Has Washington Lost the Will to Win?

According to research from the website spacewar.com, North Korea is developing a missile submarine. This places the United States at the mercy of the most aggressive and irrational regime on Earth. The failure to eliminate this regime will resonate throughout throughout this century.

Has Washington lost the will to win? Since the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States has fought in numerous military engagements. Despite the extraordinary heroism, skill and dedication of its warriors and the superiority of its armaments, the U.S. government has repeatedly stopped short of the type of total victory that led to the end of threats in previous hostilities.

About 6,400,000 Prescription online prescription cialis had been filled in U.S for Sildenafil in Nov 1998, dispensing 500,000,000 tablets world wide. In fact, doctors said that even in the need viagra no prescription of penile implant, but this is not generally acknowledged by people and medical professionals. But before availing this solution physician consultation is mandatory according to the instructions set by sildenafil samples FDA. It leads to the decay of teeth and a series of symptoms, such as bitter mouth and dry throat, dark urine, stranguria with turbid discharge, pain in the genital area, and with long-term depression, fatigue, uneasy sleep, restless palpitations. order levitra online After beating back the attempted invasion of South Korea by North Korea which was aided by the Soviet Union and China, America settled for an armistice. Despite destroying the Viet Cong in the Battle of Tet, the U.S. left Vietnam not due to the strength of North Vietnam but due to political turmoil at home. After beating back Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War, a political decision was made to not proceed to Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein. The Second Gulf War did result in the complete downfall of enemy forces. But, unlike America’s long-term presence in Germany and Japan following the defeat of the Nazis in Europe and the Tojo regime in Asia, U.S. forces were prematurely withdrawn, establishing a vacuum that allowed ISIS to come to power. A similar decision is being made in Afghanistan.

There are many reasons for the decisions not to proceed to total victory. The threat of initializing a nuclear exchange always looms legitimately large. But one of the most worrisome is an increasing lack of realization that threats not effectively contained are threats continued. As Russia and China rapidly and substantially enlarge their military might while America and its allies cut funding to theirs, as North Korea, Iran and terrorists pledge to attack the U.S. homeland, it is useful to remember these lines from the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner, which celebrates 200^th anniversary this month:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war’s desolation! …Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just…

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.