Monthly Archives: March 2022

How did we just kill a billion people?

Over just three days, as I have done countless times over the last several years, a group of past and present senior U.S. government officials from both sides of the aisle gathered to wage a NATO-Russia war in a simulation at the end of 2019. In the course of what we called the NATO-Russia War of 2019, we estimated one billion people died. And if we arent careful, what happened in a simulation could happen if a NATO-Russia war erupts over Ukraine.

In fact, in the simulation I mentioned above from 2019, in which Russia invades Ukraine in a similar way as it did over the last week or so, not only does NATO get sucked in unintentionally, but Russia eventually releases nuclear weapons in its desperation. The result is an eventual escalation of bigger and more dangerous nuclear weapons whereby over one billion lives are lost.

But before we start staring into the abyss, allow me to explain the goal of such simulations. NATO clearly would have a massive conventional advantage in any war with Moscow, ensuring that in a straight-up fight Putin would lose. However, Russia has stated time and time again it will use nuclear weapons to defend its territory and its regime if it feels mortally threatened. Our simulation always seems to ask: Can we ever defeat Russian President Vladamir Putin in an armed conflict over Ukraine or the Baltics and not start a nuclear war in the process?

So far, over at least several years, and with at least 100 different participants that all held different ideas about war and political allegiances, the answer is a flat out no.

The scenario the group decided to test back in late 2019 was similar to today: Russia decided to invade Ukraine under the excuse that it is must defend Russian-speaking peoples that are being oppressed by Ukraines fascist government. In our scenario, we assumed Russia performs far more admirably than it does today but has more limited objectives, in that Moscow wants to connect Crimea to separatist regions in Eastern Ukraine that are under its effective control. We assumed that Russia does that quickly, achieving most of its military objectives in roughly four days.

But Ukraine does not give up so easily, just like in real life today. Ukrainian forces, after taking heavy losses, mount an impressive counterattack, whereby Russia loses over 100 tanks and over 2,500 soldiers. Images on social media show Russian armor ablaze, eliteSu-35 fighter jetsare shut down from the skies, and arms are now flowing in from the West in massive numbers.

Putin is outraged. He thought Ukraine would simply roll over, but he does not factor into his calculus the nearly decades-long training Kyiv received from the U.S. and NATO nor Ukraines military build-up for the last several years that was focused on this scenario.

Russia then decides that its limited military objectives were a mistake, and that all of Ukraine must be demilitarized. Moscow then launches a massive ballistic and cruise missile strike followed up by Russias air force launching its own shock and awe campaign, destroying a vast majority of Ukraines command and control structure, air force, air defense, and armored units in the process. At the same time, Russia starts surging troops to the borders of Ukraine in what looks like an imminent general invasion and occupation of the entire country.

Here is where things take a turn for the worst. A Russian ballistic missiles guidance system fails and crash-lands into NATO member Poland, killing 34 civilians as it tragically lands into a populated village along the Polish-Ukraine border. While the missile was not directed at Poland intentionally, pictures on social media show children crying for their mothers and bodies left unrecognizable, and demands for justice and revenge mount.

To its credit, Poland, which has its own tortured history with the Soviet Union and Russia, does its best to show restraint. While not responding with its own military, it leads an effort to see that Moscow pays a steep price for its aggression in Ukraine and actions, even unintentional, in Poland. Warsaw leads a diplomatic and economic boycott of Moscow resulting in Russia being kicked out of SWIFT as well as direct sanctions on Russian banks, similar to what we are seeing today.

In our scenario, Russias reaction is also swift. Moscow decides to launch a massive cyber attack on Poland, having based cyber warriors all throughout NATO territory, using their geography and proxy servers to mask the origin of the attack. Russia, in just two hours, takes off-line Polands entire electrical grid, banking sector, energy plants, and more essentially taking Poland back to the stone age.

And this is where the nightmare begins. Even though attribution is hard to achieve, Poland appeals to NATO and starts to privately share its desire to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring that an attack on one is an attack on the entire alliance. NATO is worried, as there is debate on how far to punish Russia while also feeling as if they do not have a clear military objective amongst the member states as some want to respond to what happened to Poland while others feel they must intervene militarily in Ukraine.

Here is where NATO surprises everyone. The alliance decides to set up a limited no-fly zone around the Ukrainian city of Lviv to protect innocent civilians and refugees that are trapped and have nowhere to go. Russia is warned: NATO is not intervening in the conflict, but will ensure that its planes and the airspace around Lviv are protected. NATO does make clear its jets will be in the skies above Ukraine, but will not operate from Ukrainian territory.

In Moscow, Putin now gets a sense that NATO is destined to intervene on Ukraines side. Russia fears NATO will use this protected corridor as a base of operations to send ever more sophisticated weapons. And with its economy now in a tailspin due to sanctions, Putin feels the walls closing in him. Before NATO can impose its no-fly zone, Putin orders strikes on any remaining airfields and military assets around Lviv.

But here is where Putin miscalculates and sets the stage for a NATO-Russia war. Putin orders another massive cyber attack on the Baltic states military infrastructure, thinking that NATO will use the Baltics to stage an invasion of Russia.

This ends up being the last straw for NATO, which then decides direct intervention in Ukraine is necessary to push back against Russian aggression. Before even an announcement is made, Russian intelligence sees missile and troop movements that indicate an impending NATO attack and decide to strike first with tactical nuclear weapons. NATO decides to respond in kind.

Russia then targets European cities with nuclear weapons, with NATO and America also responding in kind. What is left is nothing short of an apocalypse, with what we estimate is billion people dead.

In every scenario I have been a part of there is one common theme to all of them: When Vladimir Putin feels boxed in and feels Russia is directly threatened, usually from a mistake he makes on the battlefield, he decides to use whatever escalatory step he desires to try and make up for it.

While we may well soon see Ukraine and Russia find a diplomatic path out of this brutal war, both sides seem dug in. That means the chances for escalation like the above are high. And if Russia and NATO do become involved in direct conflict, Putin knows that in a conventional fight his regime would be defeated. That means Russia will choose nuclear war.

The only question in a NATO-Russia war seems obvious: how many millions or billions of people would die?

Harry J. Kazianis is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC and executive editor of their publishing arm, The National Interest. The views expressed in this article are his own. He's on Twitter @grecianformula.

Continued here:

NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here's How - The Federalist

Listening to news reports on Russias war on Ukraine, whether hard news or punditry, can be depressing endless images of urban destruction and reports of advancing Russian forces.

Yet, it is not foreordained that Russia wins and Ukraine loses. Winning a war is not merely an exercise in numbers or technology. As General George S. Patton observed, Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to quickly topple the Ukrainian government and kill President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the war has widened into a contest involving almost the entire border region shared by the combatants along with the stretch of border between Belarus and Kyiv some 80 miles to the north of Ukraines capital city.

Much media attention has been given to Russias advances along the Sea of Azov in the south and on the approach to Ukraines third-largest city, Odessa, on the shores of the Black Sea as well as the remarkable attack that captured Europes largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. These Russian successes are discouraging for Ukrainian defenders but, in the grand contest, they matter far less than the battle for Kyiv.

In the Eighteenth Century, Frederick the Great, noted: He who defends everything, defends nothing. In this context, Ukraines task is simple not easy but simple. It must keep a viable government, preferably in the capital city of Kyiv. To do that, Ukraine must maintain its supply lines to Poland in the west with the city of Lviv being the key transportation hub in the west. As long as Kyiv, Lviv, and the roads between them remain in Ukrainian hands, the fight can continue. As long as the fight continues, the economic pressure of Russia mounts, making it increasingly difficult to sustain both the fight and Putins hold on power. Thus, losses in the south are regrettable, but they are not fatal to Ukraines cause.

In that regard, there are fascinating signs coming out of what may be a decisive battle to the northwest of Kyiv on the long, winding, secondary road from Chernobyl. This is the road where a 40-mile-long column of Russian vehicles was spotted by satellite. Most of the vehicles are supply trucks. They would be carrying fuel, ammunition, and food for the Russian forces that have advanced to the very outskirts of Kyiv itself but have seemingly been stalled for several days.

One attribute of a good intelligence officer is the ability to feel the battle. To pick up clues from the chaos of combat the pace of events and where they happen, as well as odd silences, all mean something. Creating a coherent picture from the violence can then inform decisions that can lead to victory.

Out of this come three reports that, if true, suggest the beginnings of a devastating reversal for Russian forces operating northwest of Kyiv.

First, reports today in multiple outlets that Russian Major General Andrei Sukhovetsky was killed in combat by a sniper. Sukhovetsky, 47, was an elite Russian Spetsnaz commando and veteran of Russias war in Syria. The commander of the Russian 7th Airborne Division, he was assigned the mission of leading the Russian thrust from Belarus to Kyiv. Men like Sukhovetsky have an outsized presence on the battlefield. Theyre inspirational. Their personal leadership at the point of the spear often means the difference between victory and defeat during the fast-paced controlled violence of war. His loss would be devastating to his men and to the organizational momentum of the forces he commanded.

That Sukhovetsky was killed by a sniper suggests that he was personally trying to regain the initiative against Ukrainian forces who had fought him to a standstill.

The second report of merit is the heavy damage sustained in the town of Irpin on the northwest border of Kyivs city limits. The damage to this city suggests a major battle an effort by the Russians to breakthrough. They didnt.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Battle of Bucha. Ukrainian forces claimed the recapture of Bucha hours after the devastation visited on Irpin. The timing is important here. The Russians tried and failed to take Irpin and then the Ukrainians retook Bucha two miles to the northwest of Irpin.

These events, combined with the nearby loss of Sukhovetsky, a two-star general, suggest a reversal of fortune for the Russians in the drive thats come closest to Kyiv and, most importantly, threatens Kyivs logistics links to the west.

Of significance, Ukrainian success at Bucha put their Stinger antiaircraft missiles within range of Antonov International Airport, formerly the home of the worlds largest aircraft, until it was destroyed in fighting days ago. This means that Russia will no longer be able to safely fly cargo into the airport as Buchas town center is only two miles south of the airport, well within the Stingers 5-mile range.

Yet, hours after Buchas apparent recapture, there were widespread reports of Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers ranging further to the west and south of Kyiv, likely probing for weak spots in the Ukrainian defense in the direction of Zhytomyr, about 100 miles to the west of Kyiv, after being rebuffed on the most direct route to the capital city.

Lastly, as more and more Ukrainians mobilize and join local defense units, the regular Ukrainian Army and their reserve forces will be freer to maneuver to counterattack the invading Russians with a greater degree of confidence knowing that the militia has secured the cities.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, special assistant for foreign affairs in the Reagan-era Pentagon, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. He's the author of two books, "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," and "China Attacks," a novel.

Originally posted here:

Ukrainians Rebound In Northwest Battle Of Bucha - The Federalist

WASHINGTON, DC Washingtons mask mandate ended Tuesday morning.

It had been nearly two years, and on its final day, stood as one of the countrys last remaining hold-outs. Texas, in contrast, had ended theirs a full year before while a number of states across the country never even had one at all.

But back in Washington Tuesday morning, a public school employee closed the door in the face of a five-year-old boy who hadnt brought his mask. It was 39 degrees outside.

Next door, military vehicles idled, while soldiers, policemen, and city workers stood watch on the roads. That very night, just five blocks away, both houses of Congress would be convening to hear the presidents annual address to the nation free from arbitrary Covid restrictions.

When the date for the speech was announced in January, no one knew what Covid rules Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would demand. As February began, she told the Republican minority leader she might cap the number of guests at 50 masked.

The politics, however, were already shifting. By mid-February, Democratic governors were pulling back from a hard Covid line by the dozen. The polls were back; the people were done, and a near-empty chamber of masked 80-years-olds would not do.

And so, Pelosi announced Feb. 17, all members of Congress would be invited to the speech. Eleven days later, she said masks would no longer be required.

The show would go on, and the speaker would go maskless. Of course, she clarified, shed have been wearing one if shed had any young children at home.

At first glance, that last statement makes no sense at 81 years old, Pelosi is 140 times more likely to die of Covid than any child. But the speakers line had an audience: The woman guarding the door against errant preschoolers as shed done every day since school finally reopened.

The governors flipped first. They read the polls among even their own voters, and decided to largely end their emergency measures.

The White House was not quick to follow suit; but while moving slowly on ending the emergency, did at least manage to sideline television doom diva Anthony Fauci, keeping him from causing trouble for their governors.

The Congress was next, just freeing up its own members in the past few days.

The teachers unions, however, remain stubborn. Even in many states that have freed adults from all walks from Covid restrictions, children the weakest politically, and the least vulnerable to Covid continue to suffer for no reason other than the teachers unions refusal to yield.

The political damage is real, but even with parents forming opposition voting blocs from Richmond to San Francisco, Democrats have failed to repeal these new powers and controls from the jealous unions. From pay raises to four-day weeks, to banning parents from the premises, to complete and total control over the breathing of little kids, the unions have won many concessions and they arent in any mood to surrender any.

On Tuesday afternoon, D.C. Public Schools sent parents an email. They were making progress against Covid, they crowed, so the kids would be allowed to take their masks off outside.

What goal post had they reached? One hundred and seventy-four positive cases out of 46,000. That is 0.3 percent falling far below even the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions benchmark for continued restrictions.

That evening, as children played outside in their masks, an employee confidently told one mother she hadnt heard anything about any policy change.

Tomorrow morning, as the temperatures hover around 40 degrees, a five-year-old boy will be forced to stand in the cold until he puts on a mask; left out in the cold, with the rest of the children.

Link:

Democrats Have A Teachers Union Problem - The Federalist

Fifty years ago this week, President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique with the Peoples Republic of China. It was a bold act of statecraft that helped drive a wedge between Communist China and the Soviet Union.

For most of the Cold War, the United States had a clear and guiding mission: defeat the Soviet Union and communism, divide our enemies, and protect our allies. Today, the enemies of the United States have taken on the reverse mission: defeat Western democracy, divide the United States and her allies, and protect autocracies.

The Sino-Russian alliance and the regimes they prop up from Caracas to Tehran form a dangerously formidable opponent. It is vital that our elected leaders meet that challenge. Sadly, they are far from meeting that task.

As a candidate for president, Joe Biden promised he would mend our supposedly broken alliances, bring the adults back in charge, stand up to Russia by arming Ukraine, and make America more prosperous. Across all these accounts, he has failed.

Biden has isolated our allies and partners in the Middle East so badly they would not even vote with us at the United Nations to condemn Russias invasion of Ukraine. His administration repeatedly blocked and stalled military assistance to Ukraine, and only promised Stinger missiles to them last week after dovish countries like Germany and the Netherlands had already committed them as well. Inflation is higher than its been in 40 years and gas prices are on the rise even further.

As my former boss, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has stated many times, each administration governs with guiding principles for its foreign policy. For the Trump administration, it was America First. This is the lens through which we viewed all foreign policy decisions: what was best for the American people?

It led to enormous and transformative victories around the world: four peace deals brokered in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. The worlds most deadly terrorists, ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Soleimani, were taken off the battlefield forever. Our diplomatic pressure campaign against the Chinese Communist Partys covert 5G espionage program, Huawei, reduced that threat.

For President Biden, however, his foundation is climate change and the supposed restoration of American standing in the world. That has led to a first-year track record on national security that is nothing less than abysmal. Because of repeated capitulations across the world, our enemies no longer fear us a catastrophic development made evident by revelations that Iran is daring to plot kidnapping and assassination plots against American citizens on our own soil.

Within four months of Biden taking office, Hamas was attacking Israel; after seven months, Kabul fell to the Taliban; and within 13 months, we have the first major ground war in Europe since 1945. Today, we are on the brink of losing our democratic partner, Ukraine, to a power-hungry dictator.

The Biden administrations strategy to prevent the war from taking place was laughable. Their approach relied on scaring Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin with the threat of undisclosed sanctions when Biden had already folded on Nord Stream 2 and New START, and had failed to respond to the Russian hack of the Colonial Pipeline. Biden sought to deter Russia from invading and failed. Now Canada and the Europeans are picking up the slack who would have guessed wed be taking cues from them?

These are just a sampling of the failings weve seen in Bidens first year. Without a fundamental change, what do the next three years look like? We could see China mount a deadly invasion of Taiwan. North Korea could use nuclear extortion to change the status quo on the Korean peninsula. Iran could cross the nuclear threshold and hold the Middle East and Israel hostage to its threats. Our top generals have already warned that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are likely to regain their ability to strike outside of Afghanistan in the coming months.

Putin will be listed in history next to other evil men, from Adolf Hitler to Mao Zedong to Joseph Stalin. He only respects the language of power, and he is fluent in every form of deception. But President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken were naive enough to believe that Putin could be dissuaded solely through rhetoric and the weak threat of sanctions.

Importantly, they lack a critical skill in national security officials: the ability to understand, predict, and disrupt the devious plots of our enemies. Just two weeks ago, Blinken repeatedly lamented that he did not understand why Putin would attack Ukraine when he could work on combatting climate change instead. Read that again: our own secretary of state admitted he cant understand how our adversaries think.

The mounting disasters are not just a coincidence or bad luck they are a direct consequence of individuals who believe misguided ideologies that oppose American exceptionalism, American power, and the fact that America has been the greatest source for peace and prosperity in the history of the world. When you cant stand up for America at home, you will never stand up for her abroad.

Were in a new era of hard power where autocrats dont care if we post pictures of solidarity or hashtags for days on Twitter. Biden and his team need to get serious. Only strength will deter these regimes, which is why it is so vital we continue the task of rebuilding our military strength and nuclear abilities.

Heres a scary fact: the United States has not designed or built a new nuclear warhead since the end of the Cold War, and we no longer have the infrastructure to create new nuclear weapons. The average age of the nuclear warheads in our stockpile is over 25 years older than most of the soldiers tasked with operating the weapons.

Today, China has the worlds largest standing ground forces, the largest navy and coast guard, the largest sub-strategic missile force, and the largest air force in the Indo-Pacific. Russia has been serially cheating on its nuclear treaty obligations, under which China isnt even constrained. Despite such rising threats, Bidens defense budget request for this year was the equivalent of a 5 percent cut after accounting for inflation. How is the United States supposed to deter Russia and China when our leaders apply the disastrous logic of defund the police to our military?

Despite Bidens repeated failings, he has doubled down on the ideology and outlook that led us to the abdication of American power. He has not evaluated his failings and changed course. His next major blunder may be if he inks a proposed nuclear deal with Iran that would provide the regime a rapid path to a nuclear weapon and $90 billion in no-strings-attached sanctions relief.

Biden needs to change course and can only do so through new leadership in his national security team. But there have been no firings except of an Army colonel who dared speak out about the failed approach in Afghanistan.

Recently, a top State Department diplomat working on Iran negotiations was pushed out for disagreeing with the pending capitulation to the regimes nuclear extortion in Vienna. Biden needs to stop the leadership decay in his administration and hes got to stop listening to the nave lackeys who are pushing the few good men out.

One of the greatest differences between democracies like the United States and autocracies like Putins Russia is that our elected officials are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. We evaluate our leaders by their results and hold them accountable when they cant perform.

By any measure, Biden and his top foreign policy officials have failed the American people. They should resign their offices. If they do not, the American people must vote them out. That starts this November by electing new leaders to Congress who will hold the Biden administration accountable and restore American leadership and strength.

Morgan D. Ortagus is a candidate for Tennessees 5th congressional district and was former President Donald Trumps spokesperson at the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021.

See original here:

We've Got Three More Years Of Biden Making The World More Dangerous - The Federalist

One of the most consistently fun, annoying, and frustrating things about being a retired military intelligence officer is how frequently random military vehicles get called tanks. Look, I know, tanks are kind of cool, I get it; I spent a lot of time in them in my career, starting with this vintage M60A1 at Ft. Bliss, Texas. But not everything painted with camouflage that can move is a main battle tank.

So, what are we seeing north of Kyiv that the media has been fixated on for the last several days? What does it mean? Is it a harbinger of the expected siege and fall of Kyiv 1,000 tanks and artillery pieces? Or is it something else?

You can tell much about the point of view of the reporter covering this column of vehicles by the degree of alarm accorded it. But the satellite photos, called overhead imagery by intelligence fossils like myself, released by Maxar Technologies show mostly trucks with some local security.

That theyve been on the road now for as long as four days tells a lot about the operation they are supporting, the terrain, and the leadership and training of the force.

When an intelligence officer regards the terrain on which he is to provide advice to his commander, he conducts a thorough analysis, looking that the size and quality of roads, the capabilities of bridges, chokepoints, and the corridors in which combat vehicles can tactically maneuver.

The roughly 80-mile route from the Belarus-Ukraine border from the Chernobyl salient to Kyiv on the western side of the Dnieper River runs over a secondary asphalt road. This road frequently crosses rivers, runs through small villages, or is bordered on both sides by the eastern extent of the mighty Pripyat Marsh the geographical feature which defines the border between Ukraine and Belarus.

The road is not able to support a large military force, even if unopposed in an exercise, especially during the spring and fall months during a time the locals call Rasputitsa the mud season. Unfortunately for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his military commanders, Ukrainian soil never froze solid this winter, so the fall Rasputitsa is still a factor.

This is why there have been so many photos coming out from the conflict that show all manner of Russian military vehicles bogged down in the mud. As soon as a vehicle on a narrow road becomes disabled or is destroyed in combat, or as the vehicles maneuver off-road in response to combat, they risk becoming mired. Even if they dont get stuck in the mud, they end up consuming far more fuel that must be delivered to them than they would were the ground frozen solid.

Thus, that 40-mile-long column of tanks is more likely mostly trucks carrying fuel, ammunition, and food to the advanced forces of the Russian 20th Combined Arms Army on the outskirts of Kyiv. That this column hasnt apparently moved much may mean that the Russian forces just north of Kyiv are running low on basic supplies.

This greatly increases the importance for the Russian army to achieve success to the east of Kyiv where the road network is far more developed and, if the terrain is captured and secured, capable of bringing in the volume of supplies needed to properly surround Kyiv and place it under siege.

In the meantime, the forces near Kyiv may be vulnerable to a Ukrainian counterattack. While some of the Russian conscript soldiers and even the veteran contract troops may be more likely to surrender due to low morale exacerbated by a lack of food and fuel.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, special assistant for foreign affairs in the Reagan-era Pentagon, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. He's the author of two books, "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," and "China Attacks," a novel.

Here is the original post:

Russian 'Tanks' Outside Kyiv Are Probably Not What You Think They Are - The Federalist

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine stretches into its second week, and Moscows tactics shift to the direct targeting of urban centers and civilian populations, the United States and our European allies are facing tough questions about how much assistance to give the Ukrainians without becoming belligerents or being considered belligerents by Russia and thus widening the war.

As I write, Russian forces are laying siege to cities across Ukraine, contesting vital ports, and targeting civilians and critical infrastructure. The bombardment of Kharkiv, Ukraines second-largest city, has left at least dozens dead and hundreds more injured. Russian troops are now in control of Kherson, a major city in the south. The southern port city of Mariupol has been encircled, and the Russian attack there has cut power, water, and heat. Kyiv is under attack, and there are reports that Russia is preparing a major amphibious assault on Odessa.

Meanwhile, our leaders appear to be living in a fantasyland where their expressions of solidarity with Ukraine mean something tangible. Economic sanctions, the banning of Russian products from store shelves, the exclusion of Russian cats from cat shows, and theseizure of mega-yachts owned by Russian oligarchs, among other weak and inchoate responses from the West,are not going to stop Russian artillery and missiles from reducing Ukrainian cities to rubble in the coming days and weeks. The Ukrainians have fought bravely and inspired the world with their valor, but a new phase of the war is beginning, and Western leaders need to think seriously about whats coming, and how this will end.

To stop the Russian invasion, the Ukrainians need more from the West than economic sanctions and bans on Russian products. They need heavy weapons, munitions, air support, and real-time intelligence from Western powers, and they need these thingsright now. The NATO allies understand this, on some level, and are pouring weapons into Ukraine rocket launchers, Javelin antitank missiles, Stinger surface-to-air missiles, along with machine guns, sniper rifles, and ammunition.

But they arenot sending military aircraft, and they are not sending troops. The United States will not even impose sanctions on Russian oil or entertain the idea of ramping up domestic oil production to offset Russian imports. A White House flack told reporters aboard Air Force One this week: We dont have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy. So thats that.

The West, it seems, is trying to go right up to the line of belligerence without crossing it. Helping Ukraine, but not helping too much. For example, it appears that the U.S. issharing some targeting intelligencewith Ukraine but not real-time targeting of the kind that would enable Ukraine to take out individual Russian units.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who said Thursday morning on MSNBC that we are providing some intelligence to Ukraine, also said that real-time targeting would cross a line to marking us participating in the war. Hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki implied that we were not giving any targeting intelligence to Ukraine, whichprompted pushbackfrom Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who called Psakis comments truthy and that they do not capture the full reality.

Most likely, we are indeed providing targeting intelligence to Ukraine, but giving them the information only after a delay, so Russia cannot accuse us of assisting in the direct targeting of their forces.

Thats just one example of the needle Western powers are trying to thread. As the war goes on, and the fighting intensifies in and around Ukraines urban centers, the eye of that needle, so to speak, will get smaller and smaller. That means our leaders need to get serious about what they are prepared to do, and not do, in the defense of Ukraine. And they need to be clear with Ukraine and Russia about their intentions.

Right now, there is a galling lack of seriousness and clarity among them. On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took to Twitter to call for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as if thats a realistic option to end the crisis and avert catastrophe in Ukraine.

His comment follows other reckless comments in recent days from U.S. lawmakers and former generals calling for NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean NATO warplanes shooting down Russian warplanes. It would mean open war with Russia. Thats precisely what some neocons in Washington want,for reasons of their own, but its not something the vast majority of Americans want.

Here is the hard truth: If the West is not going to send warplanes and troops, if we are not going to stop Russias invasion of Ukraine by force of arms, and by our inaction allow the bombardment of Ukrainian cities to proceed, then we need to be honest with the Ukrainians about that. We owe it to them to give them a realistic picture of what they can expect from us, and what they cannot expect. Indeed, we owe them a great deal more, but we at least owe them that.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is understandably trying to get NATO involved in the war. He is doing what any leader should do in his position, and he will likely go down in history for his courage and bravery in the face of the enemy. But if there is an off-ramp that might prevent what now appears to be the inevitable reduction of Ukraine to rubble, then Western leaders should not block it with bellicose talk and weak half-measures. We have had quite enough of both. Indeed, there wereopportunities for the West to prevent this war, to persuade Moscow and Kyiv to negotiate a settlement, going back years. But in our fecklessness, we chose not to and instead kept talking tough and hoping for the best.

Now that Russia has entered this new phase of the war, the worst thing we could do for the Ukrainians would be to give them false hope as Russian forces close in, and then do nothing while their cities burn. If we will not do whats necessary to stop Russia by force, then we should do what we can, right now, to broker a negotiated peace.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Read more here:

If The West Won't Stop Putin By Force, It Should Help Negotiate Peace - The Federalist

House Democrats shot down legislation to reclaim energy independence on Tuesday hours before President Joe Biden offered a rallying cry for his administrations climate agenda.

The American Energy Independence from Russia Act introduced by the House Energy and Commerce Committees ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., was rejected primarily along partisan lines 221 to 202. Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz was the sole member of the lower chamber to cross the aisle, joining Democrats in opposition with objections over new leases along his states coast.

America, not Russia, is the worlds number one energy producer, Rodgers said on the House floor advocating for her legislation. We should act like it and lead. President Biden must restore American energy dominance and use energy resources to help Ukraine and Europe fight back.

The bills partisan failure comes less than a week after Russia, a global energy producer supplying more than 10 percent of the worlds oil, launched its assault on Ukraine. Last year, the United States doubled its imports of Russian crude and took in more than 400,000 barrels on average daily in December, the last month for which data is available from the Energy Information Administration.

Oil and gas revenues, meanwhile, fund Moscows war machine as Russias largest exports, allowing President Vladimir Putin to weaponize his countrys monopoly on Western energy. Last year, Russia generated $119 billion from its energy resources, according toreportingby Reuters citing Russias Finance Ministry.

The United States is forecast by the Energy Department to remain a net importer of oil under Biden as the White House works to suppress domestic production in the name of climate change. Biden reiterated his commitment to phase out fossil fuels with unreliable forms of renewable energy in his prime-time address to Congress on Tuesday night despite driving energy costs to seven-year highs.

The enthusiastic forfeiture of American energy independence has removed a key economic lever to sanction Russia for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which has led to a humanitarian crisis as hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees have fled the violence.

Tuesdays failed legislation sought to counter Russias energy influence and Ukrainian aggression by unleashing American production to lower oil prices and displace Russian imports. The bill reauthorized the Keystone XL Pipeline axed by Biden on his first day in office, which transported more than double the oil imported from Russia in December. The legislation also mandated the resumption of leases for oil and gas drilling on federal land. Biden quietly paused leases again last month through a legal maneuver, contesting rules governing the social cost of carbon calculations.

If it had passed, the Republican bill also would have required the administration to release a plan on energy security within 30 days and replace oil reserves withdrawn from the emergency stockpile. On Tuesday, Biden announced the U.S. would tap 30 million of its 590 million barrels of strategic petroleum reserves maintained for emergencies. The reserves are authorized to hold up to 714 million barrels.

In November, Biden ordered the release of 60 million barrels ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday, which is about three days worth of daily oil consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats Torpedo Legislation Aimed To Reclaim Energy Independence - The Federalist

The National Football League (NFL) announced Thursday players and staff would no longer be required to follow dystopian procedures implemented to track and isolate the novel Wuhan coronavirus.

In a memo sent to all 32 teams, the league said it came to an agreement with the NFL Players Association to suspend all aspects of the joint COVID-19 Protocols, effective immediately.

Should there be a reason to impose aspects of the Protocols or to take other measures, we will work closely with clubs, the NFLPA and our respective experts, and local, state and federal public health officials to continue to safeguard the health of the NFL community, the league added.

The drop of procedures comes as U.S. cases and hospitalizations plummet from their fifth wave peak of more than 1.4 million new cases a day and a seven-day average of more than 150,000 hospitalizations in January. The U.S. reported just more than 58,000 new cases and a daily average of just more than 8,700 in ICUs on March 2, according to The New York Times, as the nation finally transitions into a state living with the virus as opposed to trying to eliminate the airborne pathogen.

Players who didnt follow the Covid regimen prescribed by government officials found themselves mired in faux scandal. Last fall, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers tested positive for the coronavirus after he remained unvaccinated to the ire of left-wing football fans.

Meanwhile fans, including prominent politicians ordering citizens to adhere to mask mandates, had already dropped compliance with mass Covid protocols. Last month, thousands of fans packed Californias SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles for the Super Bowl, skirting mask rules despite local mandates still in place.

L.A.s Democrat Mayor Eric Garcetti was among them even after catching flak for flouting his citys mask mandate at the same stadium days earlier in a picture with former Lakers legend Magic Johnson.

Garcetti excused himself for the infraction, claiming he was holding his breath, before he was caught maskless again at the Super Bowl.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

More here:

NFL Lifts Covid Restrictions After Using Them To Harass Aaron Rodgers, Others - The Federalist

Russias invasion of Ukraine should be a wake-up call for the sleeping European Union countries getting fat and lazy under Americas cozy security blanket. But it should also be a wake-up call for Americans who care about the U.S. military, because that security blanket is being pulled apart by the far-left.

War is the continuation of policy by other means, and how a country fights is a reflection of its domestic politics. If the left is allowed to control Americas military, well soon be defended by social justice snowflakes, armed with weak sanctions and copies of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Gen. Jim Mattis is right: the United States isnt predestined to win the next war. Thankfully, Ukraine isnt our war; 20 years of recent American bloodshed was enough. But one day our backs might be against the wall and we may not have a military capable of winning. While Washington has been obsessed with gender and race, Moscow and Beijing have been building armies undistracted by political correctness.

And I promise you that this woke obsession is going to cost lives, because mortars dont pick between people when they explode and projectiles dont care about skin color or genitalia. When bullets start ricocheting off Humvee doors, all the B.S. you think matters goes right out the window. In that moment, all that counts are the lives of the men and women around you.

If youve experienced combat, you know why theres no room for wokeism in the military. Its completely contradictory to mission success. What matters on the battlefield is the diversity of your firepower, not the diversity of your personnel.

My generation of veterans proves that the answer to race in the military is to judge people on merit, not identity. We just spent two decades risking life, limb, and eyesight fighting a war together; skin color, religion, and identity were irrelevant. We celebrated diversity by maintaining high standards.

I fought side by side with Afghans and Iraqis. While they bickered over tribal differences, their race, creed, and color werent a factor when I selected fighting forces from among them. Americans dont care about tribal differences, because were are all one tribe.

But thats not what our soldiers are being told. Instead, critical race theory is pitting our men and women in uniform against each another and the very country for which they fight. Its hurting unit cohesion and damaging mission success.

You cant go to war if you dont believe in your countrys values. You cant enforce American foreign policy at the point of a black rifle if you doubt its virtue. And you cant defend the person next to you if you think they are your oppressor because of their skin color.

The far-left is forcing the same social engineering in the military that they force into everything else. When you select warfighters for anything other than capability, youre going to get people killed.

Whats to prevent the military academies from taking race into account when admitting cadets? What happens to retention if some of the best noncoms are denied entry to the senior leader course because theyre the wrong color? What happens to combat effectiveness if theres a race-based points system during Special Forces selection?

To most Americans, especially in the military community, this would be plain stupid. Not only is it morally wrong but, despite what youve been told, most Americans arent racists: we still believe in Martin Luther King Jr. and we want a color-blind society.

The military is one of the institutions that has historically helped to achieve Kings dream. Thats because its a forcing function, putting every kind of American in situations where each must succeed together regardless of his identity. The best business school in the country isnt Harvard or Yales, its the U.S. military, teaching on campuses from Parris Island to Fort Bragg.

As a result, veterans provide a pool of talented leaders who contribute to their communities, uninterested in ideology. If youre trying to complete a mission or turn a profit, you just want the best people.

This is why the far-left is gunning for our soldiers. In only one recent example, the U.S. Department of Defense saw fit to tweet an article telling soldiers that woke ideas like equity are necessities. Theyre destroying the military in order to change our domestic culture and in doing so, theyre jeopardizing our ability to win wars.

Everyone who loves America should take the wake-up call of the Ukraine invasion very seriously. Despite the Biden administrations wishful thinking, war is unfortunately part of the human condition. When the next one comes, our military needs to be made up of the most talented warfighters available, not people picked on the basis of their identity.

They need to know that they are doing the right thing, on behalf of a good and just United States. And they need a president who has the backbone to say so.

Evan Hafer is a former Army Special Forces soldier and CIA contractor. He is currently CEO of Black Rifle Coffee.

Read the original:

Diversity And Equity In The US Military Endangers National Security - The Federalist