Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “China”

Only a Quick Ukrainian Victory Can Avert ‘World War III’

Ironically but predictably, Biden’s timidity in arming Ukraine is increasing the possibility of a larger-scale war involving not just Russia, but China and Iran.

The concern, articulated this weekend by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, that China is giving serious consideration to providing lethal aid to Russia for its war on Ukraine has raised anew the possibility of “World War III,” or a larger-scale war that involves not just Russia and Ukraine, but their confederates, China and Iran.

Of course, no one, save for the enemies of freedom, wants a larger-scale war on three different fronts: in Europe over Ukraine; in Asia and the first island chain surrounding Taiwan; and in the Middle East over Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But unfortunately, China and Iran are formally aligned with Russia and are working to prolong the war in Ukraine. Both countries realize that if America and the West are tied up in Europe, they will be less capable of responding to threats in Asia and the Middle East.

Which is why we have argued, forcefully, for the United States to fully and quickly arm Ukraine, so as to bring about a swift Ukrainian victory and a thorough Russian defeat. The Biden administration, however, has had other ideas.

Misplaced Fear. The administration has feared “provoking Putin” and doing anything that might “escalate” the conflict and thereby precipitate “World War III.” Of course, these fears never made any sense.

Putin, after all, does not need to be “provoked.” He already is hellbent on subjugating all of Ukraine, and nothing other than Russia’s outright military defeat will disabuse him of this notion. For the entire past year’s duration of the war, remember, he has consistently shown no interest in diplomacy, “off-ramps,” or compromise of any sort.

As for “escalation,” that presupposes an ability to “escalate,” militarily; but Russia has no such ability. It already has thrown its entire military apparatus at Ukraine, including an estimated 97% of the entire Russian army, which is now in Ukraine, reports British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace.

Yes, of course, Russia has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons; but tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons give Russia no military benefit or advantage other than shock value and frightening the West.

Meanwhile, there are real and consequential downside risks to being the first country since World War II to use nuclear weapons. Russia would become a pariah nation everywhere and would antagonize especially India and China, which currently buy its oil and provide Russia with significant non-lethal aid.

Strategic nuclear weapons are also a nonstarter. Russia is not about to risk a strategic nuclear war and the destruction of Moscow for the sake of conquering Ukraine. It hasn’t done so thus far and it won’t do so in the future because Ukraine, unlike Moscow, is not part of Russia and Putin knows it.

As for “World War III,” this conjures up images of a long, drawn-out war involving multiple countries in different theaters of operation similar to how World Wars I and II were fought. But what has been most notable about the first year of this war is that Russia fights alone and in Ukraine only.

Certainly, this was the case for the first six months of the war.

Before the war began, China and Russia signed an agreement pledging “no limits” to their mutual support. Yet China thus far has refrained from providing Russia with military weapon systems and battlefield assistance. Iran began providing Russia with cheap drones six months into the war.

The problem is that the longer this war drags on interminably, the more likely it is that it metamorphoses into “World War III.” The more likely it is that China and Iran opt to step-up or increase their support for Russia. And the more likely it is that both countries opt to open up new fronts: in Asia and the Middle East, respectively.

After all, when, earlier on in the conflict, a Russian defeat looked possible and perhaps even likely, it made eminent sense for China to avoid actively supporting Russia. What good would that do? Why back a loser? Why throw good money after bad?

China’s Shifting Calculus. But now that a Russian defeat looks less likely and not at all imminent, China’s calculus has undoubtedly changed. If the war can be prolonged indefinitely, then America, NATO, Europe, and the West can be kept occupied, and drained militarily and economically. That certainly would serve China’s interests, especially as it considers acting to subjugate Taiwan.

Ditto for the mullahs in Iran as they seek to dominate the Middle East. If America and the West are bogged down in Europe, that gives them less ability to oppose Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

For these reasons, it behooves the Biden administration to act with a sense of urgency in aiding Ukraine.

A long war is morally unconscionable because it means more death, destruction, and misery. But a long war also increases the likelihood of a true world war fought in three different theaters of operation. And this is a war the United States is unprepared to fight, given its disgraceful lack of a defense industrial base.

Seth Jones reports, for instance, that in a war with China over the Taiwan Strait,

the United States would likely run out of some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided munitions—in less than one week… [And] it would take an average of 8.4 years to replace Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) inventories at surge production rates.

The bottom line: “World War III” was never a possibility so long as the United States was committed to a swift Ukrainian victory. But utterly misplaced fears about “provoking Putin” and “escalating” the conflict have caused the Biden administration to play for a tie, not a win, in Ukraine.

The result has been a long and protracted war with no end in sight; and this, ironically, is making a true “World War III” scenario an increasing possibility.

As Luke Coffey puts it: “Right now we are arming Ukraine so it can survive. We need to start arming Ukraine so it can win.” The and only then might we avert disaster. Then and only then might we avert “World War III.”

Feature photo credit, courtesy of the Express. The axis of evil (L-R): Iranian mullah/president Ebrahim Raisi, Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin are all being empowered by the Biden administration’s timidity in arming Ukraine.

In the Fight Against the Coronavirus, Cuomo and Trump Show the Difference Between Style and Substance

When assessing how well our political leaders are doing and their job performance, it is important to look beyond the rhetoric to examine actual policies and real-world results.

Sometimes, political leaders who speak or behave poorly do a surprisingly good job, while political leaders who speak and behave in a more suave and polished fashion implement bad and disastrous policies.

Yet, if we focus simply on rhetoric and demeanor, and not policies and results, we miss what is most important. We elevate style over substance. We deprecate rhetorically challenged leaders with good records, while lauding silver-tongued politicos with bad records.

This is, of course, precisely backward. Results should matter more than rhetoric.

President Trump, obviously, is a political leader who is, to put it charitably, rhetorically challenged. His public pronouncements, especially his tweets, are often juvenile, embarrassing, and subliterate. Yet, his record as president is far better than his rhetoric would suggest.

Until the coronavirus pandemic hit, the U.S. economy was doing remarkably well, with record low unemployment, renewed economic growth, and a booming stock market.

The United States had avoided any major foreign policy crises, while adopting a more realistic approach toward China. Trump’s two Supreme Court appointments are superb, as are most of his federal court nominations.

Yes, Trump was pathetically slow to recognize the gravity of the coronavirus, largely because he was too trusting of China’s communist dictator, Xi Jinping. And his daily press briefings have been too often depressing, unenlightening, uninformative, and uninspiring.

This is not at all what we Americans want or expect from our president during a national crisis that is unprecedented in any of our lifetimes.

Still, despite his rhetorical weakness and tardiness, Trump has taken strong and decisive action to combat the coronavirus, and these politics have worked. The virus has been contained, and the worst predictions—two million dead, rationed care, a lack of ventilators, et al.—were never realized.

And—this is important—the worst predictions were never realized because of Trump administration policies.

The supply of ventilators to our nation’s hospitals is the most compelling case in point. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spent most of March eloquently speechifying about how his state needed an additional 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he ominously warned, some patients who urgently need ventilators might be denied ventilators.

Trump was heavily criticized by his Democratic and media opponents for supposedly failing to deliver these ventilators.

Yet, behind the scenes, his administration was working diligently and creatively to ensure that ventilator production was ramped-up; and that ventilators were distributed in real-time, on an as-needed basis, nationwide to ensure that all patients were covered and cared for—and that exactly what happened.

In the end, no patient who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator; and New York ended up donating ventilators to other states that needed them.

Of course, Trump never really explained this to the American people because he is so rhetorically weak and challenged. But his record of success here is impressive and undeniable.

Cuomo. Now, compare that to silver-tongued Andrew Cuomo, who speaks, acts and behaves like a political leader should during a time of national crisis. We here at ResCon1 have praised Cuomo for his leadership.

We even have suggested that, because of his performance during the coronavirus pandemic, Cuomo, and not Joe Biden, should be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

This is all true. However, it is also true that, despite his rhetorical gifts and undeniable leadership, Cuomo’s record during this crisis is suspect and deserves serious criticism.

Ventilators. Specifically, Cuomo and his health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, issued an edict Mar. 25 that required nursing homes “to admit or readmit recovering COVID-19 patients—despite openly acknowledging that the elderly are among the most vulnerable,” reports the New York Post.

The unsurprising result: “The coronavirus’ suspected death toll among New York’s nursing home residents exploded by an additional 1,700 fatalities.”

“COVID-19 complications have killed 4,813 residents of nursing homes and adult-care facilities—and that doesn’t include those who died in hospitals,” notes the Post’s editorial board.

“Known nursing deaths represent 25 percent of all deaths in the state,” adds Post columnist Michael Goodwin.

This is disgraceful precisely because these deaths were so predictable and avoidable. They resulted from a disastrous policy that Cuomo forced upon New York’s nursing homes. 

“To them [the nursing homes],” explains Goodwin, Cuomo’s “March 25 order was a death sentence. Some facilities say they had no deaths or even positive patients before that date, but many of both since, including among staff members.”

New York’s nursing homes, reports the Post, “were clearly unprepared for the pandemic, lacking infection control protocols, sufficient personal protective equipment and tests to properly identify residents and staff infected with the virus.”

Rhetoric. Cuomo, of course, has tried to talk his way out of responsibility for this fiasco; and, truth be told, he is a much better talker than Trump. But rhetoric, no matter how eloquent and compelling, can conceal undeniable and indisputable truths.

And the truth is that Cuomo’s stupid and ill-advised policy re: nursing home admissions caused thousands of needless coronavirus deaths.

Yet, Cuomo’s more polished public persona and soothing rhetoric has had one beneficial effect, at least for him: It has spared him much media criticism that otherwise should be coming his way.

Trump, by contrast, has been the object of withering media criticism despite averting similarly bad outcomes and policy disasters.

The reason for this discrepancy, of course, is that Trump is, as they say, rough around the edges. He speaks poorly, shoots from the hip, vents his spleen, is prone to public displays of anger and frustration, and in general, behaves impulsively and acts out of pique.

What Matters. It would be much better for Trump and for the nation if he were more polished and disciplined; but at 73 years old, Trump is who he is. He won’t ever change.

We, however, can change our national focus and our national obsession. Instead of giving undue credence to Trump’s every utterance and solitary tweet, let’s focus more on his administration’s policies, record, and results.

And let’s do the same for his Democratic political opponents. That would result in a fairer and more balanced assessment of the Trump administration, as well as its possible successor or replacement.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.

Trump’s Affinity for China’s Dictator, Xi Jinping, Made Him Blind to the Coronavirus

Much has been made of Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men—how Trump seems to like them personally and to view them as friends and kindred spirits with whom he has “a great relationship.”

We’ll leave it to the shrinks and psychiatrists to figure that one out. But whatever the motivation, Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men is a real problem: It perverts the policy-making process and makes him blind to real and pressing problems and gathering threats.

Unfortunately, the coronavirus is a case in point. The Washington Post reports that, in early January, U.S. intelligence agencies began warning Trump of the danger poised by the outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

Trump, though, didn’t want to hear it and dismissed the threat as exaggerated and misplaced.

The reason: his “friend,” Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, was telling him not to worry. And Trump seems to have placed greater stock in what Xi was telling him than in what he was hearing from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Post’s Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, and Ellen Nakashima report:

[In early February], Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response—who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA—told [Senate Intelligence] committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.

Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”

Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China—despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.

Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.

“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

Unfortunately, this was not the only instance of Trump broadcasting his cluelessness and gullibility for all the world to see. Here are some other gems:

Half Measures. Trump and his apologists make much of the fact that, on Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States.

But in truth, this was a modest, half measure that did little to arrest the virus’ spread because of the lack of rapid and comprehensive testing to identify, isolate and contain the virus in the United States.

Why didn’t Trump push for rapid and comprehensive testing? The public record and reputable newspaper reporting all point to one reason: because Trump believed his “friend,” Xi: that it will all work out well.

And besides: Trump worried that focusing too much on the coronavirus would spook traders and cause a downturn in the stock market.

Yet, as recently as yesterday, during a press conference, Trump professed ignorance about what was happening inside of China— even though his own intelligence advisers had been telling him for weeks what was happening there.

Trump, moreover, was still sucking up to his “friend,” Xi:

I have great respect for China. I like China. I think the people of China are incredible. I have a tremendous relationship with Xi. I wish they could have told us earlier about what was happening inside. We didn’t know about it until it started coming out publicly.

Balderdash! Trump obviously knew about the coronavirus and its rapid spread in Wuhan, China . And if he didn’t know, it was only because he chose to ignore his own intelligence advisers and to remain willfully ignorant.

Either way, Trump has been derelict in his duty and is unfit to lead. If he were a better man, he long ago would have resigned in disgrace. The problem is that Trump knows no embarrassment and no shame.

Feature photo credit: Thomas Peter/Getty Images in Politico.

Trump’s Failure to Act Early on the Coronavirus Has Endangered American Lives

President Trump is obviously not responsible for the coronavirus. However, he is responsible for his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus— and for failing to anticipate the gravity of the problem, even as evidence mounted in other countries (such as Italy) that without early and decisive action tens of thousands of Americans, potentially, could die.

Trump, moreover, has repeatedly downplayed the problem; lied about the availability of testing to address the problem; shirked responsibility for confronting the problem; and, most pathetically and disgracefully, tried to blame others—mainly his predecessor, Barack Obama—for his own (Trump) administration’s belated and inadequate response to the problem.

Trump’s loyal base may not hold him accountable for his utter inability to lead during this crisis, but history surely will. Indeed, as Peter Wehner observes in The Atlantic

The president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors—most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain.

These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

What we now know is that the coronavirus silently spread for several weeks, without us being aware of it and while we were doing nothing to stop it.

Containment and mitigation efforts could have significantly slowed its spread at an early, critical point, but we frittered away that opportunity.

Leadership. Let’s be clear. Bureaucratic errors happen. No one blames Trump for bureaucratic errors that are beyond his control.

But that’s why we elect political leaders: to ensure that bureaucratic errors are quickly corrected and do not forestall the type of timely and decisive action needed to safeguard the American people during a crisis

Yet, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump acted with dispatch even as the federal bureaucracy literally stopped or prevented early testing for the coronavirus.

To the contrary: Trump was more concerned with downplaying what he said was a minor problem that would soon disappear.

But we don’t elect presidents so that, in times of national crisis, they can throw up their hands and blame the bureaucracy (or their predecessor three years removed), which is what Trump has done. Instead, we elect presidents so that they can tame, manage, and rein in the bureaucracy.

The Republicans who foisted Trump upon us called this “draining the swamp” and “putting America first.” Yet, when it mattered most, Trump was asleep at the switch.

He didn’t drain the swamp; he bathed in it. And he didn’t put America first; he put his own twisted political priorities first. 

Trump admitted, for instance, that he preferred to leave Americans stranded on a cruise ship off the coast of California after it was discovered that some of the passengers there were infected with the coronavirus.

Politico’s Dan Diamond reports that “health department officials and Vice President Mike Pence came up with a plan to evacuate thousands of passengers” as a way to stop the virus from spreading and infecting many more people as had happened on a similar cruise ship, the Diamond Princess.

“But President Donald Trump had a different idea,” Diamond writes: “Leave the infected passengers on board—which would help keep the number of U.S. coronavirus cases as low as possible.”

Wehner reports:

“I like the numbers,” Trump said. “I would rather have the numbers stay where they are. But if they want to take them off, they’ll take them off.

“But if that happens, all of a sudden your 240 [cases] is obviously going to be a much higher number, and probably the 11 [deaths] will be a higher number too.” 

Cooler heads prevailed, and over the president’s objections, the Grand Princess [cruise ship] was allowed to dock at the Port of Oakland.

Travel Ban. Trump did one thing right. On Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States. That bough us time and helped stop the spread of the virus.

But this was a relatively modest measure that, in itself, is woefully inadequate unless combined with rapid and comprehensive testing, which was never forthcoming.

Yet, Trump talks of his China travel ban as if it were a game changer, which it most definitely was not.

Trump’s subsequent actions have been uninspiring and largely beside the point.

Last week, he imposed more travel restrictions on Europe. But as his own former homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, has explained, additional travel restrictions now aren’t of much help since the virus is already widespread.

“We have nearly as much disease here in the U.S. as the countries in Europe,” Bossert tweeted. “We must focus on layered community mitigation measures. Now.”

Testing. For this same reason, even additional testing is, at this late point, of limited use. The time to test was six to weight weeks ago, when Trump was still in denial and insisting that everything was manageable and well contained.

Testing, after all, is most important early on before a virus has spread throughout a country or region. When relatively few people are infected, it is more feasible to limit or contain contact spread of the virus from person to person.

But we are long past that point with the coronavirus, which epidemiologists say is now widespread, albeit underreported, in the United States.

That doesn’t mean we should give up on testing; we shouldn’t and we aren’t. But at this point, extreme social distancing is our best and most effective preventative measure. Testing will have limited public health utility or benefit.

Meanwhile, in the absence of presidential leadership, leaders in state and local government, as well as the private sector, have stepped forward to fill the leadership void left by Trump. Indeed, as the New York Times Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman report

Within the United States, as the coronavirus spreads from one community to another, he [Trump] has been more follower than leader.

While he presents himself as the nation’s commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president…

Beyond travel limits and wash-your-hands reminders, Mr. Trump has left it to others to set the course in combating the pandemic and has indicated he was in no rush to take further action.

That was Thursday, March 12. On Friday, March 13, in an effort to regain the initiative and control the political and media narrative, Trump gave another, better-received address with business executives at the White House. But it was too little too late I’m afraid.

The die has been cast. Trump’s failures of leadership are too many too count, too grave, and too consequential.

Buck Passing. Harry Truman famously said that, as president, “the buck stops here,” with him. The president is responsible for what happens on his watch.

Truman was right then, and what he said then still applies today: The buck stops with the president.

Unfortunately and sadly, as president, Trump is more interested in buck passing than in assuming the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected.

We can only hope and pray that tens of thousands of American do not pay the ultimate price for Trump’s inability and unwillingness to lead, and his failure to act with dispatch when it mattered most.

Feature photo credit: Bastiaann Slabbers /Nurphoto /Getty via The Atlantic.