Tag Archives: foreign policy

Cowardice and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

This characteristic might seem a non sequitur as it applies to NATO, given that entity’s support for Ukraine in the war the Russian barbarians have inflicted on it.

But maybe it’s apt. NATO is planning for a successor to current Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian, whose term expires at the end of this year. Currently favored to succeed him is another Nordic, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

Poland objects, and since the Secretary-General must be chosen unanimously, that would seem to put an end to that choice. Poland’s primary objections are two. One is that Denmark is one of the majority of NATO member nations what have welched on failed to meet their obligations to support NATO with spending equal to 2% of their national GDPs. What could we expect of Frederiksen, then, in leading NATO actually to strengthen its military capability, goes this objection.

Poland’s larger objection, though, is less an objection to the Dane and more a preference for a leader of an Eastern European nation, one that once was an SSR of the late and unlamented (at least in civilized circles) Soviet Union, or Poland. Such a one would have an up close and personal understanding of the threat Russia poses and how much that threat is expanded by the barbarian’s invasion of Ukraine. Poland’s President Andrzej Duda wants someone from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland; although he is leaning toward Estonia and that nation’s Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas.

That brings me to the title of this post.

[S]everal Western nations are wary that naming a secretary-general from the eastern flank would be too provocative, as it brings the alliance’s leadership to Russia’s doorstep.

This is shameful timidity, and it has no place in a defense alliance whose avowed duty is to confront and defeat aggression, at least against a member nation (although NATO troops—not only national troops—have fought elsewhere, also). Thus, this objection puts a premium on installing Kallas, or Lithuania Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, or Latvia Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, as much to inject backbone into NATO constituent nations as to advise Russian President Vladimir Putin that his barbarians are not welcome outside of Russia.

Full stop.

A NATO Drill

Posted on by
Reply

NATO has a Monday drill set up to exercise and demonstrate its largest-ever air force deployment in its history to stimulate an attack on an allied nation, and the NATO response.

The drill…will take place Monday over Germany and involve 10,000 participants and 250 aircraft from 25 countries, including 100 aircraft and 2,000 personnel from the US, as first reported [by] German news outlet DW.
The exercises are meant to ensure a coordinated response from NATO allies under Article 5 of the alliance’s charter, which states that an attack on a NATO member nation is considered an attack on all the members.

This is a drill that ought to be emulated in another part of the world, too. The Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, the Socialist Republic Vietnam (yes, them, too), the Republic of the Philippines, and the United States should conduct similar air drills, in conjunction with naval drills—a broad joint operations exercise tailored to the facts of eastern Asia and western Pacific Ocean—across the South China Sea, through the Taiwan Strait, and over the Republic of China.

The People’s Republic of China’s President Xi Jinping needs to get the same message that the NATO drill is aiming at Russian President Vladimir Putin, only much more loudly and with far greater clarity. The nations of the South and East China Seas, Australia, and the US need to draw a bright red line along the midline of the Taiwan Strait and tie off the Nine-Dash Line grab and make the point that the RoC’s sovereignty is not to be questioned and neither is the territorial integrity of the nations proximately rimming those two Seas.

Sandbagging

Posted on by
Reply

General Li Shangfu, the People’s Republic of China’s Minister of National Defense, says war between the US and the PRC would be an unbearable disaster for the world, and further,

China seeks to develop a new type of major-country relationship with the United States. As for the US side, it needs to act with sincerity, match its words with deeds, and take concrete actions together with China to stabilize the relations and prevent further deterioration.

Li says this against the backdrop of the PRC actively preparing for war with us as a part of its preparation for invading and conquering the Republic of China. If Li’s words are accurate, then the PRC side needs to act with sincerity, match its words with deeds, and take concrete action with the United States to stabilize relations and prevent further deterioration.

That concrete action begins with the PRC ending its threats against the RoC, including ceasing its preparations for invasion and disbanding the units assembled for that purpose. That sincere action needs to be followed by the PRC side’s withdrawal from its seizure of the South China Sea and from its occupation of the islands of that Sea, islands that are owned by (if disputed among) the other nations rimming the Sea. The PRC then needs to cease its aggressive moves in the East China Sea, including its moves against the Japanese islands there.

Along the way, the PRC must leave off from its hostile acts against military aircraft and shipping that are operating in international airspace and international waters.

If the PRC side chooses not to do those things, if the PRC side continues on its present course, Li’s words will be revealed to be completely insincere, to be a cynical effort at sandbagging.

“Defense or Democracy?”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question the Biden administration is worrying about in Chad.

The Biden administration is in a bind over whether to provide military aid to Chad, one of Africa’s most reliable bulwarks against the spread of Islamist militants and an opponent of Russia’s growing influence in the Sahel region.
Chad’s longtime president, Idriss Déby, was killed in battle two years ago and quickly replaced by his son, violating the line of succession laid out in the Central African country’s constitution. Now, the US government is struggling with the question of whether the ruling junta is too brutal and undemocratic to merit US assistance, or whether the country’s value as a military ally trumps those concerns.

There’s another interpretation of the situation, though, that seems more cogent to this ignorant Texan. That is that the question presents a false dichotomy. No, the reality is that without defense, there can be no democracy.

Without defense, the autocracy that currently reigns over Chad can become entrenched, or the nation can be overrun by the terrorists, whether Islamists like Boko Haram and Daesh-West Africa, or by elements of the Wagner Group. All of these are operating in the country.

With defense, though, Chad has a strong chance of both crushing the terrorists and making the current autocracy an aberration and returning Chad to democratic governance.

Two “Whys”

Posted on by
Reply

Carefully—cowardly—anonymous Biden administration officials have leaked to the press that

A drone attack on the Kremlin earlier this month was most likely orchestrated by Ukraine, which has conducted a series of attacks on Russian targets, US officials said.

Why is the Biden administration even talking publicly about this? Who conducted the strike would seem to be a national security matter, for us and for the nation—if there was one—that conducted the strike, especially when that nation, supposedly, is heavily supported by the US. The leak and its claimed attribution of who did it seem especially egregious in light of the nature of the attack: it was blatantly amateurish and so wholly inconsistent with the quality of operations which the Ukrainian military has otherwise executed.

 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has cautioned Ukraine against conducting attacks inside Russia over fears that Moscow could escalate the conflict….

Why does President Joe Biden (D) insist that Russia should be a sanctuary nation, free to assault a sovereign nation with impunity and without fear of response?