Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Ukraine is in the news again. There’s been some peace proposals submitted by U.S. President Donald Trump to the international community, apparently. A lot of hysteria, a lot of controversy, whether they were too lax, too strong, too punitive, not punitive enough vis-a-vis Russia. But I thought it would be wise just to review some basic questions, maybe offer a few answers, how we got in this mess in the first place. So, why did Russian President Vladimir Putin invade? Why did he invade Ukraine? Well, he invaded Ukraine because of two reasons. One, there was no deterrence. He had invaded Ossetia in 2008 during the weakened lame-duck Bush administration and Georgia. In 2014, he felt that President Barack Obama, especially after the hot mic exchange in Seoul, South Korea, in 2012, wouldn’t do anything. And he was right. So, he took Crimea and he took the Donbas. And then in 2022, on Feb. 24, he invaded again. Why? Because there was still that lack of deterrence. President Joe Biden said his reaction would depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion. He’d been very weak on hacking. He said, if you’re gonna hack, do not hack particular humanitarian sites. So, Putin, again, correctly thought that the United States and the West in general would not attack. Next question: Why does he keep fighting? This has been going on for four years. We don’t know what the dead, wounded, and missing—that is, the total casualties—are. It could be over 1.5 million. Russia may have lost a million dead and wounded alone. So, why is he doing this? He’s doing this because he feels that there is a magical DMZ line somewhere where the battlefront is today that he has to get beyond. Because if he doesn’t—and every dictator doesn’t have sole power, he has to report to certain constituencies, public opinion. But in Putin’s case, the Russian military and the Russian oligarchic class. And if he says to them, “I lost 1.2, 1.3 million Russians, wounded or dead. I destroyed the reputation of the Russian military, and I crashed the Russian economy. And all I got was 60 or 70 miles westward of where we were before Feb. 24, 2022,” that’s not enough. So, he’s trying to push westward. Most of the peace negotiations and the outlines are clear. We all know what they are. Putin can tell the Russians, his constituencies, “I institutionalized my theft of Crimea and Donbas. I moved westward somewhat. I ensured that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians would not be in NATO.” And Zelenskyy is going to say, “I’m a hero. He wanted the whole country. He only got 10% more than he did when he invaded in 2022. We stopped him, and we’re gonna be in the EU. We may not be in NATO, but we stopped him, and he suffered four times the amount of casualties that we did.” So, they each think they can win. And what is the dispute left about? Ukraine’s not gonna be in NATO. Putin knows that. All it is, where is the DMZ? Does Putin get to push areas westward that Ukraine, Ukrainians are currently in and fighting successfully and he can’t dislodge, or not? So, that’s what the dispute is over, and the security guarantees. If Ukraine is not in NATO, how can it defend the next invasion from Russia? Well, it’s the greatest military in Europe right now. It’s battle-hardened. It’s got a huge army. It’s well supplied. Will that continue? Will the EU or NATO continue to arm it? Will the United States back them up in extremis? That’s all. That’s the only two issues: security guarantees and where we draw the DMZ line. Why does NATO or the West not supply Ukraine to win the war? “I mean, give them Tomahawk missiles,” we’re told. “Give them F-16s. Russia’s on the ropes.” And the reason is that Putin engages in nuclear blusters. He has 6,000 nuclear weapons. So, from time to time, a Russian oligarch, a Russian media host, Putin’s inner circle say, “We’re gonna use a nuclear weapon if you do this or that.” And we recoil. No Tomahawks are willing to use a nuclear weapon. Ninety-eight percent of that is bluff. Two percent may not be a nuclear poker. You can’t take those odds. So, that is one reason why we have restricted. The other is the MAGA brand. I mean, there’s a base of Donald Trump’s support that says, “We don’t want forever wars. Don’t get involved. We don’t want advisers. We don’t want anything. We’ve given $170 billion. That’s enough.” There’s realists who say, “We have to think of the geostrategic consequences. We want to play Russia off against China. We don’t want them to join. We want to go back to history, Henry Kissinger’s paradigm. No better friend are we to Russia than we are to China and vice versa.” There’s a lot of people in the United States that may be pro-Putin. They feel, “Wow, you know, he’s Christian, he’s fighting for the West, no DEI, no trans. He’s no more corrupt than Zelenskyy is.” So, I don’t know if that is—there is a more sizable constituency, which says that the borders always change over there. This was all part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was created in 1939, when Josef Stalin ganged up against the West with Adolf Hitler and got what is now Western Ukraine, which used to be, for a thousand years, Christian, Polish-speaking Poland. And it was ethnically cleansed during World War II, and the Soviets never gave it up, and the postwar agreements gave Poland parts of Pomerania and East Prussia in compensation. As far as the Donbas area, that was an anti-Soviet jurisdictional matter. We’ll let Ukraine be semi-autonomous on this border, so they don’t have a national liberationist front or something. Crimea—it’s been Russian since 1783. So, a lot of Americans say, “We don’t want countries coming in here and discussing our changing borders with Mexico. So, we don’t want to get involved at all.” I think that’s why NATO hasn’t used its full powers to defeat Russia, which it could vis-a-vis this proxy. Why do we support Ukraine? A lot of people say we should support Russia. Well, Ukraine was invaded. Russia wasn’t invaded. Russia was the aggressor. We like to support the underdog and Europe. Ukraine is quasi-European. It’s corrupt, but it’s quasi-European and quasi-Western. Putin is not. Ukraine, if it wins the war, it doesn’t want any more territory. If Putin wins the war, he wants to continue going. And Ukraine also is a very capable ally. We don’t have any friends in the world that are militarily competent—maybe Israel, maybe Ukraine—outside of some NATO country. So, when we see a country that’s defending itself and fighting heroically against enormous odds, like Israel, we tend to feel we should continue to support it. Another question, isn’t this amoral, feeding Verdun, feeding Stalingrad? There’s, you know, are we gonna go all the way to 2 million? The only politician who says it is is Donald Trump. He’s complained that it’s amoral. He’s talked about it in human terms. It is. So, one side has to win and one side has to lose to stop the carnage, if you can’t have a peace. So, what will stop the war? The war will stop if Putin, if we pull out or NATO pulls support from Ukraine, Putin will bury Ukraine and take it all, or it’ll take a large swath. That would end the war. Or, if we continue to give aid to Ukraine and Putin, at some magical point, feels he can’t win, and he’s removed from office or his autocratic successor feels that they can’t win, they might have a negotiation. Or, as I said at the beginning, if Putin feels that he gets a little bit more westward than the current battle line, and they agree on the other terms, which we reviewed, then he’ll probably say, “For now, I got a lot for Russia and we’re beyond where the fighting is now. We’re westward of that.” All in all, it’s a mess, and it’s a reminder that when you lose deterrence, wars follow. If you want peace, the Romans said, prepare for war. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post What Will Finally End the Russia-Ukraine War? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson introduced a bill Wednesday which, if signed into law, would move the headquarters of the United Nations out of New York City. “This bill sends a clear message: America is done propping up a city that rejects our values while claiming to represent our nation on the world stage,” Jackson said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “Under President [Donald] Trump, strength and security are back, and when the U.N. gathers in America, they should see a city that reflects that strength, not the chaos and weakness we see in New York today.” In November, New York City elected self-identified Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as its mayor. The bill would direct the Secretary of State to formulate a plan to move the United Nation’s headquarters from New York City, where it has resided since construction was completed in 1952. Specifically, the secretary would seek to negotiate a new headquarters with the United Nations and submit a list of relocation options to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. Jackson, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has represented the Texas panhandle area since 2021. The post Texas Rep. Jackson Introduces Bill to Move UN HQ Out of New York appeared first on The Daily Signal.

China is outpacing other advanced economies in the addition of renewable energy systems, and is “winning the clean energy race,” according to Axios, but the reality of the situation is more complex, climate experts explain.   “What race? The notion of ‘a race’ is a rhetorical tool used to evoke emotion and feelings of competition when no such race actually exists,” Jack Spencer, a senior research fellow for energy and environmental policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.   “The real issue, and the only one that U.S. policymakers should care about, is whether American families and businesses have access to affordable, reliable energy,” Spencer said, adding that the U.S. is “failing,” in this regard.   “But we are failing not because we haven’t built enough wind and solar, but because politicians and special interests have forced us to spend scarce resources on so-called green energy when we should have been investing in reliable energy like natural gas, coal, and nuclear.”  Citing data from the McKinsey Global Institute, Axios reports that while the U.S., EU, and other “advanced economies” have slowed their share of “global solar and wind generation capacity additions” in the past several years, China has grown its significantly.  From 2022 to 2025, China increased its share of wind and solar generation capacity by about 30%, while the U.S. and nations with robust economies saw a decline.   “China is one of the few countries on the planet that can add significant renewable energy systems to its grid without compromising the grid integrity or incurring brownouts and blackouts,” Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of Co2 Coalition, told The Daily Signal. The reason China is capabile of this, according to Wrightstone, “is because their additions of electricity power generation from fossil fuel powered plants (coal and natural gas) are outpacing the renewable additions.” In other words, while China is expanding wind and solar energy system, it is also increasing use of fossil fuels.   In February, Reuters reported that China began construction on over 94 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2024, making it the largest year for such new construction projects in China since 2015.   China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world and has pledged to control its emissions, but power shortage concerns have spurred new construction of coal-fired power.   “These thermal energy sources supply reliable abundant electricity that back up the intermittent energy from wind and solar that only produce energy when the wind blows and the sun shines,” Wrightstone said.   “The Western world has been decreasing its reliance on dependable coal and natural gas and turning more toward the renewables, and the result has been skyrocketing electricity prices and grid instability,” he added. “Every gigawatt of renewables needs to be backed up by a similar amount of reliable thermal power generation.”   Electricity costs have increased across all sectors over the past decade, according to the Energy Information Administration, rising from $10.41 in 2015 to $13.66 today.  If the U.S. wants to gain ground in energy production in comparison to China, it should focus on nuclear power, according to Spencer.   “There are around 60 power reactors being built today, and China is building half of them. They are building them faster and cheaper than any Western nation,” the Heritage expert said.   “If the U.S. doesn’t get its act together,” Spencer warns “China and Russia will be the global suppliers of commercial nuclear energy, and this will undoubtedly result in geopolitical advantage for those nations.”   The post Fact Check: Report Claims China Is ‘Winning the Clean Energy Race’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

GOP strategists are weighing in on what Republican candidate Matt Van Epps’s victory in yesterday’s special congressional election in Tennessee means for Republican chances in the upcoming midterm elections. Epps, a former combat veteran and West Point graduate, defeated his Democrat opponent Aftyn Behn last night by a margin of nearly nine points in a race that drew extensive national media attention after Democrats secured electoral victories in several states last November. Epps will represent Tennessee’s 7th congressional district in the House succeeding Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., who resigned from Congress to pursue a private sector job. The Daily Signal spoke with Chapin Fay, the founder and CEO of Lighthouse Public Affairs, about his key takeaways from the Tennessee race. Fay emphasized the Republican victory in spite of the adverse conditions affecting Republican turnout yesterday. “This was an off-cycle, December special election heading into the midterms, which are historically difficult for the party in power. Despite the national Democrat machine and the media, this Democrat candidate did not even come close,” Fay explained. “This is not to say there weren’t mistakes made, so I think the Republicans will modify their strategy,” Fay noted, adding “I absolutely think Republicans will take lessons from this.”  “If Democrats are overconfident and run more far left candidates, the midterms won’t be the bloodbath they think it will be,” Fay concluded. As for what more Republicans can do, Fay pointed out that “President [Donald] Trump and his agenda needs to be paying dividends next year.” He contended that the president’s priorities of “fewer wars, protecting Americans from the scourge of drugs” are “all good things.” Fay also spotlighted the importance of candidate selection. “Running a far-left candidate will work in places like NYC, but not Tennessee and certainly not the swing states Trump won. My advice is to run candidates that align with the politics and issues of the district,” he said. “The desire is to nationalize all these races when members of Congress are local elected officials. Run good candidates that align with the district and the issues but also have a positive policy agenda and clearly articulate it. Have your three points and run with it,” Fay continued. Matthew Bartlett, a co-founder of Darby Field Advisors and a Trump administration official during the president’s first term, told The Daily Signal that “Just like in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, it’s no surprise which party won, but it’s the margins that count because the margins lead to money and momentum.” “It is not an unmitigated disaster because the Republican candidate didn’t lose, but a nine-point win in an R-22 district a few months back should absolutely raise eyebrows,” Bartlett continued, referencing Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the district in the 2024 presidential election. Bartlett contended that it was affordability issues that had brought the GOP to power. “You need to recognize just how tough it is for people in America and demonstrate every day that you are fighting on their behalf,” Bartlett said. Matt Terrill, the managing partner of Firehouse Strategies, a public affairs firm in Washington, also emphasized affordability in comments to The Daily Signal. “Democrats want to take your money and spend your money, and the only thing you get for it is higher prices,” Terrill explained as a potential line of messaging when asked about what advice he would give to Republicans regarding a winning message. “Every campaign is about ‘the now.’ What are you doing for me now,” Terrill noted. The public affairs expert expressed that GOP elections without Trump on the ballot would be different than when the president was also running. “President Trump is able to perform quite well with younger voters and traditionally Democrat voters. But in the 2024 election they were turning out for him,” Terrill said. “Looking at the playbook in 2024, Republicans won on safety and security and on affordability,” Terrill concluded. The post Republican Strategists React to Tennessee Special Election Results appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Justices didn’t seem to break along predictable lines Wednesday, when they presented critical questions to both sides in a case regarding a Christian pastor’s free speech challenge to a Mississippi city ordinance.  In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether someone convicted under a law has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law to prevent its future enforcement without nullifying a prior conviction for violating that law. Brandon, Mississippi, adopted a city ordinance regulating protests around the city’s amphitheater. Pastor Gabriel Olivier preached outside a designated “protest zone” even after police warned him not to do so. He pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance but now wants to prevent future enforcement.  “I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had,” Olivier said in a statement released by First Liberty, the religious freedom law firm that represents him, after the oral arguments concluded. “I pray this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to fight for their First Amendment rights in court.” Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’ During his opening arguments, G. Todd Butler, representing Brandon, said Olivier had multiple opportunities to challenge the law and his conviction in state courts. Butler scoffed at the argument that “courthouse doors are closed” to Olivier.  “That argument ignores the countless doors the petitioner chose not to enter,” Butler told justices. “What this case is about is the petitioner’s preferred door, one that offers a favored venue, and an opportunity for attorneys fees.” Olivier shared his Christian faith near the amphitheater in May 2021. Police told him he was required to speak only in the designated “protest zone.”  Olivier first did as requested, but later argued the designated area was too isolated. So, he returned to his original location and was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance.  Had he challenged his arrest, it would have been less murky legal territory, since he would clearly have standing as someone harmed or affected by the law. However, in June 2021, Olivier made a no-contest plea, which is not admitting guilt but not disputing charges. He received a fine and a suspended 10-day sentence.  Olivier wanted to return to preach at the amphitheater area again, so to avoid another arrest, he challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinance in federal court.  Supreme Court Arguments During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about “collateral consequences” of challenging the law but not the conviction, and how that could affect the enforcement of the terms of future convictions that might be challenged in a similar manner. Allyson Ho, volunteering pro bono with First Liberty to represent Olivier, replied that past court rulings determined it “would not automatically, or even permissibly preclude the state” from enforcing the conditions of the conviction.  Along those same lines, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What about a requirement that the individual show up for probation meetings?” Absolutely, your honor, because, again, the only effect that the federal judgment has is forward looking,” Ho replied. “It is a prospective relief. It prohibits the enforcement of the ordinance against him on a forward-looking basis. It does not reach back.” The district court and the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined Olivier could not challenge the Brandon ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. It based the dismissal on the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey (1994). The high court ruled in Heck that a person can’t bring a civil rights lawsuit if success in the lawsuit would imply the conviction is invalid—unless that conviction has already been reversed through appeal or clemency.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plaintiffs’ call for only looking forward without challenging the previous conviction was unusual.  “By definition, a win by you, or win by a third party, would call the prior convictions into question,” Sotomayor said. “It will be used by you and others to try to go back in other proceedings and get those expunged or otherwise set aside. You may or may not win. But it will call it into question.” Ho disagreed, and said the high court has used only “two buckets” in applying the Heck precedent. Neither, she said, would apply to Olivier, since he was never incarcerated. “The first bucket are claims where the federal relief would result in immediate or faster release from confinement,” Ho said. “The second bucket is damages resulting from past confinement.”  Questions for Butler Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Butler, the city’s attorney, “about your initial litany of doors” for Oliver. “Were they all state forums, all state remedies, that you discussed? Is there any other federal remedy?” Jackson asked. “If we agree with you, this person ends up with no federal remedy, and that just seems odd.” Butler replied, “My laundry list of things were state court remedies.” But he said the Heck precedent was in part about steering plaintiffs to resort to state litigation.  Roberts pressed the city’s attorney about whether this meant an automatic arrest and jail time if Olivier preaches again at the amphitheater outside the protest zone.  “When you commit a crime, a particular one, and you’re convicted, you undertake not to commit further violations of that provision,” Roberts said. “Now, if he does, is he subject to reincarceration? Certainly, that’s a big part of the probation in this particular case.” Butler suggested Olivier may go to jail if he violates the ordinance again. “If he violated the ordinance, he would immediately not pass go and go straight to jail for 10 days, because he was under the suspended sentence,” Butler said. “And that constitutes custody under this court’s jurisprudence.” The city passed the ordinance in question in 2019, in response to what it considered a hardship for local police to control protesters that showed up in the area.  The Trump administration is siding with Olivier, as U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and Assistant Solicitor General Ashley Robertson gave a brief argument to justices, as well.  The post Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Law After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It appeared first on The Daily Signal.