3.27.22: Despite The President's Gaffes, The U.S. Handling of the War In Ukraine Could Be A Lot Worse

"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." 

USA Today's Susan Page explained that President Biden said what everyone in Washington is thinking and discussing which is Vladimir Putin needs to be out of power. However, the president saying the quiet part out loud is no doubt a mistake because unless some drastic, unlikely shift happens in the Kremlin, The West, NATO, and the United States are going to have to talk to the Russian dictator.

Two more points there - Putin is a dictator, no other description is applicable, and this dictator is going to need to talk to the west unless he also wants the task of trying to build an economy from scratch in the 21st century, which is where he is heading.

As The Dispatch's Stephen Hayes explained, it's not so much the adhoc statements themselves but that the administration keeps walking things back that have an effect on how Americans perceive his handling of the conflict. 

However, a matter of perspective is needed here. Was it a mistake to say that Putin needs to go, many would say 'yes' because it doesn't show message discipline and it's not the official policy of the United States. Does an off-script statement like this become dangerous as Ms. Page asked? We'll have to wait and see, but it isn't like it's an opinion that is not agreed upon. The perspective is warranted because what is not in question is Mr. Biden's devotion to democratic values and standing up for them, and lest we not forget 14 months ago we had a president that was not interested in defending democracy.

Frankly, we'd take Biden's gaffes, however cringeworthy, over Mr. Trump's anti-democratic, Putin-praising idiocy everytime.

And Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky has a point, too much talk and not enough action. As Ukraine's Ambassador to the United State, Oksana Markarova explained, Putin cannot be trusted and if Ukraine doesn't win, it will be a threat to all democracies and the world order that has been in place since WWII. If Putin wins, she said that the will show that dictator and military force are the only things that matter. To back up President Zelensky's point, she said that the Ukrainians had the best boots on the ground but that they needed the weapons.

The best part of the interview with the Ambassador was when Mr. Todd asked her about the independent territories in Ukraine like the Donbas and whether her government would negotiate on those points. Her answer: There are no independent territories with the borders of Ukraine.

The ambassador also said that Putin has no red lines, so it was interesting to hear Senator Rob Portman say that the use of chemical or biological weapons is a red line that the United States should enforce and retailiate, not in kind, but militarily.

Despite the gaffes, President Biden's defense of democracy and his handlining of the situation have been overall quite good. We think about this because we know that it could have been a lot worse with western democracies in full cowering stance instead of standing up as a united force.

On other matters, like the Supreme Court, with each passing day confidence in the court wains. Mr. Todd pointed out that the only thing that changes in confirmation hearings is that the hearing for Supreme Court nominees are televised, which encourages Senators to grandstand. There's your answer right there on how to get these proceedings reigned in so that we don't have a senator like Josh Hawley bring conspiracy theories to the hearing questions. Even conservative writer, Stephen Hayes said that the Republican party has a problem with conspiracy theories. Wow, you think? Susan Page explained that 1 in 4 Republicans believe some aspect of Q Anon... sad.

All this does is serve to put further doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of the Court. And then there's Justice Clarence Thomas and his 'best friend' his wife Ginni, who apparently is wrapped up in January 6th conspiracies and was a de facto advisor to the White House Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows on how to unlawfully overturn the election. 

Senator Portman explained that given this revelation, if a case on January 6th comes before the Court, then perhaps Justic Thomas should recuse himself from the case. But the fact is that a case on January 6th already has come before the court in the form of releasing documents from the National Archive and Justic Thomas was the lone dissenter in releasing them. Coincidence? Not bloody likely.

Panel: Susan Page, USA Today; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS Newshour; Stephen Hayes, The Dispatch; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Secretary of Homeland Security

 

3.20.22: An Animal Is Most Dangerous and Ruthless When Wounded

An animal is always at its most dangerous and ruthless when it's wounded, and the Russian Bear has certainly had a few claws pulled at the root of paw. In other words, the humiliations the Russian army has suffered are prompting Putin to use crude and more brutal weapons such as a hypersonic missile, but also as devastating, especially on civilian populations are non-smart bombs that are launched indiscriminately hitting hospitals, apartments buidlings and theaters filled with children.

The moderator, Chuck Todd's central question for all the guests was at what point does Putin's brutality in Ukraine warrant a more direct military response or intervention on the part of the U.S., NATO and other allies?

Understandably, the answers depend on where you currently sit. Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) is more hawkish in the Cheney-family tradition, but she's in a position where she can say that chemicalweapons, for instance, are indeed a red line that would precipitate a direct military response. However if you're the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg you have to address the question more carefully and NOT commit to a position that locks in a thirty-nation alliance into a potentially untenable position. However, the Secretary did plainly state that the use of chemical weaspons is a clear violation of international law.

One point that Secretary Stoltenberg made requires distinction which was he thank the U.S. president for his leadership and admitted that U.S. and the Biden Administration were briefing NATO for months and worked all the diplomatic channels to make NATO as unified in its actions as it is today. It was a big statement.

As PBS's Amna Nawaz explained, there is a throughline between how Putin's forces acted in Syria and what is happening the Ukraine. The Russians demolished Aleppo with cluster bombs and facilitated Assad's use of chemical weapons. The only inclination to think that Putin will not deploy chemical weapons is that there would be no coming back from pariah status by the European Union with its economic might alone cutting off Russia will have harsh consequences for as long as Putin is in power. 

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that we shouldn't be placing redlines on specifics, but that Putin should know that the United States will escalate its response to the scale of Putin's actions. Senator Murphy being a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and closer to President Biden is going to be more measured, but reaffirmed his unwavering support for President Zelenskyy and the Urkainian people, as did Representative Cheney. 

When you hear leaders from both parties agreeing on the fundamental issue of freedom and democracy it's allows one to better understand where the differences are on a particular issue and see that both sides bring good points to their arguments and the gray areas in between. No better than the Iran Nuclear deal where Senator Murphy said that we should do everything we can to get back into it, whereas Representative Cheney explained that we shouldn't be rewarding Iran with sanctions relief at this time when the status of their nuclear ambitions wouldn't be changed. Senator Murphy's position that since pulling out the Iranians' progress toward a nuclear weapon has moved at a rapid pace, and presumably reinstituting the deal would halt that progress.

There's nothing wrong with seeing valid points from both sides of the aisle when the baseline of American values are shared and shared honestly. 

And speaking of honesty, take Represntative Liz Cheney at her word when she says that nothing that she has learned being part of the January 6th Select Committee has lessened her concern with regard to the gravity of that day and the actions of the previous president and administration. 

Lastly, it was mentioned a few times that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (admittedly a cool name for a morally questionable individual) has emerged as the interlocutor that could possibly negotiate with Putin to stop the violence; Mr. Erdogan's Turkey is conveniently a member of NATO while the president personally has a sufficient authoritarian inclination acommpanied by action to that end to make Mr. Putin feel more at ease. Or so one would think... However, if you try to force a wounded animal out of the corner, it's coming with everything to try and kill you.

Panel: Andrea Mitchell;, NBC News; Amna Nawz, PBS Newshour; David Ignatius, The Washington Post; Shane Harris, The Washington Post

One more thing...

For the record and your viewing, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to the U.S. Congress.

3.13.22: As History Unfolds Daily, the Right Side of It Needs Clarification

First things last...

To be clear, if Mr. Trump were still president, the NATO alliance would be irreparably broken, the White House's position would be that Ukraine is not the U.S.'s problem, and it would embolden other authoritarian regimes to take similar actions because the United States would be in retreat. The New York Times' Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper mapped it quite succinctly and accurately. 

And to this day, as Peter Baker explained, Mr. Trump has never uttered one negative word or made one negative statement directly about Putin... Ever.

Pardon us if we take a moment to sound off a bit. Throughout the week, and each week of this war does indeed become more consequential, there have been things that need to be called out.

Starting with Bill Barr and his cynical attempt to repair his image for the history books. We have read his book, admittedly nor will we, but I think it's safe for us to say that the only thing we'd consider indisputable is the title - one damn thing after another. Between Attorney General Bill Barr and White House Counsel Pat Cippolone, the scope of crimes and violations they turned a blind eye to while Mr. Trump was in office will still be uncovered years from now.

Also, in the grand scope of geo-politics and the real politik, there's lots of grey, charcoal in some places, but Israel's fecklessness when it comes to silence in condemning Russia's war of choice against Ukraine is appalling. Inexcusable. We know there is too much business that depends on this silence, but isn't the morality that you show in this life and not the money? Doesn't the United States have 12 billion reasons why Israel should be helping us out. As Mr. Todd mentioned, Israel is one country that could provide an 'off ramp' for Putin. Really, how's that going? Some have gone as far as to blame the positions of the United States that drove Putin to this... Yeah, soft apologists we have no time for.

And as for Representative Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) calling President Zelenskyy a 'thug' is beyond the pale. He can only be an American by birth because in principles there is nothing American in the slightest. Our advise, read a history book.

We also have to call out the Biden Administration because politics is perception. Americans imprisoned in Venezuela are released and we need their oil. This was a step way too far if the end is a result of these means. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan tried to separate the two, but of all the despots in all the gin joints around the world, do we have to sit at the bar with Maduro?

Lastly, people should understand what a no-fly zone really means. As Ambassador Michael McFaul explained, if NATO or the United States imposed a no-fly zone over Ukraine, it may as well be a declaration of war. And in this instance, the Biden Administration has correctly pushed back on that notion because they have made it clear that the U.S. would not take provocative [read: direct offensive action against Russia] action.

As history is unfolding on a daily basis, we had the need to clarify who's on the right side of it.

Experts: fmr. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch; fmr. Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, James Stavridis; fmr. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Kimberly Atkins Stohr, The Boston Globe; Peter Baker, The New York Times

3.6.22: How Far Is The West Willing To Go?

The question now is how far is the NATO alliance, the United States, Europe and the world willing to go to stop Putin's aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Putin has stated that the sanctions levied against his country are the equivalent of a declaration of war. 

Of the 4 main requests made by Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, two involve sanctioning and inflicting more pain on the Russian economy. These should be done as quickly as possible, embargoing Russian energy exports and withdraw their favored-nation trade status. Call the bluff and continue highlighting big asset seizures of Russian oligarchs. 

However, as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken explained, and confirmed later by The New Yorker's Robin Wright, a ban on Russian oil in the United States would strictly be symbolic if we do not do it in coordination with allies.

Call the bluff because as fmr. Allied CDR of NATO, James Stavridis explained, NATO outspends Russia 15-1 on its military. Putin knows too well that combined economic and military conflict with the west is a serious loser.

It's progress that the Poles will supply fighter jets to the Ukraines, but the import opf anti-aircraft munitions to the Ukrainians needs to be stepped up, and yes, the United States should backstop both efforts. In terms of a no-fly zone, frankly, does NATO, more specifically Western Europe have the stomach for the implications of what that would mean? As Secretary Blinken succinctly desribed, if NATO imposes a no-fly zone and a Russian Miig flies through it, then NATO would shoot it down, with the implications that the war would immediately expand across the continent.  Putin said the sanctions are a declaration of war.

Senator Joe Manchin disagreed that taking a no-fly zone off the table is a mistake, but to our point above, for now it should be because saber-rattling on this point only prompts action not well thought out. The saber-rattling, mind you, wouldn't come from Senator Manchin but potentially other irresponsible persons such as say... hmmmm... Lindsey Graham, maybe.

As for fmr. UN Secretary Nikki Haley saying that this would have never happened if the former president were in office, one would be inclined to call BS on that simply because it still would have happened but the Trump Administration would have not had the unified response we're seeing now. When Chuck Todd rattled off a list of items that Mr. Trump 'tried' to do to appease Putin, Ms. Haley's reply was that those we're the things he only 'tried,' to do, but not what he did. What?

Right, what did do, which was exhort President Zelenskyy for a political favor in exchange for supplying military assistance. As Fiona Hill explained, he did this at a critical juncture in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and it sent a signal of weakness in saying that Ukraine's defense didn't matter. 

Ms. Haley also suggested that we shouldn't engage with China diplomatically at all on Russia, which is also a mistake. This is exactly the time to use our soft power to weaken any support China has for Russia, and it sends a clear message that the United States isn't looking the other way.

So Ms. Haley... please. Take all that someplace else.

One last note with regard to the State of Union speech. Mr. Todd asked Princeton Professor Eddie Glaude, Jr. about the speech and the fact that President Biden stressed the point of freedom in Ukraine but didn't directly address defending democracy at home. Mr. Glaude said that he was shocked that Mr. Biden didn't bring it up and thought it a mistake.

While we agree with Mr. Glaude's sentiment, we disagree that it was a mistake because that it wouldn't have fit with what Joe Biden was trying to do with the speech which was to bring people together. Secondly, Mr. Biden in his speech while speaking about Ukraine referred the hall of the Capitol so the implied meaning of how Mr. Biden was speaking about Ukraine, listeners understood that he was referencing democracy at home as well. This implied meaning was not lost on the American people, and Mr. Biden did well in trying not to deliberately alienate Americans on the other side of the political spectrum. 

Panel: Robin Wright, The New Yorker; Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Steven Hayes, The Dispatch