Tag Archives: foreign policy

Shouldn’t Be Anyway

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox News piece on the refusal of Russia to continue negotiations on the mutual inspection clause of the current New START treaty that purports to limit the size of the Russian and American nuclear arsenals, there was this from Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball regarding the breakdown:

If there’s not a negotiation on some sort of replacement treaty, there will be no agreement for the first time since 1972 that limits the world’s two largest nuclear superpowers arsenals[.]

Kimball is ignoring—worse, President Joe Biden (D), his Secretary of State, and his Secretary of Defense are ignoring—the absence of the world’s third largest nuclear superpower in any sort of nuclear arms control negotiation.

If the People’s Republic of China, which is expanding its nuclear arsenal and modernizing with state-of-the-art equipment its delivery systems for that arsenal, is not an active and good faith participant in any such negotiation, than any arms limitation treaty between the US and Russia will amount only to the US’ unilateral disarmament relative to the PRC—and relative to Russia, which is rapidly becoming economically dependent on the PRC and which can rely on it in any nuclear war.

That growing disparity in military capability between the US and the PRC, keep in mind, comes against the backdrop of PRC President Xi Jinping’s avowed goal of “supplanting” the US as the sole world power.

We need to accept Russia’s decision, via its current refusal, to begin a new arms race. It’s a race that our survival as a free and independent actor in the world depends on winning, and it’s a race that we can win with our—so far—economic and technological superiority, just as we did vis-à-vis the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The time is now, though, to join and to push that race—the PRC already has been in it for lots of years, and that nation is far more economically and technologically capable than the USSR ever was.

Why Not?

Posted on by
Reply

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (D) doesn’t want the US to decouple our trade or our trade relationship with the People’s Republic of China. It’s sufficient, she claims in all seriousness to safeguard [our] technology to ensure [our] economic competitiveness.

It’s important that we get the bilateral economic relationship right, not just by protecting but also by actively promoting our economic interests in trade. We are not seeking the decoupling from China.

Why not? There’s a broader concern here, that Raimondo and the Biden administration at large, carefully ignore than merely protecting our technology and technology advantages. That larger concern is our independence of action on the world stage in “competition” with a nation with the avowed goal of overtaking and supplanting the US in the world—of conquering us, whether overtly or functionally.

That goal, that threat is given concrete, measurable effect by the PRC’s

  • flooding the US with fentanyl and flooding Mexico with the components of fentanyl so that nation can flood US with fentanyl
  • our dependence on PRC for Critical Items in our supply chain
    • rare earths, which the PRC already has used in an attempt to extort Japan
    • lithium
    • cobalt
    • intermediate components in assembly of computer chips, computers, cell phones
  • overt threats against friends and allies, , Republic of China, Japan and Republic of Korea (East China Sea), nations rimming South China Sea
  • 2017 National Intelligence Law that makes every PRC company a spy for the PRC government and for the CCP
  • support for the barbarian’s invasion of Ukraine

Trade with the PRC funds their military development against that goal of replacing us.

The PRC is an enemy nation, and we should be doing nothing at all to support its economy, its economic adventurism around the world, its intelligence-gathering efforts, its own technological development, its military expansion and expansionism.

That requires decoupling altogether.

Stop Guessing

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal piece centered on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s supposed goals for his invasion of Ukraine and his associated “red lines,” Laurence Norman and Stephen Fidler opened with this:

President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been punctuated by frequent Russian threats to escalate the war. Many have been later dialed down or ignored, leaving the US and its allies guessing what the Russian leader’s real red lines are.

They added this:

Russia’s repeated ultimatums and U-turns, along with its ever-shifting war aims, have reinforced the belief among Western government officials that Mr Putin is being forced to improvise in a war that has slipped out of his control.

All of that, though, is both a product of Putin’s smoke screening as he prosecutes his barbaric assault and of “Western government officials” overthinking the situation.

I say, stop guessing. Just fully support—diplomatically, economically, and with arms and ammunition—Ukraine in its defense against the barbarian’s invasion. Help Ukraine decisively defeat the barbarian’s invasion and drive him fully out of Ukraine.

Ful stop.

A Plan for the Winter

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Kimmitt (USA Brig Gen, ret) has one for the Ukrainian military that centers on resting and refitting for a major spring offensive. The thought has some merit, but I disagree.

Rather than using the winter to refit for a spring offensive, the Ukrainian army should use refitting-in-progress to mount a winter offensive along one or two fronts.

A drive through Melitopol’ to the Azov Sea coast would be one useful front; a drive to liberate Severodonetsk and though Kramatorsk would be another.

It’s true enough that the Ukrainian forces are tired and their equipage is degrading, but the situation is far worse for the barbarian hordes in Ukraine, and the disparity is greatly magnified by the winter conditions. This is no time to pause and let the barbarians rest and refit and get their balance back.

Harden defensive positions along the current frontlines….

No. Let the barbarians do that. But before they can, the Ukrainians should attack, not letting the barbarians disengage, and go through them like….

Of course this also puts a large premium on Kimmett’s other suggestions:

  • [West should] continue to resupply crucial equipment and ammunition, Himars rockets, and air-defense assets
  • West should beef up its support for Ukraine’s deep-fires campaign against supply depots, logistical routes, command centers, and second-echelon support units well beyond Russian [Kimmetts’ term] frontlines

And his diplomatic and economic suggestions, as well, which center on Europe holding the line against the barbarian’s assault on European energy and on tightening economic sanctions against barbarian Russia.

Negotiations with Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson, in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed, is on the right track regarding the idea of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin an end to the barbarian’s invasion. Negotiations now would be both fruitless and pointless, Johnson writes, because they would require Ukraine to surrender Ukrainian territory and they would idiotically rely on the barbarian’s trustworthiness in keeping any agreement. Negotiations now would be ill-timed, as well: the time for negotiating can only be after the barbarian has been driven entirely from Ukrainian territory and Ukraine having won, totally and decisively, the war the barbarian began.

Johnson had this, too, though:

If Mr Putin were to use a weapon of mass destruction [one of the barbarian chieftain’s many threats], he would be tendering Russia’s resignation from the club of civilized nations….

With this characterization, Johnson is being…generous. Russia hasn’t been a civilized nation, at the least, since the mass starvation the Russians—the people as well as the government—inflicted on Ukrainians and on the Stockholm Syndrome-afflicted Belarussians during the kulak collectivization atrocities of the 1930s. The barbarian has demonstrated—in rivers of blood—the continuing depths of its depravity with the atrocities inflicted by the products of Russian society on Ukrainians in the present barbarian war. Atrocities Johnson describes so genteelly:

captives tortured, women raped, schools and kindergartens deliberately targeted.

He omitted the hospitals deliberately targeted, the vast lines of refugees from besieged cities that the barbarian had agreed to allow to evacuate—and then targeted for mass murder once they were so conveniently lined up on the agreed roads leading away from the city.

Those finally arrived at post-victory negotiations? [A] peaceful, orderly and lasting relationship, and friendship, between Ukraine and Russia, as Johnson so naively described them?

Keep in mind two things as you contemplate such a negotiation. The “soldiers” inflicting those atrocities today—the rapes, the tortures, the child butcheries, the attacks on hospitals, the attacks on infrastructure necessary for civilian survival during the coming winter—are the products of Russian society. Most of these armed thugs may well be from the lower tiers of that society, but who taught them to be the way they are? The rest of that society, who either condone the atrocities or actively order them, all the way up to the chieftain sitting on his throne in the Kremlin.

The other thing is the impossibility of Ukrainian friendship with a polity—barbaric or civilized—that is bent on the utter destruction of Ukraine.

No. The only outcome for the present situation is the utter, decisive defeat of the barbarian, with his being driven entirely from Ukrainian territory. The only possibility for any future relationship between Ukraine and Russia is Ukrainian eternal vigilance against the next wave of barbarians from the east. For that wave will surely come.