The partisan divide in America makes it difficult to agree on anything in politics. But this much is certain‚ the House Republicans are a mess‚ and their incompetence has been a boon the President Biden and the Democrats. Whether their impeachment craze‚ internal squabbling‚ or just plain political ignorance‚ the 118th Congress Republicans are proving themselves to be the worst majority in living memory. Drunk With Impeachment There is no way to sugar-coat it. The effort to impeach Biden is unraveling and Rep. James Comer‚ not surprisingly‚ has not a clue how to save it. For Comer and his equally clueless comrade‚ Jim Jordan‚ it is a fitting fizzle to a ham-handed‚ incompetent investigation that has only served to get this duo of destruction TV time. This dissension and the impeachment flop would be much less of a problem if the GOP had the seats it should have gained in the 2022 elections. Investigating a President is no small thing. Any investigation needs to be meticulous; witnesses must be fully vetted‚ watching out for blind leads and sabotage by the President’s allies. Running to the media with every scrap of information‚ every rumor‚ every witness is a sure way to get set up or caught in a bear trap. It does maximize the number of cable TV appearances and fundraising letters. Even worse‚ the inept Comer and Jordan duo seem to never have considered their targets might fight back and turn the tables. Hunter Biden’s offer to testify should have been a godsend. Every prosecutor’s dream is to get the accused on the witness stand and under oath. But not clueless Comer. When young Biden made that challenge‚ Comer initially choked and passed on interrogating him. And‚ now that Hunter Biden has finally been questioned‚ it was Matt Gaetz that looked more the fool than young Biden. Now Comer is finally admitting he doesn’t have the votes‚ and he might never have had the votes.  The failure of impeachment is not to say Biden and his dissolute son are not guilty of corrupt practices. There is plenty of smoke and there is clear evidence of influence peddling. The recent uncovering of Biden’s brother trading on his name is another layer of corruption. But there is a big difference between legal and illegal influence peddling. Making phone calls and dropping names is corrupt but not illegal (not to mention that these corrupt practices occur in Washington every day)‚ not to mention when an elected official is now a private citizen. (READ MORE from Keith Naughton: Trump Is the Front-Runner and Biden Is Drifting to Disaster) Instead of publicly making impeachment the goal from the start‚ Comer and Jordan could have focused on shining a light on these sleazy practices and followed it up with a tough anti-nepotism bill that would clearly be a rebuke to the various Biden activities. They could have forced Democrats to cast a humiliating vote “aye” or a politically-disastrous “nay” vote — a shrewd and crafty way to put the Democrats in a box‚ and‚ if they get a smoking gun on impeachment‚ all the better. Unfortunately‚ shrewd and crafty will never be words associated with Comer and Jordan. It is worth noting that impeachment in and of itself means nothing. Secretary Mayorkas and‚ maybe‚ Biden would just go on trial in the Senate where there is zero chance of a conviction. Given their fumbling‚ does anyone think the House impeachment managers (who will be subject to decisions by the Democratic-controlled Senate) will present a better case than the defense lawyers? Matt Gaetz is right about one thing: this is failure theater. Letting Biden Off the Hook Clearly the Biden Administration cares not a whit for how impeachment is proceeding. And that alone should cause Republicans pause. I would go so far as to say that Biden welcomes the impeachment circus. Why? Because House Republicans are essentially giving Biden a pass on a whole stack of much more troublesome derelictions. Consider the FTX scandal where Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions from tens of thousands of American cryptocurrency investors. Not only did he make enormous donations to Biden and other Democrats‚ Bankman-Fried’s mother (Barbara Fried) created and ran one of the biggest Democratic dark money funds. Both parents were neck deep into FTX‚ benefiting from the corrupt scheme. (READ MORE: Who Is Better Placed to Beat Biden: Trump or Haley?) Seems like a scandal tailor-made for House Republicans. Tens of thousands of mostly younger Americans (a demographic Republicans need to get votes from) had their money stolen by an arrogant schemer‚ possibly abetted by his lawyer parents with all of it entangled in Democratic fundraising. It was a chance to make political gains and possibly expose a Democratic dark money organization to the light of day. But what is obvious to anyone with any political sense cannot be seen by the House GOP. They did nothing‚ held no hearings‚ and let the whole episode molder. As a result‚ the Biden Justice Department gets the credit for arresting Bankman-Fried and convicting him in very short order. As for the parents‚ right before New Year’s Eve the Justice Department announced there would be no more prosecutions. Letting Barbara Fried and possibly other Democrats off the hook is only one example of many. The House GOP could make the fentanyl crisis and the broader crisis of drug abuse a focal point and not just with hearings. Where is the bill re-classifying fentanyl from a drug to a poison (which it is)? Where are tougher laws banning bail for trafficking?  Or bringing back mandatory minimums? All bills that would force tough votes for Democrats and would show the GOP leadership doing something other than fulminating on television. Santos-Menendez Blunder House GOP incompetence is not limited to impeachment‚ they can’t get basic politics straight. Saddled with the George Santos embarrassment‚ Republicans were handed a major gift when Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez was indicted for taking bribes from foreign governments. Video of gold bars and stacks of cash in the Menendez basement was perfect for Republicans. Clinging to a 1-vote majority in the Senate and dependent on two recalcitrant caucus members (Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema)‚ there was no way Democrats would force out Menendez. But that left an opening for Republicans to offer a trade: If Democrats expel Menendez‚ Republicans will expel Santos. Such an offer would have put the Democrats in a difficult box. A Santos-Menendez trade would have looked perfectly logical — even though Republicans would have reaped a net benefit. Every snark about Santos could have been met with a blast at the treasonous Menendez. Instead‚ Republicans stupidly sent Santos packing and got nothing out of it. As a result‚ Republicans have a more precarious majority‚ and the focus is on Santos rather than the treasonous Menendez. Incredibly‚ it is Democratic Senator John Fetterman‚ who has been more vocal than anybody about kicking out Menendez. All in all‚ the parallel stories of Santos and Menendez show the utter political incompetence of House Republicans. There is just no excuse for the mendacious Menendez to remain in the Senate while the less venal Santos is scraping out a living making Cameos. (Worth noting‚ Santos was expelled for lying his way into Congress — which begs the question‚ when are the other 434 House members getting kicked out?) Dysfunction and Ego Winning politics is a team sport. Especially in the American two-party system‚ winning and wielding power will always mean each party need to assemble an often-fractious coalition and balance those interests. The Democrats understand this fact. Some Republicans understand‚ but many do not. And with a nothing majority‚ all it takes is one or two me-first members to sink the whole ship. Unfortunately for the GOP‚ they have a raft of me-first members‚ including in leadership. (READ MORE: Another GOP Fail: The Free Ride for Ukraine Nobody Will Take) Too many make chasing TV hits‚ sparking social media storms‚ and any other attention-grabbing stunts over winning. And in today’s clickbait world‚ only by being as outrageous as possible gets attention. As a result‚ the public is fed a steady diet of the Marjorie Taylor-Greene‚ Matt Gaetz‚ Lauren Boebert circus and Comer’s and Jordan’s impeachment failure theater. Good for their fundraising and speaker fees‚ bad for winning elections and hanging on to the majority. This dissension and the impeachment flop would be much less of a problem if the GOP had the seats it should have gained in the 2022 elections. Based on historic trends Republicans should have a majority of about 235 to 200. Instead‚ they squeaked in with just 221 seats‚ which leaves little room for error. The Cook Political Report partisan rankings rates 220 seats with a GOP voter advantage‚ 208 for the Democrats and 7 evenly split. Republicans occupy 8 “D-plus” seats‚ having lost the Santos seat (D+2). Democrats have 10 R-plus seats and the “Even” seats are split 4 Republican and 3 Democrat. The Report’s early projections have a GOP advantage at 210-203 and 22 tossups. While Republicans may be projected to have an advantage‚ consider that two of the tossups are Pennsylvania seats where Reps. Wild and Cartwright (in R+ districts) have easily seen off GOP challengers and the Pennsylvania Republican Party has only become more inept and dysfunctional since the past election. Arizona and Michigan also have two tossups and GOP state parties that are dumpster fires. In addition‚ the most recent YouGov poll shows Republicans at a polling disadvantage. Congress as a whole has a miserable 20 percent favorable to 56 percent unfavorable rating with Democrats down 40 percent to 49 percent. But Republicans poll worse at 36 percent approve against 52 percent disapprove. As any majority will tend to get more of the blame‚ the GOP is at a further disadvantage. It is very possible that the foibles and follies of the Biden Administration will overwhelm the incompetence of House Republicans and deliver a back-door majority in 2024. But it would be much better if the GOP would stop fighting with one another‚ put forward an agenda that addresses the problems everyday Americans face and get to work. Unfortunately‚ that does not look likely. The post House Republican Incompetence Boosts Biden and Democrats appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

About a month ago during a live press conference on Israeli television‚ Secretary of State Antony Blinken — otherwise known as America’s top diplomat — announced the most undiplomatic plan that the Jewish state has ever heard. After the war between Israel and Hamas is over the U.S.‚ along with the UK as sidekick‚ will create a Palestinian state essentially by fiat‚ simply by recognizing it as such. As a quid pro quo for going along with this plan he offered Israel two things neither of which the U.S. is in a position to deliver: security assurances and formal recognition by Saudi Arabia. For reasons that are by now familiar it’s easy to imagine what a jaw-dropper Blinken’s plan must have been for the vast majority of Israeli viewers. For one thing it would award the Palestinians for having perpetrated the barbarities of October 7 with a state from which they could repeat them on a vaster scale and from a bigger and better base. Moreover‚ what are America’s security assurances really worth — how‚ for example‚ are they working out for Ukraine? As seasoned observers‚ most Israelis would have been acutely aware of the fact that‚ as the U.S. tries to implement this plan it will create more problems than it will solve and therefore make the already volatile region even less stable than it already is. It is ironic and indeed pathetic that just as America’s power and prestige are waning it feels it has the ability to order around all of the major players. In fact‚ merely by announcing his plan Blinken immediately did a great deal of damage. The terms of his plan completely contravene the Oslo Accords and therefore effectively nullify them. The Oslo Accords — to which‚ by the way‚ America is a signatory — clearly stipulate that Israel and the Palestinians are to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations leading to the creation of a Palestinian state through mutual recognition.  In announcing this plan Blinken was saying that America is basically flipping over the diplomatic chessboard‚ trashing the Oslo Accords and planning on resuming diplomacy by an entirely different set of rules. Though it’s true that when Blinken trashed them the Oslo Accords had not achieved their goal of creating a Palestinian state that would peacefully coexist alongside the Jewish state‚ the principles upon which they were framed are enduring‚ bilateral negotiations leading to mutual recognition. Nothing that Blinken is offering even comes close. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: Israel: Unifying Around the Center) In the immediate term Blinken’s plan is also astonishing because at present neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians‚ the two major actors in this fight‚ are ready to go along with it. On the Palestinian side‚ not one leader has yet to categorically condemn the October 7 Hamas pogroms and‚ on the contrary‚ Palestinian Authority President Abbas has promised to give the families of the terrorist perpetrators pensions. Furthermore‚ the Palestinian people are right behind their leader. A poll conducted in December by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 64 percent of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution while another 69 percent want to return to “confrontations and armed intifada.” Meanwhile‚ on the Israeli side‚ a survey the same month by the Direct Polls organization found that 81 percent of the Israeli public‚ including 70 percent of leftist voters believe that making peace with the Palestinians is impossible and a full 88 percent say that they don’t trust the Palestinians. Taking these two surveys together what is inescapable is that the Israelis don’t trust that the Palestinians want to make peace while the Palestinians confirm that this distrust is justifiable. At least the Israelis and Palestinians understand one another. What does Blinken think the Palestinians meant when they said they didn’t want a two state solution? Too bad that America refuses to understand either side of this conflict. Setting aside the fact that there is no way that America could guarantee Israel’s security‚ there is also no reason to believe that the Saudis would necessarily do their part at America’s bidding either. Ever since Biden was elected‚ the Saudis have been demonized by his administration because they assassinated Jamal Khashoggi. It must be remembered that though Khashoggi was nominally a columnist for the Washington Post he was also an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood whose avowed aim is to overthrow the Saudi government and replace it with a much more radical Islamic one. One might be forgiven for wondering‚ after being treated this way‚ why the Saudis would agree to be used as pawns by the U.S. This war between Israel and Hamas is not going as expected because Israel is actually winning it. Everyone‚ including Hamas‚ expected that the October 7 pogroms would lead to a ground invasion. But most observers expected‚ and some probably hoped‚ that Israel would suffer enormous and unbearable casualties during the ensuing fighting and give up and withdraw due both to public and international pressure before achieving its stated goal of utterly destroying and defeating Hamas in Gaza. Instead‚ the IDF has been steadily moving towards achieving its war aims with relatively light casualties and the least amount of collateral damage under the circumstances while decimating Hamas in the process. Given that Blinken has maintained that America will not implement its plan until the war is over‚ it is obviously critical who at that point will have won. If Israel achieves its war aim then it will have won. However‚ if Hamas is allowed to retain its grip on Gaza it will be able to rebuild and rearm and for all intents and purposes it will have won. So‚ it is no small matter that America is presently pushing very hard for a so-called humanitarian pause followed by a permanent ceasefire before the IDF finishes getting the job done. Fifty years ago‚ during the Yom Kippur War then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger knew how to deal even-handedly and effectively with the warring opponents and his even-handedness led to good outcomes all around. Towards the end of that War‚ after a great deal of bitter fighting‚ the IDF had encircled the Egyptian Third army and could‚ theoretically‚ have destroyed it. But Kissinger advised Israel to let it go and Israel duly obeyed. Some pundits at the time thought that Kissinger’s order was unwise and unfair given all of the sacrifice that the IDF had made to that point. But on that occasion Kissinger’s counsel was sage. The IDF’s rules of engagement would not have allowed it to destroy an entire army through battle or by siege and to take so many Egyptian soldiers prisoner would have been a costly and burdensome process. In any case they all would have eventually been released in a prisoner swap. The humiliation that that would have caused Egypt beyond that which it had already endured might have made it impossible for Sadat to offer to make peace with Israel shortly after. (READ MORE: Moloch Is Back: Sacrificing Our Children) Many pundits have been opining that the reason that Biden is trying to maneuver Israel into snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory is to win favor with Muslim and student voters in the upcoming election. Others believe that he is being fed anti-Israel propaganda by his National Security Director of Intelligence‚ Maher Bitar‚ who was formerly an activist in the radical Jew-hating BDS movement and also an UNWRA employee. Bitar is in charge of compiling U.S. intelligence and presenting Biden with his daily morning intelligence briefing. Who knows who is whispering foolish ideas into Biden or Blinken’s ears but unfortunately it appears that they have been listening to them. It’s easy to have bright ideas but implementation is everything‚ especially when it comes down to details. Let’s say that for whatever reason Blinken’s plan is actually implemented and that it does help Biden win the election‚ then what? Then they will own it and what a mess it will be that they own. When the Arab states that are in on this see how unreliable an ally the U.S. is to Israel in order to protect themselves‚ they will probably move away from America once they’ve gotten what they wanted. And so will the Europeans who always want America to do the dirty work and heavy lifting for them. So‚ the burden of trying to pull this off will fall mainly on America. Think of some of the details of what that would entail. Part of the plan is to remove most if not all of the Israelis currently living in Judea and Samaria who now number 600‚000. This is called ethnic cleansing and who exactly is going to do that?  Not the Israeli government that’s for sure. Even the sanctimonious Europeans draw away when the ugliness of their clients is exposed as they have recently done when it was revealed that UNWRA employees were numbered among the Hamas terrorists. Two states‚ one for Jews and the other for Palestinians has always been the right idea because that is the only way that the Jewish state can survive as such. The Oslo peace process was never going to be a magic wand that would quickly lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians but when it was formalized that pact did offer hope. Politics is supposed to be about compromise and there is a middle ground that would work for both sides if they were both arguing in good faith‚ which the Palestinians‚ by rejecting offer after offer without even making counter-offers‚ objectively have not been. That middle ground would be a federation similar to the first stage of the EU which was called the European Common Market and was precisely designed to prevent conflict between the member states. In order to accomplish that goal‚ there are preliminary matters that must be attended to and they are almost entirely on the Palestinian side. First‚ the population must be deradicalized. Secondly‚ it must build uncorrupt democratic institutions. Thirdly‚ there must be mutual recognition and a real commitment to peace. After that the wall and the checkpoints could come down and infrastructure could be built to allow the free flow of goods and labor between the two states. Under any other conditions a two-state solution is a non-starter. (READ MORE: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims) It is ironic and indeed pathetic that just as America’s power and prestige are waning it feels it has the ability to order around all of the major players in a very complicated geopolitical situation. We are‚ after all‚ entering terra incognita. If America tries to implement Blinken’s plan through the U.N. it is possible that China might block the way if it sees that it would be in its interest to do so. And even in the noisy sanctimonious European Union Germany may be unwilling to go along with it. In a way one has to pity Blinken. Compared to Kissinger he is a vastly less competent statesman working in a much more difficult milieu. America is looking now like a wounded animal lashing out helplessly and the sad thing is that all of its wounds have been self-inflicted through stupid and reckless foreign policy decisions. And now‚ moving forward‚ America may never again be viewed as an honest broker. The post The Blinken Follies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In a lengthy and important essay in Foreign Affairs about “detente” with the Soviet Union‚ historian Niall Ferguson‚ who is completing the second-volume of his biography of Henry Kissinger‚ mentions Richard Nixon just once. And the photographs accompanying the article show Kissinger with President Gerald Ford‚ not Nixon. Yet‚ as Kissinger himself has sometimes acknowledged‚ the real architect of “detente” with the Soviet Union was not Kissinger; it was Richard Nixon. Ferguson may be too sanguine in his belief that the ’70s version of detente might work with China. As Nixon’s top foreign policy adviser‚ Kissinger‚ of course‚ played a large role in the formulation and implementation of detente‚ and Ferguson as Kissinger’s biographer quite naturally focuses on the diplomat’s role and subsequent perspective on that policy. But it is a historical stretch to claim‚ as Ferguson does‚ that Kissinger “pioneered what would become his signature policy: the easing of tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States.” It was Nixon‚ not Kissinger‚ who “pioneered” the policy of detente‚ and detente was not Kissinger’s “signature policy”; it was Nixon’s. (READ MORE from Frank P. Sempa: Bob Costas’ Definition of ‘Disgraceful’: Trump) Kissinger characterized Nixon’s pattern of thinking about foreign policy as “seminal.” Nixon approached foreign policy in grand strategic terms and based his decisions on a comprehensive global worldview. Kissinger concurred with that approach‚ but as he consistently acknowledged‚ in the shaping and implementation of foreign policy the final decision was always Nixon’s. Anyone who doubts this need only read some of Nixon’s post-presidential books‚ including his memoirs‚ RN‚ which are unparalleled among U.S. presidents for their strategic insights and foreign policy analyses. They are comparable to Kissinger’s own books in their interpretations of international affairs. Ferguson’s essay most likely draws on the research for his forthcoming second-volume of the Kissinger biography‚ which will deal with Kissinger’s life and career from 1969‚ when he became Nixon’s national security adviser‚ to his death this past November. Like Nixon‚ Kissinger’s post-government career included numerous books and articles that informed and explained international politics from both historical and contemporary perspectives. And like Nixon‚ Kissinger’s contributions to the understanding of American foreign policy continued almost until his last days.  Ferguson’s essay is a nuanced assessment of detente. Detente was not the surrender to the Soviets that some on the far right claimed. Nor was detente a version of the 1930’s appeasement policy that other conservative critics claimed at the time. Instead‚ it was one aspect of Nixon’s triangular diplomacy that sought to position the United States closer to the Soviet Union and China than either communist power was to each other. Combined with the opening to China‚ detente sought to exploit the widening Sino-Soviet split to America’s geopolitical benefit. And it worked. During the 1970s and 1980s‚ China became a de facto ally of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. As Ferguson notes‚ detente accomplished this without triggering a world war. Detente’s nadir was in the late 1970s‚ when the Carter administration pursued it with abandon despite what the Soviets called the shift in the “correlation of forces” in their favor. Both Nixon and Kissinger criticized Carter’s version of detente and applauded Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach in the 1980s that‚ however‚ included aspects of the Nixon-Kissinger detente policy. I vividly recall watching (on television) the recently sworn-in President Ronald Reagan descending the stairs of Air Force One clutching a copy of Nixon’s book The Real War. (READ MORE: Global Order and Stability Are More Important Than Democracy) Ferguson believes that the hard-headed detente of the early 1970s might work to deter China from attacking Taiwan and avoid war between the U.S. and China. But he notes that today the “correlation of forces is a good deal more favorable for Beijing than it ever was for Moscow.” Not only is China a more multi-dimensional challenger today than the USSR was in the 1970s‚ but back then China for its own selfish reasons helped the United States balance Soviet power on the Eurasian landmass. Today‚ through diplomatic errors extending back to the Clinton administration‚ China and Russia are closer to each other than either of them are to the United States.  Ferguson may be too sanguine in his belief that the ’70s version of detente might work with China. And it is doubtful that the foreign policy practitioners in the Biden administration could pull it off. There are no Nixons or Kissingers in the corridors of power at the White House. What Kissinger wrote in his book Diplomacy about Nixon is still true today: “No American president possessed a greater knowledge of international affairs.” Nixon‚ Kissinger noted‚ “had an uncanny ability to grasp the political dynamics of any country that had seized his attention.” Nixon’s understanding of geopolitical realities‚” Kissinger continued‚ “was truly remarkable.” He possessed‚ in Kissinger’s view‚ “powerful analytical skills and extraordinary geopolitical intuition [that] were always crisply focused on the American interest.”  Ferguson’s essay in some respects repeats the errors of those historians and scholars who credited Secretary of State John Foster Dulles for formulating and implementing the foreign policy of the Eisenhower administration‚ when in fact Eisenhower was in charge the whole time. It wasn’t until scholars like R. Gordon Hoxie and Fred Greenstein wrote revisionist works about the Eisenhower presidency that we appreciated Ike’s impressive geopolitical achievements. Kissinger clearly played a key role in formulating and shaping the detente policy in the early 1970s — but it was Nixon’s policy‚ and it is Nixon who deserves the most credit for its achievements.  The post Nixon‚ Not Kissinger‚ Was the Architect of ‘Detente’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

How does the Ukraine-Russia war end? In an October surprise. Ukraine‚ which became independent on 24 August 1991‚ will be dissolved and a New Ukraine will come into being by virtue of a unilateral declaration by the present Government of Ukraine‚ with the support of the military high command. The de jure boundaries of New Ukraine will reflect and be co-terminus with the territory currently under the de facto administrative control of the present Government of Ukraine.  New Ukraine will be compact; cohesive and well-integrated politically‚ economically‚ and socially (i.e.‚ ethnically‚ linguistically‚ and culturally); and will have demonstrably defensible borders.  Accordingly‚ New Ukraine will have the strategic autonomy to decouple from Russia’s sphere of influence without joining economic and military blocs such as the EU and NATO. Setting the Stage The fall of the city of Bakhmut in Donetsk province of eastern Ukraine in May 2023 signaled the end of major Russian offensive military operations in Ukraine.  Since the capture of Bakhmut‚ the focus has been on securing the Russian Federation’s southwestern flank: tactical nuclear weapons under Russian regular army control have been moved into Belarus‚ and  fresh‚ well-trained troops are entrenched in highly-visible‚ carefully prepared‚ defensive positions across the entire swathe of territories of eastern Ukraine currently under Russian control: Crimea‚ Kherson‚ Zaporizhzhia‚ Donetsk‚ and Luhansk.  Importantly‚ there are no indications of a major new Russian offensive to gain additional strategically important Ukrainian controlled territory‚ such as the port of Odessa on the Black Sea.  Tactical attacks designed to straighten out Russian defensive lines and divert Ukrainian forces from their main counteroffensive operations do not change the strategic status quo. [T]he central question is “which Ukraine” would be outside the sphere of influence of Russia.   Simply put‚ from a realpolitik perspective‚ Russia has achieved its necessary and sufficient vital national security objectives with respect to its southwestern flank by virtue of the earlier takeover and annexation of Crimea and the strategically vital naval base of Sevastopol in March 2014‚ and the subsequent annexation (September 2022) and conquest (over the February 2022 – May 2023 period) of portions of Kherson‚ Zaporizhzhia‚ Donetsk‚ and Luhansk provinces to form a robust cordon sanitaire to protect Crimea. (READ MORE from Samir Tata: Coca-Cola Faces a Challenge in Its China Market) Moreover‚ per the International Monetary Fund (IMF)‚ the Russian economy grew by 3 percent in 2023 and is expected to grow by 2.6 and 1.1 percent in 2024 and 2025 respectively‚ which is comparable to U.S. growth rates over the same period and far better than the economic performance of Germany. The challenge for Russia is to safeguard its hard-won national security gains and have the strategic patience to allow the Government of Ukraine to recognize that pursuing the military path is a dead end. The Kabuki Theater of Ukraine’s Counteroffensive The Government of Ukraine launched its much-heralded counteroffensive in June 2023. Within three months it became clear that the counteroffensive is more bark than bite — Kabuki theater aimed at not so much recapturing the extensive lost territory and restoring the pre-March 2014 territorial status quo as escaping from the limbo of unfulfilled promises of eventual EU and NATO membership. The Declaration of the 2023 NATO Summit of July 11-12 in Vilnius confirmed that Ukraine was confronted with two sets of “Catch-22s” that ensured its membership status would remain in limbo for the foreseeable future.  First‚ NATO members encouraged Ukraine’s use of military force to regain the territories seized by Russia and restore the pre-March 2014 territorial status quo.  However‚ while Ukraine is engaged in a military conflict‚ no consideration can be given to possible membership in NATO. Second‚ even in the absence of military conflict‚ there is no agreement among NATO members that Ukraine has satisfied all of the requirements for membership‚ and furthermore‚ there is no agreement among NATO members with respect to the expected timeframe within which Ukraine would meet membership requirements. It is reasonable to assume that Ukraine will be confronted with a similar set of “Catch-22s” with respect to its prospective membership in the European Union. As early as August 2023 senior leadership at NATO‚ at least informally‚ suggested that the emergence of a downsized New Ukraine would be welcomed.  On November 1‚ 2023 in an interview and accompanying article‚ General Valery Zaluzhny‚ then head of the Ukraine military high command‚ acknowledged the harsh military reality — stalemate. The Ukrainian political process of adjusting to a new reality is unfolding among the “troika” of the Rada (parliament)‚ Presidency‚ and military high command — so an “October surprise” may be brewing.  The unilateral declaration of a New Ukraine will reflect the troika’s consensus. The Realpolitik of Partition Clearly‚ what matters from Russia’s perspective is “which Ukraine” would fall outside the penumbra of the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation.  As suggested by Vladimir Putin in his seminal speech in 2008 at NATO’s Summit in Bucharest‚ Ukraine as it was then constituted would break apart if there was a serious attempt to accept the invitation to join the military alliance. As Putin pointed out in the same speech‚ the core territories of western Ukraine were carved out of Poland and incorporated into an expanded Ukraine in 1939.  Eastern Ukraine (Crimea and the strategically vital portions of Kherson‚ Zaporizhzhia‚ Donetsk‚ and Luhansk provinces) is now under de facto Russian control. A unilateral declaration of a downsized New Ukraine is unlikely to encounter a Russian objection. (READ MORE: Ukraine’s Moment of Reckoning) Likewise‚ for the Government of Ukraine the central question is “which Ukraine” would be outside the sphere of influence of Russia.  In fact‚ since 2015‚ IMF programs for Ukraine have not included eastern Ukraine within their ambit. As the 2015 IMF staff report on Ukraine acknowledged: “The divergence between the east and the rest of Ukraine appears to reflect the limited direct interregional linkages.”  The report also notes that western Ukraine was the main beneficiary of the waiver of EU tariffs.  So‚ in economic terms‚ the rest of Ukraine was better off without eastern Ukraine in 2015 and since then the economic linkages between the two regions are de minimis.  Arguably‚ a soft partition of Ukraine has been the de facto reality‚ so the declaration of New Ukraine would constitute de jure recognition of this reality.   The post An ‘October Surprise’ from ‘New’ Ukraine Is Possible appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Hannah Bleau Knudsen‚ Breitbart: Fentanyl is a “Chinese operation much more than it is a Mexican drug cartel operation‚” Peter Schweizer‚ author of Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans‚ said during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday. Schweizer‚ president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and senior contributor at […]

by Jim Hoft‚ The Gateway Pundit: Joe Biden’s America. A fourth-generation Arizona rancher who owns 1‚600 acres of land that spans 10.5 miles along the southern border said he has found 17 dead bodies‚ rape trees‚ and illegal aliens crawling on his property. John Ladd‚ 68‚ has been outspoken about Biden’s border crisis over the […]

by Mish Shedlock‚ Mish Talk: In the latest New York Times/Siena Poll Trump has his biggest lead over Biden ever. And Biden’s disapproval rating is a whopping 59 percent. I list 18 key points from the poll. The Big Change Nate Cohn‚ New York Times chief political analyst notes The Big Change Between the 2020 and […]

from Press For Truth:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Blaze Media Investigative Journalist @TPC4USA has now been taken into FBI custody for his J6 reporting Watch: pic.twitter.com/OF9WVh26ER — TheBlaze (@theblaze) March 1‚ 2024

by Eric Zuesse‚ The Duran: One thing that a democracy never does it to participate in a genocide‚ but today’s America is doing it. Never before (except perhaps regarding its own Indians in the 1800s) has the U.S. Government participated in a genocide‚ but ever since at least October 16th when both Egypt and Jordan […]