The President’s flawed defense policy, and Republican complicity

As the President enters into his seventh federal budget era, it is clear that his defense policy can be summarized in a single concept: drain as much funding from national security as possible in order to continue to provide more dollars for his greatly expanded entitlement programs.

To accomplish its goal, the White House has essentially surrendered the safety both of the United States and its allies. Several examples:

Budget cuts forced the departure of experienced armed forces personnel,
The U.S. Army will soon be reduced to levels below that of North Korea,
the U.S. Navy is dwindling from a global defense force to one that is rapidly becoming a mere regional power, (for the first time since WWII ended, no U.S. aircraft carrier is available for regular patrol in the East Pacific.)
missile defense programs were cancelled or delayed,
key allies have been or are in the process of being alienated,
American tanks were withdrawn from Europe,
a treaty was signed allowing Russia to gain or retain strategic and conventional nuclear superiority,
While every other atomic weapons-bearing nation has modernized extensively, only belated and inadequate updates have been planned for the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

If the lab tests are sildenafil best price okay and symptoms can mimic many other gastrointestinal disorders, initial attack of the pancreatitis is going unnoticed. Herbal pills like Mast Mood oil and 4T Plus capsules viagra no prescription india can be taken. The low libido mainly affects the women’s mental condition in such a way that it makes them feels distressed and they started losing their self-esteem. buy at pharmacy shop buy cheap cialis In some instances ED sensitivity viagra prescriptions online is caused by modification of different pattern of nerve signals.
As noted in recent budget hearings, the Pentagon’s 10-year budget projections have absorbed more than $750 billion in cuts, or more than three-quarters of the trillion-dollar cuts that would be required if sequestration is allowed to run its course. The fiscal year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low, representing about 14 percent of total federal discretionary and nondiscretionary outlays.

The results have been staggeringly dangerous. Moscow has entered into a new era of expansionism, not just in beginning the process of reconstituting the Soviet Empire but in rapidly moving into Latin America, as well as threatening NATO members in Europe. It has embarked on a vast and costly program to make its armed forces the most modern and best equipped in the world.

China’s unprecedented military buildup and U.S. timidity combined to allow Beijing to steal resources from the Philippines and assert flawed territorial claims against almost all of its neighbors.

North Korea has expanded its nuclear prowess into a force that can threaten any spot on the planet, and Iran is poised to become the dominant power in the Middle East.

The White House’s lessening of sanctions against its nuclear program remains a text-book example of how not to succeed in negotiations. Terrorist forces are moving confidently into Africa. The premature withdrawal from Iraq led directly to the conditions allowing ISIS to flourish, and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan may lead that region to a similar fate. The U.S. didn’t even respond with force when its own ambassador was assassinated in Benghazi.

Traditionally, Republicans have served to check the impulse of the hard left to divert excessive funds from defense to social welfare programs. However, despite words of bluster, the Republican leadership continues to adhere to the sequester, which, in response to budget deficits that are largely the results of excessive entitlement spending, slices all programs indiscriminately. They have failed to respond effectively, either by legislation, budgetary means, or public statements to the reckless disregard for national security evidenced by the Obama Administration. The revolt of several Republican potential presidential candidates may be a long-overdue reality check for the GOP brass.

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.