The Urgent Need for Biden and NATO to Act in Ukraine

Putin’s expected spring offensive has begun in Ukraine. If Russia conquers, U.S. efforts will be viewed as another defeat in a string of lost wars. NATO will have allowed Russia to subjugate a European neighbor, slaughter thousands of its civilians, decimate its infrastructure, and establish a sinister presence on the continent. Europe will live in fear of further Russian incursions powered by Putin’s nuclear threats. Biden and NATO will be blamed for prolonging Ukraine’s agony by doing too little for too long. The U.S. will be blamed for failing to protect its European allies. The grudge will not easily heal.

Challenges Facing Biden and NATO in Ukraine

Views differ as to the outcome of the war, whether Russia wins, loses, compromises or persists indefinitely. But there’s plenty to worry about.

While Russia’s military hardware is aging, it’s still plentiful. While Ukraine has superior materiel and competent, motivated fighters, Russia’s expected call-up of 500,000 troops can negate those advantages. Meanwhile the pipeline of advanced weapons to Ukraine is slowing. The U.S. won’t send F-16 fighters or missiles and jets that can reach Russian territory.

 U.S. Support for Ukraine: Biden and NATO’s Uncertain Commitment

Continued U.S. support of Ukraine is not certain. Some Republican lawmakers oppose it. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) said he doesn’t much care what happens to Ukraine. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) voted against another $40 billion in aid, saying, “we have no business getting involved in another war.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) insisted, “not another penny will go to Ukraine.” Other Republicans question the amount of proposed aid.

A majority of Republican voters (53 percent) don’t see Ukraine as America’s responsibility and worry we’re doing too much. Opposition will grow as the predicted long war unfolds, spending increases, and Ukraine’s chances of victory fade.

Putin’s Popularity and Its Impact on Biden and NATO Strategy

By contrast, a credible international polling firm found 82 percent of Russians support Putin, and most support his war in Ukraine (U.S.-based FiveThirtyEight put the number at 58 percent). The poll factored in fear of reprisals and Putin’s massive disinformation campaign.

The results are consistent with prior invasions. Putin’s ratings rose to 84 percent during the second war in Chechnya and to 88 percent after he annexed Crimea. He has convinced his supporters that Russia is under siege, that the West is to blame for shortages, inflation, and the war’s escalation, and that he’s liberating Ukraine from “neo-Nazis.”

The Economic Strain on Russia and the Need for Biden and NATO Action

So, Russians stick with Putin despite their considerable economic pain.

Russia’s deficit hit nearly $25 Billion, 14 times higher than a year ago. Russians are experiencing shortages of goods and hobbled services, from slower internet speeds to shuttered crematoriums. A thousand companies have reportedly closed or left Russia, taking with them capital, technology, and expertise, leaving office and retail vacancies behind. Price caps imposed by the West sent oil prices plummeting 40 percent below the global benchmark of $80 a barrel to around $50. Slowing imports of parts has decimated Russian rail and auto production. Auto production fell by 67 percent, the lowest on record. Car and passenger train wagon exports declined by 96.7 percent and 59.8 percent respectively.

But Russians are more able than Westerners to endure the hardships of a long war. They’ve had worse, tolerating perpetual repression and suffering going back to Stalin, and more recently the 1998 and 2008 financial crises and the COVID pandemic. None of it unraveled Russia’s political structure.

Crimean Consensus” and Biden and NATO’s Response

The “Crimean consensus” holds that Russians are willing to endure hardship to recreate a Russian-led Eurasian empire. To counter it, the West needs to be more aggressive, even if it means testing Putin’s nuclear threat.

Opinions differ as to how seriously to take that threat. Putin has made them before. Some believe he won’t push the button for fear of provoking World War III. If he used nuclear weapons, he and his oligarchs would lose their 300 billion euros in foreign accounts, access to the international banking system, and their lives of luxury. Putin’s political support would disintegrate as radioactive fallout spread across Russia.

 Biden and NATO: The Escalating Risk of Nuclear Warfare

Leon Panetta wrote last October that the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons rose from 1 or 5 percent at the start of the Ukraine invasion to 20 or 25 percent. Could it go yet higher as the war drags on? Volodymyr Zelensky’s office rates the likelihood as “very high.” Biden has worried openly that Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine could lead to “Armageddon.” Putin has said Russia would use nuclear weapons only to respond to a first strike by another country, yet he has also warned if Russia’s “territorial integrity” is threatened, “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal” to protect Russia and referred to his vast nuclear arsenal.

Biden and NATO’s Reluctance: Understanding the Threat

This certainly explains Biden’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with weapons that could reach Russian territory. But perhaps he has taken Putin’s threat too seriously and given him the result he wanted.

Biden and NATO’s Strategy: The Crimea Dilemma

Former Military Director for European Affairs Alexander Vindman urges that Ukraine can and should recapture strategically important Crimea. But it’s doubtful that Biden or NATO would supply the hundreds of military vehicles or the troops needed, for fear of “heading down the road toward a third world war.” An analyst with the American Enterprise Institute called this fear “almost pathological.”

Biden and NATO: The Implications of a Russian Victory

If Russia prevails in Ukraine without having to confront the West’s full military might, troops included, it could embolden Putin to invade NATO members Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Like Ukraine, they were formerly part of the Soviet Union and are home to many ethnic Russians. All three fear an invasion is likely.

 The U.S. Commitment to NATO: Biden’s Crucial Decision

Biden assured them that the U.S. would “deploy additional forces to defend them.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised them “The U.S. commitment to NATO’s mutual defense pact is sacrosanct.” Not honoring that commitment would be reputationally disastrous for the U.S.

Biden and NATO’s Commitment: The Risk of Nuclear Tensions

Honoring it comes with the risks of heightening nuclear tensions and will face voter opposition: 60 percent of Americans generally support sending troops to defend NATO members, but support varies depending on which member is attacked. Only 35 percent support using military force to defend Latvia and Croatia. Less than half support a direct military confrontation in all other NATO members except the Germany, France and Great Britain.

The Importance of Biden and NATO’s Immediate Action

But as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned, “to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now … If this lesson is ignored and Ukraine is defeated, Russia will almost certainly … attack NATO member countries.”

And that would mean U.S. troops on the ground, fighting Russians — somewhere.

Biden and NATO’s Strategic Decision to Aid Ukraine

To prevent this, Biden should change his mind and send the necessary weapons and troops to defeat Russia in Ukraine.

The post Biden and NATO should do what it takes to stop Putin in Ukraine first appeared on Inside The Political Chaos.

Donald Trump’s insistence on a summit with Vladimir Putin, disregarding the advice of aides and worries of allies, is consistent with his obsession with the Russian leader. But it’s inconsistent with his pattern of choosing policies that resonate with his supporters — there’s no indication that Trump’s followers condone this bromance. The underlying Trump-Putin Gain suggests that personal financial interests may be influencing Trump’s favorable stance toward Putin.

Trump-Putin Gain: Consistent Obsession Despite Public Disapproval

So why does Trump pander to Putin? He won’t criticize him and incessantly flatters and coddles him. He has winked at the annexation of Crimea, threatened NATO, suggested that the G7 should readmit Russia, and done nothing to prevent Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

Trump-Putin Gain and Its Impact on U.S. Sanctions and Policy

Many fear Trump will hand Putin unwarranted concessions, like unraveling U.S. sanctions against Russia. Trump was always soft on them anyway. After Russia requested a secretary of state who favored lifting them, Trump obliged, appointing Rex Tillerson instead of Mitt Romney. When Congress enacted sanctions on 15 Russian entities and individuals in 2017, Trump delayed implementing them for seven months and reversed a decision to impose more.

Trump-Putin Gain: The Personal Financial Incentives Behind Trump’s Policies

What could be motivating Trump’s largesse toward Russia? It’s hard to argue that it’s what’s best for America. A pattern of reported facts suggest it could be personal financial gain.

Trump-Putin Gain: How Russian Money Fuels Trump’s Business Aspirations

Throughout the 2000s, Russians bought many apartments in Trump Tower and $100 million worth of Trump properties in Florida. But these sales dropped precipitously in 2014 after the U.S. imposed sanctions on Russian oligarchs for the Crimean incursion. Lifting sanctions would likely restore these sales, and the profits would flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons, with the president as sole beneficiary. Indeed, Trump admitted that he’d “be looking at” lifting them.

Trump’s Business Aspirations in Russia: The Trump-Putin Gain

Trump has many business aspirations in Russia that Putin can make or break. In 1986, Trump met with the Soviet ambassador about building a luxury hotel in Moscow, and announced a potential Trump International complex there. At the 2008 Russian Real Estate Summit, Trump touted plans for condos and hotels in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sochi. In 2011, he licensed his name to an aborted Azerbaijan hotel for $1 million and promoted a Trump Tower in Kazakhstan. Even as he campaigned for the Republican nomination, Trump signed a letter of intent to build Trump Tower in Moscow.

Financial Ties to Russian Money: The Trump-Putin Gain Connection

Trump’s business depends heavily on Russian money. Donald Trump Jr. said in 2008 that “Russians make up a … disproportionate cross-section of … our assets,” and later added, “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Eric Trump told a journalist, “We don’t rely on American banks; we have all the funding we need out of Russia.” (He later denied saying that.)

Trump-Putin Gain: Financial Ties and Potential Blackmail

In 2008, Deutsche Bank’s real estate group stopped lending to Trump after he defaulted on a $330 million loan. Inexplicably, he subsequently borrowed $75 million from another DB group. European and American regulators punished DB for laundering billions from Moscow. It’s not a huge leap to suspect that Trump’s DB money came from Russia.

Since Trump’s nomination, 70 percent of Trump sales were to limited liability companies frequently used by Russians to hide their identity, stow cash and, most likely, violate U.S. sanctions. Hundreds of millions of dollars from unidentified sources funded Trump’s unprofitable golf courses in Ireland and Scotland. Testimony before Congress suggests they were used to launder money for the Russian mafia. Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff, in speaking of White House corruption: “This is about money laundering … the path to …Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Junior and Jared Kushner.”

The Trump-Putin Gain: How “America First” Became “Russia First”

The blackmail potential in all these financial shenanigans is abundant. Implicating Trump in almost any of these schemes could expose him to charges of money laundering and bank fraud.

“America first” ideology has actually put Russia first. Leaving the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Agreement lost America international forums where it communicated, led and influenced. Cutting the State Department’s budget and foreign aid weakened America’s global clout and allowed Putin to expand Russia’s sphere of influence.

Trump’s threat to cut aid to Central America damaged trust in the U.S. Now Putin is providing aid there, reopening military bases and building a satellite-tracking station that could spy on the U.S. Trump’s rejection of Obama’s soft Cuba policy may result in a repeat of Cuba’s pivot to Russia after Dwight Eisenhower rejected Cuban efforts for diplomatic and trade ties. Trump’s trade tariffs and insults of EU and Canadian leaders threatens relationships with our closest allies. His escalating criticism of NATO make some worry the United States might actually leave the alliance – the ultimate gift to Putin.

Conclusion: The Trump-Putin Gain and Its Threat to American Democracy

Congressional Republicans are muting their nervousness about Trump giving away the store, settling for bromides about how there’s nothing wrong with just talking to Russia. It’s hard to imagine how talking under these conditions will serve America’s interest, but on the other hand, we may finally see Trump Tower built in Moscow. In keeping his stakes in 500 foreign businesses — no other president had any – Trump has unprecedented cause to tailor foreign policy for personal gain. He promised to “drain the swamp,” but there are more reptiles in it than ever, and many speak Russian.

Alan Dershowitz: How Trump could be impeached

Famed law professor is defending Trump, but still lays out a scenario for impeachment.

The post Why is Donald Trump so sweet on Vladimir Putin? It might just be personal financial gain first appeared on Inside The Political Chaos.