Connect with us

conflict

Biden-Harris Stumble Towards World War III

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Morgan Murphy

 

During the ABC debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the former president issued a warning that should terrify every American: “[President Joe Biden] had no idea how to stop [the war in Ukraine]. And now you have millions of people dead and it’s only getting worse and it could lead to World War 3. Don’t kid yourself, David. We’re playing with World War 3. And we have a president that we don’t even know if he’s— where is our president?”

The debate “moderator” whistled right past Trump’s warning and asked him in response if he wanted “Ukraine to win this war?” I’ve heard more thoughtful questions from a 4th grader.

What Trump made clear — and ABC blithely ignored — is that the Biden administration is risking a world war over Ukraine. The last time we got this close to the use of nuclear weapons, the issues at hand were West Berlin and Russian missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Then, unlike now, the American people clearly understood what was at risk. The presidents who oversaw those crises explained their calculus to the public.

But the Biden administration has edged the country closer and closer to a world war with little public debate. The United States is currently mired chest-deep in what strategists coyly call a “proxy war” with Russia. We’re supplying weapons, military advice, money and intelligence — and Ukraine is providing the warm bodies.

As the price tag of this proxy war creeps towards $200 billion, few Americans even understand the ultimate goal. There has been precious little talk in Washington, D.C. about what a “win” might look like for Ukraine. Biden, who Trump rightly points out has been mostly missing in action, has ignored Vladimir Putin’s requests to negotiate a settlement. More worrisomely, the Biden administration seems to be seriously considering escalating the United States’ involvement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is said to be working on “a plan” to present to Biden about how to end the war. Zelensky darkly warned last month, “There can be no compromises with Putin, dialogue today is in principle empty and meaningless because he does not want to end the war diplomatically.”

Before Congress gives another red cent to Ukraine, the American people should have an opportunity to read and evaluate Zelensky’s plan. A “no compromises” end to the war is insanely unrealistic short of a complete collapse of the Russian army — Putin has made clear he will never accept Ukraine as a member of NATO or give up Crimea.

Last week, Biden said he is open to allowing Ukraine to hit targets deeper within Russia with American-supplied missiles. It does not take a military genius to understand that Zelensky would love to see the United States and NATO directly enter the war. That is Ukraine’s best shot at the “win” its leader has outlined, as Russia is out-producing Ukraine in soldiers and war materiel.

Zelensky’s requests to escalate U.S. involvement in the conflict should be evaluated with extreme caution. Specifically, Ukraine wants targeting restrictions lifted from the Army’s Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Biden sent the missiles to Ukraine as part of last spring’s aid package and is said to be considering lifting the restrictions as I write this.

It is a horrible idea.

Firstly, Russia has made clear that the lifting of restrictions would be tantamount to direct American involvement in the war. “Washington and other European states are becoming parties to the war in Ukraine,” Vyacheslav Volodin, the chairman of Russia’s State Duma, the lower house of parliament said.

Secondly, Ukraine has already attacked Moscow repeatedly with drones. Were it to bomb the Kremlin with a U.S.-manufactured and sanctioned ATACM, what would Putin’s response be? Imagine a Russian missile hitting Washington with the blessings of Moscow.

Lastly, pray that Biden’s team is taking seriously Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. Britain’s MI6 Chief Richard Moore recently remarked that the “Russian intelligence service has gone a bit feral,” while the CIA acknowledged that Russia nearly went nuclear over the Ukraine war in the summer of 2022.

As Trump warned at the debate, “[Putin has] nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually, maybe he’ll use them.”

Our best hope to avoid that scenario is a swift return to rational statecraft.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

armed forces

The Case for Peter Hegseth — Time To Try Something Different

Published on

By S.L. Nelson

Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.

Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.

Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.

Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.

Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.

Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command.  Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.

Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.

One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.

In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.

President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.

Continue Reading

conflict

Russia Hammers Ukrainian Energy Grid In Retaliation For Long-Range Missile Use

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jaryn Crouson

Russia launched a massive drone attack targeting Ukrainian energy sources early Thursday morning in retaliation for the use of American-made long range missiles, according to NBC.

The attack left over 700,000 homes without power in Ukraine as winter sets in, according to NBC. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the attack was a response to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, which President Joe Biden authorized Nov. 17. The decision to allow the use of the missiles by Biden puzzled national security experts who cited enormous risks with little reward.

“Suffice it to say, this is a clear attempt to box in the incoming Trump administration into backing Ukraine without conditions or limits, and it’s a total affront to the democratic transition of power,” former CIA official Michael DiMino previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the move by Biden.

The strikes started late Wednesday night and lasted for nine hours, according to NBC. Officials told NBC this was the 11th attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak accused Russia of using “terror” tactics in targeting the energy grid, according to CBS Thursday.

The Russia-Ukraine war has raged on for more than two years, with casualty counts nearing a million total as of October, according to the New York Times. Both sides have recently been scrambling for ground as President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office in January, promising a swift end to the conflict.

Trump recently tapped retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg to head the peace efforts in the region. He previously served as the National Security Council’s chief of staff and as national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence.

On Nov. 7, Trump warned Putin not to escalate the conflict with Ukraine, reportedly reminding him of the sizable U.S. military presence in Europe, according to The Washington Post.

The Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X