Portend for Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on January 8, 2023

One’s view of the war in Ukraine depends largely on which historical precedent—World War I, World War II, the Cold War, or Iraq and Afghanistan—you think applies.

Michael Brendan Dougherty argues in National Review that American intervention in Ukraine is a “nearly utopian project with obvious, foreseeable risks and potentially ruinous costs.”

Dougherty’s analysis wildly misses the mark. Among his errors: he doesn’t believe the United States has a strategic rationale for seeking to cripple the Russian military in Ukraine, and he believes that by helping Ukraine, we are weakening our position in Taiwan vis-à-vis China.

In truth, of course, Russia has proven, by its actions over the past two decades, that it is an enemy of the United States. So crippling its military in Ukraine absolutely serves the American national interest.

And of course, by aiding Ukraine, militarily, we are exposing—and resolving—problems with our weapons production and supply chain bottlenecks that will redound, ultimately, to the benefit of Taiwan.

We are also learning valuable lessons about what types of weapons systems and tactical approaches might prove most effective at deterring a potential Chinese invasion.

Nonetheless, despite misfiring, Dougherty inadvertently shows how the misapplication of historical precedent has distorted our understanding of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he himself does not explicitly say so, Dougherty, I think, sees the war through the prism of recent history, and specifically, the unsatisfactory American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus he calls American intervention in Ukraine “a nearly utopian project” that is “peripheral to U.S. interests.”

Of course, that’s how many critics saw and see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as quixotic and costly diversions from core American interests. And the fact that these wars dragged on interminably gives these critics standing in the minds of many Americans who now worry about U.S. involvement in Ukraine.

I do not believe this recent historical precedent is very applicable and for myriad reasons:

Europe is not the Middle East or Central Asia; one sovereign state (Russia) invading another sovereign state (Ukraine) is very different from a civil conflict within one state (Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively); and Ukrainians have demonstrated a fervent sense of nationalism and will to win that was often absent in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

For these and other reasons, the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is, I think, an utterly inapt and unhelpful historical precedent—though, to be sure, there are lessons to be learned there.

For example, small numbers of American military advisers and battlefield intelligence can be dramatic force multipliers. That was true in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is true in Ukraine as well.

(The U.S. military advises Ukrainian soldiers via Zoom or Microsoft Teams; and it trains Ukrainian soldiers at American and NATO military bases in the United States and Europe, but outside of Ukraine.)

Cold War. Another historical precedent that people, including Dougherty, fall back upon is the Cold War. Thus whenever Putin engages in nuclear saber rattling, many Western analysts talk about the importance of learning lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis and providing Putin with an “off-ramp.”

But during the Cold War, Ukraine was part and parcel of the Soviet Union. Today, by contrast, it is a free, sovereign, and independent country.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, likewise, involved a country (Cuba) that was firmly ensconced in the Soviet orbit. Ukraine, by contrast, is a Western democracy (or aspiring Western democracy) valiantly and heroically seeking to free itself of Russian domination or attempted Russian domination.

For these and other reasons, the strategic and military calculus has radically and necessarily changed from the Cold War to the present day.

Maintaining the balance of power between two superpowers is no longer at issue, as it was during the Cold War. Instead, what matters most is protecting the territorial integrity of independent nation-states like Ukraine.

World War I is another inapt historic precedent. There, competing alliances involving multiple countries led to an unforeseen escalatory spiral that soon engulfed all of Europe, Japan and the United States.

Today, by contrast, Russia fights alone, albeit with the help of Iranian drones. Thus any conceivable world war involving multiple countries would mean only one thing: NATO’s intervention and Russia’s swift and decisive defeat in Ukraine.

Russia knows this, which is why there will no World War I-like escalatory spiral in Ukraine.

World War II. That leaves World War II, which is arguably the most apt and helpful historical precedent for understanding Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Then as now, you had a country hellbent on imperialist conquest and domination. Hitler was determined to establish the Third Reich; Putin is determined to establish a new Russian empire. Then as now the only thing that might stop the dictator is timely Western aid and resolve.

In the 1930s, the West failed and the result was World War II. Today, thanks to the heroic resistance of Ukraine, the West is doing much better; and so, a larger-scale war might yet be averted. Time will tell and we will see.

The bottom line: history can both distort and clarify our understanding of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Not all historical precedent, after all, is equally valid and equally relevant.

Seeing the war through the prism of inapposite conflicts that are fundamentally different leads to misunderstanding and bad analysis. However, similar wartime dynamics from previous eras can be telling and instructive.

Anti-interventionists like Dougherty misfire because they are like old generals who fight the last war. They don’t realize that the conflict has fundamentally changed. The Cold War is over and Ukraine is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.

Instead, Ukraine is more like Poland or Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s, but with more of a fighting chance if only the West will act with a greater sense of dispatch, or what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the fierce urgency of now.”

Feature photo credit: Poland 1939, courtesy of Amazon.com.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s Public Persona and Historical Reality

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s Public Persona and Historical Reality

By John R Guardiano on January 1, 2023

Like many great public figures, Benedict developed a public persona or image that is wildly at odds with his true humanity and historical significance.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI died yesterday; and, after reading the numerous obituaries, tributes, and denunciations of the man, one thing stands out: There is a stark difference between Benedict’s public persona or image and the real human being known to his students, readers, parishioners, and ecclesiastical colleagues.

The public persona is false and untrue; the human being is authentic and true.

Unfortunately, this discrepancy is not at all unusual. We see it all the time. Leaders in all walks of life often develop a public persona or image that is wildly at odds with who they really are, their essential humanity, and their historical significance.

This discrepancy usually results from political agendas and media biases (typically in a left-wing direction) that badly distort our understanding and misinform the public.

That’s why true historical understanding requires the passage of time. You need perspective, which only time and distance can provide; and you need detachment from the public furies and passions that surround a leader and his historical era.

Journalistic Lies. For this reason, so much of what has been written and said about Pope Benedict is false and misleading.

For example, Benedict has been depicted as a hard-edged reactionary who opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. But in truth, Benedict attended the Council as a theological advisor to Cardinal Frings of Cologne, and contributed to its official documents, especially Dei Verbum, writes Tracey Rowland, Chair of Theology at the University of Notre Dame (Australia).

“One of the greatest misrepresentations of Ratzinger is that he was essentially a reactionary. An hour or so spent perusing his writings is enough to disabuse anyone of that myth,” writes Samuel Gregg, a scholar at the Acton Institute.

“On the contrary,” he explains,

Benedict had no hesitation in acknowledging the achievements of different Enlightenment thinkers. His writings reflect profound appreciation of the nuances of the various Enlightenments.”

Benedict, likewise, has been depicted as “God’s Rottweiler,” a man who reflexively and unthinkingly accepted church dogma, but who was ill at ease with normal, frail and fallible human beings.

But in truth, Benedict was a kind, humble, and pious cleric known for his grace, goodwill, generosity, and humanity.

And far from being dogmatic and unthinking, Benedict instead was one of the most thoughtful and liberal-minded thinkers in church history, an intellectual giant whose work will reverberate decades and centuries from now.

As the author of more than 60 books and magisterial documents, Benedict will be remembered as “one of the six most significant Catholic theologians of the 20th century, along with Karl Rahner, S.J., Yves Congar, O.P., the Rev. Romano Guardini, Henri de Lubac, S.J., and the Rev. Hans Urs von Balthasar,” Rowland writes.

Of course, in recent years, the Catholic Church has been badly sullied by child sexual abuse scandals that have been decades in the making. Critics charge that Benedict was complicit in these scandals by turning a blind eye to them. But as Michael Brendan Dougherty points out:

He was perhaps the sole figure of his era at the top of the church that took on the treacherous responsibility of reform—centralizing the handling of clerical abuse cases in his office and drastically speeding up the process of defrocking criminal priests (a project that has been thrown into reverse by his successor).

Unpopular Truths. Why, then, has Benedict received such a bad press and been depicted in such a negative light?

Simple: because throughout his life, he opposed fashionable changes to longstanding Catholic teachings on faith and morals and, in so doing, incurred the wrath of foes both within and outside the church.

Benedict also, of course, incurred the wrath of the popular and dominant secular media, which was and is hostile to anyone who opposes “progressive,” left-wing “reforms.”

As historian George Weigel observes, Benedict, like Pope John Paul XXIII, saw the Second Vatican Council as a vehicle to renew church teachings in a vastly different and more secular world profoundly shaped by the epic disasters of the 20th Century, World War II and the Nazi Holocaust, most notably.

To the consternation of his foes, however, he did not view the Council as a vehicle to remake the church as it has existed for nearly two millennia.

As Rowland puts it: “There is a hermeneutic of rupture and a hermeneutic of reform, and both St. John Paul II and [Cardinal] Ratzinger/[Pope] Benedict read the [Second Vatican Council] documents with the latter.”

These competing hermeneutics are still at war within the church, and the outcome of this conflict is far from certain. A “state of open theological division” now exists, notes Ross Douthat.

The vision of continuity and stability that Benedict championed is being pulled apart from both sides—from the left by the idea of Vatican II as a continuing revolution, a council whose work will never end—and from the right by a mixture of pessimism and paranoia, a very un-conservative alienation from papal authority whose endpoint is difficult to foresee.

Benedict’s Legacy. Maybe so, but what is not difficult to foresee is that Benedict’s influence on the church and broader culture will be felt for many generations to come, and the true man will be known to posterity even as he is hidden from us, his contemporaries.

“I predict confidently that he will be one of the only figures of his era to be remembered, celebrated, studied, and beloved in the future,” Dougherty writes. 

“His full legacy will be felt across decades or even centuries,” adds Douthat. “Joseph Ratzinger the scholar and theologian and writer, Joseph Ratzinger the champion of a certain idea of Catholic Christianity—well, he has only just begun to fight.”

“If in the future Benedict XVI is canonised and declared a Doctor of the Church,” writes Rowland, “he may be remembered as one of the greatest scholars ever to occupy the Chair of Peter, a master of fundamental theology—but, nonetheless, a man who never lost the piety of his Bavarian childhood and a man for whom the responsibilities that went with holding the keys of St. Peter were truly martyriological.”

Feature photo credit: Pope Benedict XVI with President Bush during his historic visit to the White House, Apr. 16, 2008, courtesy of kdminer.com.

Trump and House Republicans are to Blame for the Omnibus Spending Spree

Trump and House Republicans are to Blame for the Omnibus Spending Spree

By John R Guardiano on December 23, 2022

The much-derided omnibus spending bill was inevitable when Republicans decided to make Trump the centerpiece of their 2022 Congressional election campaigns.

House Republicans, and even some dissident Senate Republicans like Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida), are whining about the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill is about to become law; but really, they have no one to blame but themselves.

These “MAGA Republicans” tied the party’s political fate to one, Donald J. Trump, and, as a result, lost big-time in the 2022 midterm elections. The GOP lost one Senate seat and now is in the Senate minority, while badly underperforming in House elections nationwide.

GOP Disarray. Moreover, House Republicans cannot even agree on whom their leader should be. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California) should be the next Speaker of the House; but that is far from assured, since a renegade group of kamikaze Republicans seems intent on blowing up the House GOP majority.

So you can understand why most Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), are eager to pass legislation now—before House Republicans set up their circular firing squad and begin taking aim at each other.

“No question, there are many Senate Republicans who worry that the new House Republican majority will not be able to pass spending bills with 218 Republican votes come January or February,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) told radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Consequently, he explained,

Speaker McCarthy would have to go to the Democrats and ask for their votes to pass a bill. And if that were to happen, then the Democrats, obviously would demand a ransom in the form of tens of billions of dollars in new spending that they didn’t get in this bill.

So there’s no question that many Senate  Republicans think that, right now, the best deal possible—not just for December, but also in the new year— would be a bill that holds the Democrats to the defense budget they just voted for last week. while also preventing the domestic spending budget from going up beyond what Joe Biden requested.

The Omnibus. Sure, the omnibus spending bill includes many odious things (such as limitations on border enforcement) that delight far-left, “progressive” Democrats. But that was the inevitable result of the GOP’s weakened position stemming from the party’s awful performance in the 2022 mid-terms. And for that, you can thank Donald Trump, who remains one of the most despised and unpopular political figures in America today.

Maybe Republicans will think twice next time before they decide to make Trump and his idiotic desire to re-litigate his 2020 election defeat the centerpiece of their Congressional campaigns. That was a bad political move for which the GOP paid a steep political and legislative price.

Policy Wins. The good news is that thanks to the political and legislative savvy of Sen. McConnell, Senate Republicans were able to extract some significant policy wins in the omnibus spending bill.

As Sen. Cotton alluded to, for instance, the defense budget has been significantly increased after being savaged by the Biden inflation and a decades-long modernization holiday.

Aid to Ukraine also has been secured. This is especially important because House Republicans have intimated that they might stop or curtail aid to Ukraine in the name of fiscal restraint. Now, though, thanks to the omnibus spending bill, House Republicans will have limited room for destructive legislative maneuver.

The bottom line: House Republicans, and dissident Senate Republicans like Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida), are getting what they deserve. They’re getting their just desserts. They’re getting their comeuppance.

These Republicans made Trump and his selfish political obsessions the focal point of the 2022 election. The American people said, “no thanks”; the GOP lost; and the party now is at a decided political and legislative disadvantage.

The omnibus spending bill is far from perfect, but it reflects the hard cold reality of what the Republican Party can achieve now, legislatively, given its foolish and costly embrace of Donald Trump.

Feature photo credit: Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) (L) secured the best deal possible in the wake of GOP election losses caused by the Republicans’ enthusiastic embrace of Donald Trump (R). Courtesy of People magazine (Oliver Contreras/Bloomberg via Getty Images).