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.
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?
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.
A diversity and inclusion training by the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado instructs cadets to use words that “include all genders” and to refrain from saying things like “mom” and “dad.”
“Some families are headed by single parents, grandparents, foster parents, two moms, two dads, etc.: consider ‘parent or caregiver’ instead of ‘mom and dad,'” the presentation states. “Use words that include all genders: ‘Folks’ or ‘Y’all’ instead of ‘guys’; ‘partner’ vs. ‘boyfriend or girlfriend.'”
“Not ‘Colorblind’ or ‘I don’t see color,’ but Color Conscious,” it adds. “We see Color/Patterns AND VALUE people for their uniqueness.”
And why have these obstructionists not been fired?
In a pre-taped interview shown Sunday, the interviewer asked President Joe Biden (D) whether the US would defend the Republic of China (the politically correct interviewer referred to “Taiwan”), and Biden said, “Yes.”
Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack[.]
The interviewer pressed Biden.
Interviewer: So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US Forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion? Biden: Yes.
Even in Reluctant Germany, the government’s loyal opposition and a number of incumbent officials are calling for Germany to get out of the way and send tanks to Ukraine so that nation can further, and more rapidly, exploit their current battlefield gains and continue driving the barbarian back out.
But. But, but, but.
“We are simply not going to be the first to send Western-made tanks…” a senior German government official said.
I’m reminded of two lines. One is by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, as he channels Sallah: Russians. Very dangerous. You go first.
In Holman Jenkins’ opinion piece in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal concerning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energy war against Europe (as a secondary front in his war against Ukraine), he offered this regarding Europe’s stick-to-it-iveness vs Putin’s:
Mr Putin will quickly adapt once it’s proven to him Europe’s governing parties can’t knuckle under to Russian blackmail and retain their democratic viability.
If Europe doesn’t surrender in the face of Putin’s energy war, it will be the Russian people who feel the resulting economic, and other, pain.
…far beyond the process of getting soldiers and consumables to a battlefield and to the battlers.
In the aftermath of Germany’s—and much of Europe’s—considered decision to make themselves dependent on Russian natural gas and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s equally considered decision to limit and cut off natural gas supplies to Europe to try to coerce behaviors acceptable to Putin, Germany, et al., are (re)discovering the need for better logistics and logistical execution. The lessons are available to the US, too, if the government is willing to learn.
Europe’s energy crisis has unleashed a global battle over natural-gas tankers….
Laura Secor had a Wall Street JournalWeekend Interview with Henry Kissinger, and a number of letter writers in the WSJ‘s Letterscommented on Kissinger’s espousal of a need for some sort of equilibrium among the world’s powers as the means of world stability (redundancy deliberate).
Kissinger operates from a false premise—the need for international equilibrium.
An equilibrium that balances American enemies—Russia, the People’s Republic of China, Iran, even northern Korea—with American national security is dangerously detrimental to American national security.