Putin and Navalny, Biden and Trump

Americans are repulsed by the news of the murder of Putin’s political opponent, Alexi Navalny. Following imprisonment, Putin had the Kremlin’s political opponent killed.

The type of tyranny that results in outright death hasn’t occurred in the United States, yet. But the increasingly authoritarian and corrupt actions of the current White House and the progressive movement should produce concern that we are heading in that direction. The politicalization of the American justice system to punish political foes of the current White House and its leftist supporters is increasingly leading to the demise of an objective government and court system.

Biased state attorney generals and district attorneys have engaged in blatant and outrageous assaults on those they disagree with. The U.S. Department of Justice, charging both Trump and Biden with similar crimes (although Biden lacked a key defense that Trump can use) decides to prosecute Trump and ignore Biden. Absurd charges about actions that had no victims and for which no individual or business complained formed the basis of a show trial, so similar to those used in dictatorial regimes across the world, to bankrupt Biden’s probable electoral rival.

Consider the charges that led to Navalny’s fate. He was accursed of “extremism,” leading to a sentencing of 19 years imprisonment. Biden constantly refers to “Maga extremists,” Donald Trump being the prime, but not only, target of that charge.

In the years preceding Biden’s election, federal courthouses were attacked, police stations invaded, cities were burned, and shops were looted for months by progressive activists and Black Lives Matter. Independent zones that proclaimed themselves free of federal, state and local law were set up. Some on the left, notably the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, raised funds, not to compensate victims, but to help the perpetrators. The word “insurrection” was not mentioned by the leftist media. The losing candidate for governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, continually proclaims that was cheated in her election. No charges have been (or should be, she has a right to her views) brought. Trump is continually harassed for his views on the 2020 election.

The Attorney General of New York State campaigned on a pledge to “get” Donald Trump. Not much has been said about the propriety of a candidate for a law enforcement position promising to get an individual.

The judge in one politically-motivated case, Engoron, has displayed behavior so outrageous that there have been calls for his disbarment. In a letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Rep. Elise Stefanik states: “Simply put, Judge Engoron has displayed a clear judicial bias against the defendant throughout the case, breaking several rules in the New York Code of Judicial Conduct. Last year, Judge Engoron told President Trump’s attorney that the former president is “just a bad guy” who Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James “should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”1 At the start of the trial, Judge Engoron infamously smiled and posed for the cameras.2 After the defendant won an appellate ruling against Judge Engoron on the appropriate statute of limitations in this case, the judge simply ignored the ruling.”

Trump lost a civil trial (the charge couldn’t be successfully prosecuted in criminal court) based on a woman’s unproven complaint that he molested a female 30(!) years ago. Meanwhile, a very serious charge by Tara Reade against Biden has not resulted in charges being brought against the current president. Instead, she has faced harassment from the government.

In the hyper-partisan environment that currently characterizes the nation, the intent to win at any coast, and without regard to the long-term damage to American law and rights, unfortunately takes precedent over the truth, scruples, or respect for the principles upon which the U.S. was founded.

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.