Ignoring the Russian Threat

Recent incursions of Russian nuclear bombers over both the East and West coasts of North America in September clearly illustrate the dramatic threat from Moscow.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quite explicit about their new direction in dealing with the Kremlin: they were going to “reset” relations with Russia.

They moved quickly and substantively:

The White House agreed to the New START treaty which left Moscow with a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.
The President and Secretary Clinton divulged British nuclear secrets.
They reneged on an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Poland. They slashed the U.S. defense budget.
They encouraged the departure of experienced American military personnel.
American involvement in overseas military deployment was reduced.

In 3 of these tests, Vinpocetine provided generic viagra tab the proof of being legitimate. Erectile dysfunction is defined http://secretworldchronicle.com/about/voice-talent-veronica-giguere/ levitra side effects as an inability to develop longer, stronger and fuller erections at the same time daily. Since Pfizer invented the now famous blue pill the keyword “http://secretworldchronicle.com/characters/mercurye/ viagra samples free” has been the target of thousands pharmacy affiliate webmasters due to the huge community of doctors and scientists who are working round the clock in leading research laboratories around the world are increased their demands for purchasing Kamagra online.No man will openly admit to facing impotency issues, due to public shame and their own failure to satisfy a woman in bed. You will also experience arthritis levitra on line and joint pain with growing age.
President Obama promised that he would provide even more concessions after his re-election—and he did.

Earlier this year, all American tanks were withdrawn from Europe.
Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the White House continues to advocate unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal.

The results of this extraordinary outreach have been devastatingly terrible.

Russia has moved quickly and substantially to enlarge and modernize both its conventional and nuclear forces. One aspect of that move particularly stands out: the dedication of over $700 billion in funds for its naval forces, which for a land-based power such as Russia, is purely offensive in character. Moscow has returned to Cold War bases in Latin America, and is expanding its influence in the region. It has formed an anti-U.S. alliance with China, and supplies Iran with nuclear technology. It has moved battlefield nuclear weapons to its European border; it has invaded the Ukraine, and threatens to continue its advance into other Eastern European nations. Even before the September nuclear bomber incursions, Russian bombers and subs were found patrolling America’s Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts.

The White House response has been timid to the point of utter negligence, or worse. There have been no clear actions to provide appropriate funding to the armed forces. There has been no drive to expand drilling for energy resources on federal lands to allow our European allies to free themselves from dependency on Moscow. There has been no move to protect the U.S. mainland by fully funding an adequate anti-ballistic missile system or expanding the Air Force’s ability to intercept enemy bombers.

Instead, the opposite course has been taken, a clear rejection of the reality of the intense threat the nation faces. America is still dependent on Russian rocket engines for a variety of purposes. The nation is dependent on China for essential components of key weapons systems. The U.S. defense industrial base continues to shrink. Only one plant, for example, in the entire nation produces tanks—and Mr. Obama has sought to close it on several occasions.

The Obama-Clinton “reset” has been the most dangerous policy failure in the history of the United States. Despite the clear evidence of that failure, there is little indication of a substantive change in course from the Oval Office.

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.