Category Archives: foreign policy

“Ukraine Needs a Guarantee from NATO”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of Andrew Michta’s op-ed in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Michta is the George C Marshall European Center for Security Studies’ College of International and Security Studies Dean in Garmisch, Germany, so he would seem to speak with some knowledge.

His piece objected to the EU’s emphasis on fast-tracking (to the extent it really is) Ukraine’s membership in that body at the expense of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security by bringing it into NATO’s defense perimeter if not actually into NATO (which Michta favors).

He’s ignoring reality here, though, and so to borrow a term from a cable advertiser, Nonsense.

Guarantees of Ukraine’s security are as worthless today as they were with the Budapest Memoranda and the Minsk Protocols.

What Ukraine needs is stepped up transfers of serious weapons, ammunition, and supply—including air- and missile-defense systems, armor, and increased supply of HIMARS, including the full-range missiles that nation currently is denied.

Full stop.

EU membership and even NATO “security guarantees” can follow only on Ukraine’s successful defeat of the barbarian’s invasion and the permanent ejection of the barbarian from that nation. Absent that, there will be no nation to bring toward the West; it will have been utterly destroyed by the barbarian, which is the avowed goal of the Vladimir Putin.

Another Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…to stop doing business with the People’s Republic of China—especially, stopping exporting American natural gas to that nation.

The Biden administration has been busily selling American, that is, domestically produced, liquified natural gas to the People’s Republic of China. LNG his administration sells there, mind you, isn’t LNG he can sell to the gas-strapped nations of Europe and Asia.

Selling energy to an enemy nation is bad enough, and it’s worse when those sales come in preference to sales of the same energy to our friends and allies.

The worst, though, is selling our energy to that enemy nation—the PRC—only to have that nation resell our energy to our friends and allies—the gas-strapped nations of Europe and Asia—at a steep profit for itself.

[PRC] companies that signed long-term contracts to buy US liquefied natural gas are selling the excess and making hundreds of millions of dollars per cargo. Buyers include Europe, Japan and South Korea.

For instance:

[The PRC]’s ENN Natural Gas Co is expected to profit from this trade when it sends the LNG tanker Diamond Gas Victoria to pick up a cargo of gas from Cheniere Energy Inc’s plant at Sabine Pass, LA, on the Gulf Coast on October 18, according to three industry sources.
Instead of dispatching the tanker to [the PRC]’s east coast, the vessel is scheduled to deliver LNG to Europe, they said. ENN is estimated to make a profit of between $110 million and $130 million on this one cargo shipment, analysts said, basing their calculations on market pricing data.

It’s true enough that the PRC’s resales to Europe and Asia are a drop in the ocean compared to those nations’ natural gas needs, but these are sales, and profits, that would be better done as a result of our directly selling our liquified natural gas to Europe and Asia, and at a lower cost, if only from cutting out the middle man. And from cutting out an enemy nation.

“Ukraine Needs More Security Guarantees”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the position of The Wall Street Journal‘s headline writer and of Andriy Yermak and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who opined as much in their Thursday op-ed. They were actually serious, too. The position is, though, to use the technical term, a bunch of bull.

They demonstrate the foolishness of their position in their lede:

When Ukraine’s army is given the weapons it needs, it defeats Russia on the battlefield. That is the lesson the world learned as it watched Ukrainian forces quickly retake the Kharkiv region this month. Since the beginning of September, Ukrainian forces have liberated more than 2,300 square miles of territory in the south and east of the country.

However.

They want to build on this success with an international “guarantee:” a Kyiv Security Compact between Ukraine and its partners. Then they muddle their position further by insisting (correctly so, here) that Ukraine should be given modern and effective air-defense and antimissile systems—in addition, I say, to much more heavy weapons of the type currently being supplied in dribs and drabs, and with the addition of tanks and other armor.

Ukraine has already been the victim of international guarantees. The Budapest Memoranda guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity if they gave up the nuclear weapons then held by the nation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine agreed. Not too long later, Russia occupied and partitioned away Crimea and seized and occupied a significant fraction of the Ukrainian portion of the Donbas.

The guarantors’ response? Bleatings, finger-waggings, and the empty promises of the Minsk Protocols. These were followed by the barbarian’s naked invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities inflicted on Ukrainian women, children, and men, both civilian and soldier; those atrocities continue apace today. The Minsk guarantors’ response here? Russia was one of those guarantors…. The others responded by slow-walking and actively withholding weapons from Ukraine as the barbarian’s pre-invasion build-up proceeded in Belorussia and across the border in Russia near Belgorod.

When the barbarian sent in its invasion, the West’s guarantors continued to slow-walk serious weapons transfers until only lately. These worthies still won’t transfer tanks and other armor, led by Germany, which government men insist that Ukrainians—Slavs all—are just too stupid to be able learn how to operate a German tank.

No. No empty, misleading, won’t-be-enforced guarantees.

What Ukraine needs are the weapons it needs, but the full suite of them according to Ukraine’s articulation, not the Know Betters of the timid West. The barbarian’s invasion must be utterly crushed and the barbarian forced to tear up its roads and railroads some considerable distance into Russia from the Ukrainian border, with the -road beds and the flatter terrain between sown with the aptly named Russian olive. The horde must not be left able to invade again.

Rasmussen, especially, should know better. He was NATO’s Secretary General from 2009 to 2014. So should Yermak, come to that; he’s the sitting head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, and he’s living through the outcome of the empty words of those prior “guarantees.”

European Union Sanctions on Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Another round is in the offing, possibly this week or next. And there’s this hopeful claim of the EU:

EU officials say privately and publicly that the sanctions are inflicting serious damage on Russia’s economy and military….

No doubt sanctions are an important part of a necessary “all of the above” suite of moves to support Ukraine in its defense against the barbarian. But are they strong enough themselves? Will the new round be materially stronger?

After all: how many battalions have the sanctions forced Putin to withdraw from Ukraine? How many battalions have the sanctions in concert with other moves forced the barbarian to withdraw?

Zero.

The pain inflicted on the barbarian isn’t enough. It needs to be orders of magnitude stronger. The sanctions have to be orders of magnitude stronger. The only places in the world with which the barbarian should be allowed to do business of any sort are withing Russia and with the PRC, northern Korea, and Iran. And those need to be tightened down, also.

What, Exactly, Are You Doing?

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, through his Press Secretary Ned Price, is insisting two things.

One is that the (not so) dearly departed JCPOA

is [sic!] the most effective means by which to permanently and verifiably ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

This has been shown to be a straight up lie almost since its parameters became public. All the JCPOA did was permit limited inspections—but not of Iranian military facilities where most of the nuclear weapons development and uranium enrichment process were occurring—and the JCPOA had an expiration date, upon which all sanctions would be lifted and all limits on Iran’s nuclear weapons program would expire.

The other is the State Department views Iran’s nuclear potential as an overriding threat. Nevertheless,

We are doing everything we can not only to support the human rights and the aspirations for greater freedom of the Iranian people, but also to hold accountable those within the Iranian system that are responsible for…violence against the Iranian people[.]

But still,

When it comes to Iran, though…there would be no greater challenge to the United States, to our partners, and to the broader international system than an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

That last might—might—be a valid priority in a cynical, long-term, Machiavellian sort of perspective. It does the Iranian people who are being imprisoned, or killed, or both today for their protesting against their current condition no good at all, though.

Which raises the question: what, exactly are you doing, Mr SecState, to support the human rights and the aspirations for greater freedom of the Iranian people? Lay it out in concrete, measurable terms—no glittering generalities, not fatuous claims of “everything we can.” What fills out this “everything” of which you speak?