What the President Really Meant

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Words matter, it’s often said, but especially so when they come from the mouth of the man who, by most measures, is the most powerful head of state on earth and the nominal leader of the free world. So when it’s deemed necessary by his handlers, none of whom were elected by the voters, to define what President Joe Biden’s fairly straightforward words really meant, not once but three times during a trip to Europe while a vicious war was raging on the continent, that’s cause for some concern. One might fairly ask “Who is really running things in the executive branch of government?”

                What the president actually said in Poland was “For God’s sake, this man (Vladimir Putin) cannot remain in power.” Seems pretty clear to me what he meant and I’m inclined to agree with him but then I don’t get to make foreign policy. Who does these days, I wonder? Mr. Biden has called Putin a butcher, which is an insult to the meat-cutting trade, a thug and a war criminal. He’ll get no argument from me, nor from most Americans, I suspect, not to mention Ukrainians. But the United States does not, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “have a strategy of regime change in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter. Well, why not? Mr. Putin certainly sought regime change when he invaded Ukraine and I’m pretty sure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky would be pleased to see regime change in Moscow.

                The reasons given for the U.S. policy against seeking regime change include concern that it could further provoke the Russian dictator who already tells his people that the U.S. is to blame for the war and is out to get him, concern that this could cause the Russian people to rally in further support of Putin who still retains a high favorability rating and, most importantly, concern that it could negatively affect or delay a peace settlement. But why would anyone want to negotiate with a thug and a war criminal? (A butcher, perhaps, given the price of meat.)

                Mr. Blinken also said that “In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country in question, it’s up to the Russian people.” Perhaps, then, they should be told the truth for a change about the horrors and atrocities Putin’s invading armies have inflicted on the Ukrainians, including targeting civilian apartment complexes, schools, maternity hospitals and other medical facilities and evacuees just trying to flee the attacks as reasons why we should not be a party to or endorse any negotiations with him. One might add that he is also a liar and cannot be trusted to keep his word. Whether or not Putin withdraws his troops from Ukraine or they are driven out, the crimes have already been committed and he will remain a war criminal. The sanctions therefore should remain in place as long as he remains in power in any official capacity.

                Mr. Biden’s words were apparently off-script and brought on by emotion. But what is needed from the leader of the free word is cool leadership, not emotion. We had enough of that from his predecessor. Having to be frequently corrected by his staffers does not instill confidence in his leadership. Mr. Biden too often tends to be a follower rather than a leader, usually acting only when pressured to do so. An official familiar with the speech said that “The president’s point was that Putin could not be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors in the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.” Uh-huh.

                These gaffes are happening much too often. During the same trip to Europe, he was reported as saying that if Putin uses chemical weapons, we will respond in kind. But it is not our policy to use chemical weapons under any circumstances. A conversation he had with U.S troops implied that they might be sent to Ukraine. We have said repeatedly and emphatically that they won’t. In October, he replied to a question from a reporter regarding how we would respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by saying that we were obligated to defend Taiwan. The official U.S. policy, if it can be called a policy, regarding Taiwan is, unwisely in my view, one of “strategic ambiguity.”

                Mr. Biden has strayed off- script in speeches and has deviated from stated U.S. policy requiring clarification from members of his administration often enough to raise questions about what some of the policies actually are, who decides what they are and who decides what he meant to say. As many of us who are old enough to have lived through dangerous times know, these are exceptionally dangerous times and it is essential that we speak with one clear voice in matters of international relations and defense. Confidence in Mr. Biden’s leadership in these matters is low and foreign relations was supposed to be his strong suit. There are almost three years of his term remaining and they will be challenging and test his endurance. He doesn’t appear to have a particularly strong bench to back him up. He needs to surround himself with advisors who are better able to keep him informed about what he should be saying and doing.

March 31, 2022

The Wages of War

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The threat of sanctions didn’t work to stop Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine. He apparently weighed the consequences and decided that returning Ukraine to Moscow’s orbit was worth the risks. President Joe Biden, after all, had assured him that the United States and NATO would not engage him in armed conflict and that the sanctions would be proportionate. The consequences of that fateful decision are now displayed nightly on TV to the horror and outrage of millions but there likely is much more to come besides the carnage and destruction in Ukraine.

                Ukraine, one of the original Soviet Socialistic Republics, was not only the breadbasket of the former Soviet Union, it was a leading producer of grains, fertilizers and agricultural chemicals for much of the world. Nearly three quarters of the country is arable land. The land is exceptionally fertile and productive. Agriculture is the leading contributor to the nation’s economy. Together with Russia it supplies about one-third of the entire world’s wheat supply and Ukraine alone provides about 14% of global maize exports. But Putin’s artillery and tanks have inflicted severe damage to farms and farm machinery and Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian Black Sea ports has all but ended the export of grains, fertilizers and agricultural chemicals. This season’s entire crop is reportedly threatened.

                This is not of minor consequence to the nations, many of them poor, who rely on these imports for food. And it will have a major effect on food prices in general, including the price of meat since grains are used to feed livestock. Food prices, along with the price increases for fuel, are fueling skyrocketing inflation. For the wealthy nations, this may be just a major inconvenience but for the poorer nations it may mean famine, malnutrition and death. Russia is also a major exporter of grains and other agricultural products and its food exports will be limited by the sanctions and increased risks to shipping resulting in higher insurance costs which will be reflected in food prices. As a result of these things, hundreds of thousands of people in developing countries may suffer from malnutrition and starvation. Such are some of the global consequences of Putin’s war.

                We have facilitated Putin’s willingness to take risks by telling him what we will not do and that our sanctions would be proportionate to his actions. But what sanctions are truly proportionate, given the atrocities that his military forces have inflicted on civilians and the harm they have caused globally? President Biden has labeled him a war criminal. Shouldn’t that raise the ceiling on proportionality and cause us to remove some of the restrictions we have imposed upon ourselves such as, for example, denying Ukraine those Polish MiGs?

                There are likely more serious consequences to come. Putin’s misadventure and miscalculation has forced him to seek closer alliance with Beijing which unites China, the world’s most populous nation, second largest and fastest growing economy and possessor of the world’s largest navy, with Russia, the world’s largest nation in area, rich with minerals and oil and possessor of the world’s largest and most modern nuclear arsenal. It is not an altogether natural alliance, but they are each united in seeking to end America’s domination and influence as the world’s largest economy and superpower. If they are successful, life in America will change in ways that we can only imagine.

                In the coming competition between these nuclear-armed alliances, armed conflict between the two can and must be prevented. This will require that we maintain an effective and credible deterrence, meaning a defense posture of overwhelming power sufficient enough to convince an aggressor that they could not possibly defeat us and to attack us would mean their own immediate destruction. To avoid miscalculation, our red lines and vital interests must be clearly defined and our leadership must at all times convey convincingly to all that we would not hesitate to use any means to defend those interests.

                We have significant advantages in this competition including a stronger economy, superior technology and innovation in most areas and superior research and development. But our open and free society is exploited by our enemies and our political polarization is a huge disadvantage. Our administrations come and go and with them, policies and agreements. Our leaders seem to be perpetually in campaign mode. Our system of replacing leaders seems doomed, as The Wall Street Journal’s Walter Russel Mead so aptly put it, to perpetually oscillate between conservatives and liberals. Where are the real moderates and independents? Most Americans identify with the center of the political spectrum, not the extremes.

                  Peace and freedom do not come cheaply. Maintaining a credible deterrence is expensive and providing enough funding for it will require much more bi-partisanship and continuity of planning as administrations change than we’ve seen in decades. This must change if we are to prevail in this competition between America and its allies and the new communist axis and it will take strong, wise and resolute leadership to effect this change.  In the competition for limited funds, defense must now take priority because of what’s at stake.

March 25, 2022

The War on Fossil Fuels

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                It is time to call for a truce, if not for an end, to the war on fossil fuels, spearheaded by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party and led by chief climate warrior, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry is President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, a position in search of a real job description. He recently expressed concern, while thousands were dying in Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin’s war might have an adverse effect on his war on fossil fuels. Perhaps it should.

                Let’s be clear at the outset: I am not a climate change denier or an enemy of Mother Nature. I want a habitable earth for everyone’s grandkids. I just don’t want our kids or anyone else to suffer unnecessarily from serious energy shortages because of feel-good policies that may not make any real difference. I do want to see us move sensibly and responsibly to more use of renewable energy and do what we reasonably can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that may contribute to climate change. I’ll listen to scientists who know much more about climate change than I ever will. The problem for me, however, is trying to figure out which ones to believe and which are just motivated by political bias.

                By way of full disclosure, John Kerry served under me in the navy and was an outstanding, intelligent young division officer at the time. I have no doubt that he is motivated by the noblest of intentions to save the world from global warming but I wish that the president would spend less time listening to him and more time focusing on real wars like Vladimir Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine, preparing for the risk of conflict with the new axis of China and Russia, the roaring inflation led by surging fuel prices that ordinary Americans say is now their number one concern and restoring America to its position as the world’s leading producer and exporter of energy.

                Those surging fuel prices are not, as the president alleged, primarily caused by the war in Ukraine, but rather by his own misguided policies on drilling, fracking, pipeline and refinery construction and the construction of additional liquid natural gas (LNG) processing facilities and export terminals. Clean burning natural gas has contributed more to reducing carbon emissions and reducing air pollution than all the renewable energy projects combined, The U.S. has enough to supply our needs for at least a century with enough more to export to energy-starved Europe and elsewhere. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, however, recently announced a new pipeline review policy that will likely stop most projects and the White House continues to block new drilling on federal lands and in Alaska. States led by Democrats have joined in on supporting restrictions.

                A Harris Poll recently found that 70% of respondents said that the administration should “ease its focus on climate change and allow more oil and gas exploration.” They clearly want more affordable and reliable energy and less dependence on fickle wind and sunshine to power grids and heavily-subsidized green energy products like electric cars. Failure to heed these concerns will certainly be exploited by Republicans in the coming mid-term elections and should be.

                Mr. Biden seems blind to these realities. He recently warned oil producers against price gouging, revealing startling ignorance regarding the global nature of the oil market and its pricing mechanisms, over which oil producers have little control. They can, of course, control production but are often unwilling to do so to reduce prices given the uncertainties, including rumors, that can affect prices and profit. In the U.S., for example, 62% of the 734 oil and gas wells in use are operated by privately-owned companies, not big oil. They are not in business to lose money or to save the planet. Most gas stations also are independently-owned, not company-owned. This business is noted for its boom-or-bust nature and price volatility. Add to the many uncertainties, the constant pressure from climate warriors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

                We could be doing much more to ease Europe’s energy crisis and prevent future dependance on Russian energy by exporting more LNG than we already are from our seven terminals on the Gulf Coast but we simply need more pipelines, more processing facilities, more terminals and more tankers. Mr. Biden appears more beholden than ever to the progressive wing of his party whose support he needed to get elected and to get much of anything done. The progressives seem to believe that anything that comes out of the ground, except of course, what is needed to manufacture batteries and solar panels, is evil. The latter have a substantial carbon footprint of their own, by the way. However, most of the world’s inhabitants, including those billions in China and India, the world’s two most populous nations and the developing nations of Africa, Asia and South America, will be dependent upon oil and coal for decades to come, whether we like it or not. Without dependable energy, millions could suffer and die.

                Its time to accept these realities while working on ways to produce cleaner energy. And the reality is that we will need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we should encourage increased use of clean natural gas, stop the futile war on fossil fuels and restore America’s position as the world’s leading producer and exporter of energy.

March 18, 2022

The New Axis Alliance

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Much of the world watches in outrage the horrific TV images that daily portray the brutality of Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. Helpless civilians are being slaughtered and cities devastated. Targets include homes, apartment complexes and even hospitals including a maternity hospital. Even civilians trying to flee have been targeted by Putin’s soldiers, many of whom are young, inexperienced and apparently quite unprepared for the fierce resistance they face from Ukrainian defenders they were told would welcome them as brothers.

                Denied the quick victory he had expected, Putin appears determined to continue inflicting the carnage, hoping that the Ukrainians finally lose their will or capacity to continue organized resistance. He is too committed now to back down and he must achieve some sort of victory to justify the huge cost of his miscalculation. That may well mean some sort of partitioning of the country and assurance of neutrality on the part of what would be left of free Ukraine. There are limits to the amount of slaughter and destruction a country can be expected to endure, even with the free world and media cheering them on from the safety of the sidelines.

                Media analysts and armchair strategists have opined that every day of brave Ukrainian resistance is a victory for freedom and a defeat for Putin. It is no such thing. Mr. Putin has little left to lose but Ukraine has many precious lives yet to lose and homes and infrastructure left to be destroyed. There will be no real winner in this savage war. Putin will be a pariah whatever the outcome and Ukraine will be in ruins.

                Western leaders and media talking heads speak glowingly about the newfound western unity, commitment and offers of aid. These things came too late to avert the invasion and save Ukraine from the immense destruction that has already occurred. The sanctions did not deter Putin from invading. They are now simply punitive actions that may punish the free world as much as the Russians who have historically shown a willingness to tolerate hardships and in any event, they won’t affect Putin unless they lead to a successful revolt against him. We impose them because we said we would and we don’t have many other options without some risk of provoking an armed conflict with a desperate dictator who controls the world’s largest and most updated nuclear arsenal. In retrospect, the sanctions should have been imposed as soon as Putin massed troops on Ukraine’s borders. It’s not as though his intentions were much of a mystery.

                The sanctions will hurt the free world and not just because of oil and natural gas prices and the pain at the pump. Russian oil accounts for only 4-8% of our petroleum imports and that oil will find other buyers among energy-starved nations like China and India, the world’s two most populated countries. Putin doesn’t really care who pays for it. Media babel about every dollar spent buying Russian oil is used to kill Ukrainians reveals the startling degree of ignorance regarding the global nature of the oil market and its pricing methods. President Joe Biden has blamed surging gasoline prices on the war in Ukraine. But gas prices were already surging because of his restrictions on drilling, fracking, pipeline and refinery construction and the construction of more LNG processing and terminal facilities. We have an abundance of natural gas, enough to make up much of what Europe was importing from Russia, but even our plans to export more LNG to Europe are reportedly under review because of concerns from White House climate warriors like Climate Envoy John Kerry who worries that the war will interrupt his war on fossil fuels. Mr. Biden recently warned oil company executives against price gouging, again displaying ignorance of the factors used in determining gasoline and oil prices over which oil executives have only limited, if any, control.

                In addition to skyrocketing fuel prices, prices for food are surging as every family knows. They will continue to increase. Russia and Ukraine together provide nearly a third of global wheat exports and are a major source of other grains as well as fertilizers. Not surprisingly, world wheat prices have increased by half since the invasion and Russian blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Much of the world relies on these imports, Middle East countries in particular. Egypt, Turkey and Syria, for example, import 85% of their wheat from Ukraine and Russia.

                It’s always easy to second-guess, but it needs to be said that this war, like most, is a result of an historic failure of diplomacy. It’s been clear for many years that Vladimir Putin was intent on restoring most of the former Soviet empire to Moscow’s control. It was clear that he regarded NATO’s expansion, particularly to include the Baltic countries and other counties on his western border, as an encroachment and a threat to Russian dominance and even security. Talk of admitting Ukraine and Georgia was the final straw and led to the invasion of parts of each country including the annexation of Crimea, formerly a part of Russia and the base of its Black Sea Fleet. It defies common sense that some compromise and limits on NATO expansion could not have been worked out. Further, this administration and the NATO nations knew for months that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was coming. A massing of troops then in the NATO countries bordering Russia might have deterred Putin.

                Our policies toward Russia, including the obsession over the politically-motivated Russian collusion claims, may have contributed to Russia’s new alliance with China. This is the new axis aligned against us. Russia has the oil and grain that China needs. China has the economy and the money that Russia needs. Iran and North Korea will be happy to join as junior partners in the alliance against the United States and its allies. Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy and defense analyst Seth Cropsey, writing in the Wall Street journal, said that a war between the two alliances is all but inevitable. Let’s hope he’s wrong but I wouldn’t bet on it. The best way to prevent one will be to deploy the best defense money can buy as soon as possible and spend a lot less time and money on the war on fossil fuels.

March 13, 2022

Regulatory Nation

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Congress finally managed to pass a much-needed, bipartisan infrastructure bill which, while far from perfect, was a step in the right direction. It’s doubtful, however, that all the projects it calls for will ever get finished or perhaps even started. That’s because of the maze of regulatory restrictions, required approvals and opposition from various environmental and conservation groups that make it difficult to get much of anything built on time, on budget or even at all. So we can probably expect to continue reading about highways crumbling, bridges collapsing, pipes bursting and power outages.

                In this regard, America, despite all the blessings of democracy, faces obstacles to growth that our not-so-friendly rival on the other side of the Pacific does not in the competition to be the world’s dominant economy and superpower. We are a nation of regulations and restrictions, many that increase safety but also many that impede economic growth and progress, including progress in achieving environmental goals and cleaner energy. Some even pit environmental, climate and conservation advocate groups against one another. California, for example, has a water problem which could be addressed by constructing reservoirs, aqueducts and distilling plants. Try to get them built, however, given the permitting process and inevitable opposition from friends of the tortoise, least tern, fairy shrimp, delta smelt or other endangered species and plants.

                Opposition from the bird and bunny people delay or even deny some projects designed to promote clean energy usage like solar and wind farms, geothermal plants and nuclear facilities. California’s only remaining nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is scheduled to shut down in two years at least partly because of efforts to prevent harm to nearby fish eggs. Farmers in the once fertile Central Valley of California were denied water in deference to the needs of the delta smelt.

                Former President Donald Trump ended many of the restrictions that impeded business expansion and slowed recovery from the Great Recession during the Obama years. The result was rapid growth in business expansion and job creation including significant increases in minority hiring. President Joe Biden took office determined not only to restore the restrictions but to add to them. He stopped completion of the much-needed Keystone Pipeline which would have carried Canadian crude to our refining facilities on the Gulf Coast and halted some fracking and drilling on federal lands. Democrat governors added their restrictions, notably on fracking and the construction of pipelines and liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals. The United States, with abundant reserves of oil and natural gas, was poised to benefit from being the world’s largest producer and exporter of energy. Moreover, our transition from coal and oil to greater use of clean natural gas did more to reduce our carbon footprint and improve air quality than did all our windmill and solar farms combined, even when the wind was blowing and the sun was shining.

                Instead, Americans and Canadians are paying record prices for heating fuel and gasoline. Mr. Biden had to plead for OPEC nations to step up production of that despised oil in order to bring down prices. He waived sanctions on completion of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline from Russia to Germany. Suddenly, in the cold of winter, reality apparently sunk in and carbon-based fuels became not so evil after all. The Nord Steam 2 Pipeline certification is now suspended owing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine but its eventual completion could greatly increase Europe’s dependence on Russia for energy. We could have greatly alleviated that problem by supplying Europe with more LNG if only those pipelines and export facilities on the East Coast had been built. But that would have required anticipating future needs and would not have been consistent with the liberal narrative that anything that come out of the ground is evil. Does that include the rare earth and metals used to make lithium ion batteries that power all those electric cars? The manufacture of windmills, solar panels and storage batteries, it should be noted, are not without a substantial carbon footprint of their own. Speaking of electric cars, the huge auto transport vessel, Felicity Ace, with over 4,000 luxury cars onboard, some of them electric, caught fire enroute from Europe to Rhode Island and was abandoned. It and the autos will be a total loss and add to the lethal junk at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. The fire was apparently accelerated by the lithium batteries which may even have been the cause. It takes specialized equipment to deal with burning lithium batteries. No form of energy is risk-free.

Climate change activists, environmentalists and conservationists are, to be sure, well-intentioned and sincere in their beliefs that they are helping to save the world for our kids or at least make it more inhabitable. But they need to be more realistic and less certain that they have all the answers and the only answers. Even scientists are far from unanimous regarding these matters. One thing is certain: carbon-based energy will be needed for the foreseeable future, particularly in the developing nations still heavily dependent upon cheap coal. Fossil fuels and the electricity produced by fossil fuels has lifted millions out of poverty and saved countless lives. Converting gradually to cleaner fossil fuels or nuclear power with realistic timetables may be the best we can hope for until science provides us with more realistic solutions to climate control if, indeed, there is any way to control it, given its cyclical nature.

February 28, 2022

Putin Has Passed the Point of No Return

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The western world is inspired by Ukraine’s brave and fierce resistance to the Russian invasion. China’s leaders are watching carefully, hopefully learning, as they consider how they will proceed to gain control of Taiwan, that countries which have gained freedom and independence, are unlikely to surrender these things and exchange them for Communism without a fight to the end. Russia’s hopes for a quick victory and perhaps even a welcome from much of Ukraine’s population, which includes a large number of Russian speakers, were quickly dashed.

                But Vladimir Putin is determined to return the former jewel of the Soviet Union to Moscow’s orbit of influence, at least as a puppet state or perhaps partitioned, formalizing and making permanent Russian control of Crimea and the eastern Russian-speaking areas. Ukraine was the breadbasket and industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union and, along with Georgia, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, was the birthplace of numerous Russian leaders. And in spite of the unexpectedly strong resistance and his own armies’ logistical problems, he is much too committed now to accept complete failure and there is no convenient exit ramp. But any victory he achieves, however inevitable it may be, will be a hollow one, especially if the economic sanctions last, Europe’s NATO members actually carry through on promises to spend what they need to on defense and world outrage grows over deliberate attacks on civilians, making Putin a pariah.

                What it will now take for him to prevail, however, will be a prolonged and bloody conflict involving urban warfare, immense destruction of life and property and probably a continuing resistance movement which will require large numbers of occupying forces at great expense to the anemic Russian economy and the long-suffering Russian people. This will not be popular with them as we are already seeing in the form of Russian street demonstrations.

                The world rightly applauds the Ukrainians’ bravery but reality will soon intrude as the carnage and destruction of a beautiful country and its people mounts. Its bravery is no match for the Russian army. Putin will have no qualms about killing civilians since they are taking up arms and using Molotov cocktails against his soldiers and will therefore be considered combatants and their homes targets. As the casualties mount, Ukraine may eventually be forced to sue for peace to avoid further carnage, settling for some sort of partition formalizing permanent Russian control of Crimea and the eastern Russian-speaking areas already under Russian control and/or regime change with a Russian puppet government installed, ending any aspirations for joining NATO. It is easy enough to say that we must never permit this to happen but then it’s not our civilians being slaughtered and our cities and neighborhoods destroyed.

                The Russian attack on Ukraine is reminiscent of the 1939 attack on Finland by the Soviet Union. The Finns also fought bravely and surprised the Soviets with their ferocious resistance and heroic ski troops. But vastly superior Soviet forces eventually prevailed, forcing the Helsinki government to either accept Moscow’s terms which included strict neutrality or suffer continued carnage and destruction. Ukraine will likely face the same choice.

                Some analysts and armchair strategists are insisting that we do more to help Ukraine. It’s a little late for that. Additional equipment, even if it can get through to Ukrainian forces before land routes are cut off, will likely only prolong the inevitable, increase the casualties and destruction and probably end up in the hands of the Russian invaders. Some are recommending we get directly involved in the fighting including, unbelievably, a retired brigadier general interviewed on Fox who recommended using western artillery against the Russians. Ukraine President Vlodymyr Zelensky has asked for a no-fly zone over Ukraine so that western supplies can get through. As President Joe Biden has said, that is simply not an option. Russia is a nuclear power. Putin, who is acting more like a desperate man daily, has put his nuclear forces on high alert and warned the west about the consequences of interfering with his operations. No responsible western leader should risk provoking a nuclear response that would kill millions and perhaps make the planet uninhabitable.   

                China’s President Xi Jinping might have helped prevent this disaster by, instead of cozying up to the Russian dictator at the Beijing Olympics, he had warned him against the global consequences and risks of invading Ukraine. Xi will now be stuck with the label of being an ally of Putin’s; not a label anyone wants. Mr. Putin, the former KGB officer, is a brutal dictator who dreams of restoring Russian influence and power and Moscow’s control over the former Soviet states of Eastern Europe. He controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and he is desperate to cling to power, knowing that should a revolt by his generals remove him from power, his life wouldn’t be worth a ruble, which, these days, isn’t worth much. He appears to be a desperate man which makes him dangerous and unpredictable.

The western world is late in awakening to this danger which is the greatest we’ve faced in my memory since the Cuban missile crises. Cool heads will be needed to deal with it and thus far Mr. Biden appears up to the challenge. We must speak with one voice when it comes to dealing with foreign crises such as these and that voice belongs to the commander-in-chief.

March 2, 2022