Ignored Dangers – USA Gov Policy

Both ISIS-motivated attacks and rising threats from Russia and China are becoming a fact of everyday life. It is increasingly evident that many elected officials both in the United States and Europe appear to be philosophically incapable of acknowledging the reality that a no-holds barred, total war is being waged against the west by radical Islam, and the foundations of overwhelming military threats are being laid by the leadership in Moscow and Beijing.

In the wake of a recent attack on the passengers of a German train by an Afghan refugee shouting “Allahu akbar,” swinging an axe, injuring five people, Rt.com news reports that Renate Kunast, a Green Party member of Parliament, criticized her nations’ police for shooting and killing the perpetrator. “Couldn’t they have just shot to disable him?” she asked.

She is not alone. Despite horrific acts of mass violence by refugees, including a vast number of sexual assaults in one night by 2,000 Islamic refugees in Cologne, Berlin’s leadership seems aloof, responding only when bad publicity became significant. (The crimes were initially covered up by authorities, the same as mass sex assaults in the United Kingdom were ignored by local authorities there.) Breitbart reports that “Both the scale of the crimes committed and the nationalities, religion and ethnicities of the assailants were obscured by both government and the media. Similar attacks in Hamburg and Stuttgart were simply not reported by journalists at all.”

The United Kingdom’s leadership wholly ignored the justifiable concern of their citizenry that un-vetted refugees, many of them military-age young men, presented a danger to their nation, a concern that motivated voters to authorize withdrawal from the European Union.

The explosion of crime in Sweden, formerly one of the safest nations on Earth, by refugees has altered the very character of that nation. Again, the fears of the people have been long ignored.

The sad part buy sildenafil online is that only a smallest fraction have reported their problem to doctor. Kamagra jellies commander cialis are the one to get rid of. The medicine has shown very positive and pleasurable results to the user and can bring loss sexual satisfaction back on the way. india pharmacies levitra https://www.unica-web.com/archive/2019/johanna-maria-paulson-jury-member-2019.html Other exotic herbal ingredients of Musli Power X-Tra make it a natural treasure tadalafil uk cheap unica-web.com of health. The U.S. President shares a similar mind set. When an Islamic extremist killed Americans at Fort Hood, he called the incident “workplace violence.” After the terrorist assault in San Bernardino by two individuals who had recently been given gifts by the very people they shot, the President—whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama and who had Islamic training as a youth, lectured the American people about nonexistent bias against Moslems. Following the massacre in Orlando, he talked about limiting the rights of Americans to own guns.

This is the same President whose withdrawal of troops from Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. The same Administration that called ISIS a “JV Team” that shouldn’t concern Americans. The same President who broke precedent and opened negotiations with the Taliban, so instrumental in bringing about the 9/11 attacks. The same President who, along with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, dishonestly tried to blame an American film maker for the Benghazi attack. The same Administration that did nothing to punish the real perpetrators of that attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. The same President who has given a speech in a mosque led by terrorist sympathizers.

Beyond terrorism, the sheer blindness of many in leadership to acknowledge the rising military dominance of Russia and China is truly troublesome. The threats are not in distant lands. For both Americans and Europeans, the danger is close to their own borders. Russia has militarized the Arctic to the north of the U.S. Both Russia and China have established military relationships and bases in Latin American and the Caribbean. In Europe, Russia has attacked both Ukraine and Georgia in recent years. Moscow has moved powerful forces to its borders with Eastern European nations, and has used its air force to harass naval vessels close to the home waters of western European nations. In Asia, China has threatened virtually all its neighbors.

Both Moscow and Beijing have spent vast sums to rapidly accelerate their military growth. They have been successful in their quest. It is uncomfortable and disturbing to admit, but the reality is that the Russian-Chinese axis has eclipsed the American-NATO alliance as the most powerful military force on the planet.

This reality, of a west besieged by terrorists within its borders and by the armed might of Russia and China without, is wholly ignored by the White House and many of its European counterparts.

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.