Tag: nato
Why Are We Doing Less For Ukraine's Defense Than Tiny Denmark?

Why Are We Doing Less For Ukraine's Defense Than Tiny Denmark?

A little under two months ago, tiny Denmark – with a population less than that of New York City and a GDP of $400 billion – committed its “entire artillery” to Ukraine. “The Ukrainians are asking us for ammunition now. Artillery now. From the Danish side, we decided to donate our entire artillery,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told the Munich Security Conference on February 18.

How did we, the richest, most powerful nation in the world, become the country that is turning its back on Ukraine? I’m using the royal “we” here, but you know who I’m talking about: the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, who ordered House Republicans not to bring up for a vote the Senate’s $95 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel, which has been moldering on Capitol Hill for nearly two months since the Senate passed it on a bipartisan vote of 70 to 29. Trump was said not to want a bipartisan victory for Biden in an election year, so he picked up the phone and called his poodles in the House and killed a potential deal to bring the Senate bill to the floor where it was expected to pass.

Look at this headline in Sunday’s print edition of the New York Times: “Low on Ammunition, Ukraine Is Ill Equipped to Stop Russian Push.” The story describes a 155 mm howitzer position in Eastern Ukraine where Russia has recently made gains on the ground. The crew of the howitzer had a stock of 33 rounds of ammunition when they received an order to fire on a target. Moments later, they had 16 rounds left. “Artillery decides battles,” said Capt. Vladyslav Slominsky, the commander of the battery with the howitzer that was down to only 16 rounds of ammunition. “Who has more wins.”

The artillery is a proud branch in the United States military. They call their branch “The Queen of Battle” because of the firepower that can be brought to bear on the enemy at a moment’s notice. The war that Ukraine has fought against Russia since the 600 mile front line settled into existence late in 2022 has been almost exclusively an artillery war fought with 155 mm howitzers and HIMARS ground-to-ground rockets.

The Russians have more artillery pieces, more rockets, more tanks, and more soldiers, but Ukraine has hung onto the territory they hold, including the parts they took back from Russian forces near Kharkiv and Kherson earlier in the war. Ukraine’s artillery is said to be more accurate and efficient than Russia’s, which wasted tens of thousands of shells firing wildly into the flat agricultural fields of Eastern Ukraine early in 2023 after the front lines stalemated.

Once Russia began its campaign to take individual towns in Eastern Ukraine such as Bakhmut and Avdiivka, their artillery became more accurate. Given small towns as targets, Russian artillery sat back and simply flattened the towns with tens of thousands of artillery rounds, eventually leaving Ukrainian forces no place left to defend, so they pulled back. Now Russia has claimed to have taken the tiny village of Vodayne, about five miles east of Donetsk and a few miles south of Avdiivka. Tactically, it is yet another redoubt that Ukraine had hung onto as the country continues to defend its eastern flank. Strategically, it is not large enough to be significant.

What is significant, however, is why the village was lost: dwindling ammunition stocks.

The Times quoted Swedish military analyst Johan Norberg saying, “You cannot expect people to fight without ammunition.” But you don’t have to interview an expert to know that armies without bullets cease to be armies and turn into targets.

Vladimir Putin knows this like he knows his own name. Even Donald Trump has seen enough gangster movies to know that when you run out of ammo, you get killed. That’s probably why Trump has leaned on House Republicans not to pass the Ukraine aid bill. If Ukraine runs out of ammunition, and Russia starts winning its war on Ukraine, it will make Trump’s pal Putin happy, and the Russian victories will happen on Joe Biden’s watch. In politics, that is called a win-win.

But it’s a lose-lose not only for Ukraine, but for America’s standing in the world as a bulwark against the kind of totalitarian aggression Russia has brought to bear on its neighbor. Russia could not assert its influence over Ukraine by installing puppet presidents like Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian politician Paul Manafort helped to put in power in 2010. Yanukovych proceeded to loot Ukraine by installing cronies from the region of eastern Ukraine with a large Russian-speaking population, the Donbas. Nearly 50 percent of the economic development budget for the entirety of Ukraine went to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under Yanukovych.

When he was overthrown in 2014, Putin invaded and occupied Crimea and probably began his plans to militarily invade and seize all of Ukraine. Yanukovych, naturally, fled to Russia, where he still resides. And Paul Manafort, who ran Trump’s campaign in 2016, is said to be in talks to take a prominent position in the current Trump campaign.

What has stood between Putin’s ambitions and Ukraine’s existence is the United States and NATO. Now Donald Trump appears to be running on a platform of turning Ukraine over to Putin and getting the United States out of the NATO alliance, which just last week celebrated its 75th anniversary.

How did we get here? How is it that this corrupt man facing four separate criminal indictments in three different jurisdictions has been able to nearly singlehandedly stymie this country’s ability to help the rest of NATO defeat Putin’s fascistic attempt to take over Ukraine? Why do these Republicans even bother to run for Congress, unless all they really want to do is follow the orders of this man who is weakening the United States with every breath he takes?

What has happened to us? Who are we?

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.

How Biden Can Drive Trump Even Further Around The Bend

How Biden Can Drive Trump Even Further Around The Bend

Please, Mr. President, more of this!

In a speech at the White House yesterday, President Biden said this about Donald Trump’s threat not to defend NATO allies: “For God’s sake, it’s dumb. It’s shameful. It’s dangerous. It’s un-American. When America gives its word, it means something. When we make a commitment, we keep it.”

Biden urged the House of Representatives to take up and pass the Senate’s $95 billion national security and foreign aid bill. He lit into Trump in a way he should be lighting into him every day. Biden’s words got quoted. Film of the speech has been played on cable television. People are talking about the way he put down his unhinged Republican opponent.

After quoting Trump saying he would “encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies who are “delinquent” in their defense spending, Biden said, “Can you imagine a former president of the United States saying that? The whole world heard it. No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator. Well, let me say this as clearly as I can: I never will.”

The president went on to remind everyone that Article 5 of the NATO treaty, pledging every nation to defend other nations if they are attacked, has been invoked only once -- in support of the United States of America after al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. “NATO is a sacred commitment. The greatest hope of all those who wish America harm is for NATO to fall apart. You can be sure that they all cheered when they heard what Donald Trump said. I know this. I will not walk away. For as long as I am president, if Putin attacks a NATO ally, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory.”

This is the way to beat Trump. Americans like presidents who live up to commitments, who stand up to bullies, who don’t just talk tough, but are tough. Biden needs to point out these differences between himself and Trump as often as he can. The Biden campaign should have T-shirts and lawn signs made up with Trump’s photograph and the words, dumb, shameful, dangerous and un-American.

Biden should make a statement from the White House every day that Donald Trump makes an appearance in court. He can start today, when Trump will be in court in New York’s criminal case against him for illegally concealing his payment to Stormy Daniels. Tell the world that while Trump is cleaning up after his mistress pay-offs, Biden is standing up for tax payers and saving them money on prescription drugs and pushing for middle class tax cuts.

Put out a “Trump schedule” and note every time he is in court and what the charges are. Have President Biden get up at the White House and make a statement like, “Here is what we are doing at the White House while Donald Trump is in court today,” followed by a list of Democrats’ accomplishments, the unemployment numbers, the fact that a state just raised the minimum wage with Democratic support, Democrats’ support for women’s reproductive rights, for teaching American history accurately rather than whitewashing the past.

Biden should take advantage of the White House and use it the way Trump uses his rallies: Stand there in the White House and tell the truth about Trump. Use his own words to make him look like the fool he is. Point out his cowardice every time he insults American soldiers. Poke fun at him. Somebody on the Biden campaign should be retweeting photos like the one above, just to drive him crazy.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Retired Three-Star General Ben Hodges Slams Trump As 'Mafia Type'

Retired Three-Star General Ben Hodges Slams Trump As 'Mafia Type'

Former President Donald Trump's recent comments suggesting he would compromise the US' agreement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has alarmed and angered national security experts, including retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges.

During an interview with British newspaperThe Times, Hodges called out Trump for signaling that he would violate Article 5 of NATO, which pertains to the collective agreement between NATO countries that they will rally to the defense of any ally who is attacked by Russia. In a recent speech, Trump spoke about a conversation with "one of the presidents of a big country" who "stood up and said, 'Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?' Trump then said he "would not protect" that country if it wasn't contributing enough funding to NATO, and "would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

"You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills," Trump said.

"Trump hates alliances. He hates an obligation where he'd have to live up to something," Hodges said. "Mafia type that he is, he doesn't want anybody restricting his options. He couldn't care less about moral obligations. He's willing to chuck the whole thing away."

Hodges warned that if Trump was elected to a second term in November, America's European allies would have every reason to worry about the former president not honoring his predecessors' commitments to preserving the NATO alliance.

"We would be foolish not to take at face value exactly what [Trump] says," Hodges said. "In his last term, he did have people around him who were able to moderate certain things, at least for a period of time. He won't make that same mistake again."

The NATO alliance has become particularly important as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues his incursion into Ukraine's Donbas region and maintains his occupation of the Crimean Peninsula. NATO added Finland to its alliance last year, and Sweden is on the verge of joining the alliance as well. Putin argued that NATO's expansion into eastern Europe constituted encroachment by the West necessitated his attack on Ukraine in 2022. However, Ukraine has countered that Putin's aggression since its 2014 annexation of Crimea — which led to its expulsion from the G8 — will only worsen, adding that they want to regain control of both the peninsula and the disputed Donbas territory.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Sorry Kevin, 'Checks And Balances' Won't Save Us From A Dictatorial Trump

Sorry Kevin, 'Checks And Balances' Won't Save Us From A Dictatorial Trump

The already-forgotten-but-not-yet-gone Kevin McCarthy shared some thoughts on threats to our democracy with Bob Costa on "Face the Nation." McCarthy is unworried about Trump's authoritarian ambitions. "Yeah, but remember, you have a check-and-balance system."

McCarthy isn't the only one to place exaggerated confidence in institutions to save us from Trump's lawlessness. Even the supposedly serious conservatives on The Wall Street Journal editorial board assure readers that "We think American institutions are strong enough to contain whatever designs Mr. Trump has to abuse presidential power." The real danger, as the Journal editorialists see it, is that "his chaos theory of governance would result in a second term that failed to deliver on his promises and set up the left for huge gains in 2026 and 2028." So the Journal isn't at all concerned that Trump would follow through on plans to instruct the Justice Department to prosecute his opponents; pardon all of the Jan. 6 rioters, fake electors and others who helped him attempt to steal the 2020 election; withdraw from NATO; impose a ten percent tariff on all imports; investigate NBC for treason; and shoot shoplifters on sight.

This complacency is dangerous. The truth is that institutions don't uphold themselves.

Consider the GOP. Though partisan feelings run hot these days, the actual political parties have very little power. They don't even have influence over what the party stands for. In 2020, the Republican Party — which had produced a platform every four years despite civil war, depression and two world wars — produced no platform, merely a one-sentence declaration that the party supported "the President's America First agenda."

The Democratic Party, also a shadow of its former self, could not assemble a delegation of elders — say, in 2022 — to approach Joe Biden and suggest that he step aside and groom a younger successor.

If the Republican Party were not such a shell, it would have shut down Trump's dangerous lies about the stolen election on Nov. 3, 2020. Instead, leading officeholders "humored" him or, worse, reinforced his lies. They knew that to mislead voters about the integrity of the election process was playing with fire — that it could result in instability or violence. But the party failed miserably. Even after the deadly assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 147 Republican representatives and senators voted not to certify Biden's election.

It was only the conscience and courage of a few individuals that kept the United States from plunging into a constitutional crisis. Mike Pence, Rusty Bowers, Brad Raffensperger, Jeff Rosen, Richard Donoghue and a few others found it within themselves to put country before party.

A few people with the backbone to do the right thing do not make an institution. They don't comprise a reliable "check and balance" — especially when the institution has chosen not to reward but to punish them. Not only have most of those who did the right thing lost their seats; many have had to expend small fortunes for personal security.

What would elected Republicans do if he instructed his officials to violate people's constitutional rights and promised in advance to pardon them? Let's be realistic. Most Republicans would justify it. The Wall Street Journal would probably tsk tsk and say the real danger was that Democrats might get the same idea. And if they didn't, what could they do to stop him? Impeachment is a dead letter.

What about the institution of the press? There are probably more excellent journalists working today than any time in history, but the press as an institution is in crisis. Reliable outlets compete for clicks with disinformation sites and malicious liars.

What about the churches? You would think that if any institution were loyal to something higher than partisanship, it would be the churches. But as Peter Wehner, Tim Alberta, David French, and Russell Moore have shown in painful detail, white Evangelicals have shown themselves to be among the most susceptible to the lure of a would-be authoritarian. The churches are not a check on Trump.

What about the military? For the most part, the military has held steady, affirming that it has no role in domestic politics. It should disturb the sleep of any patriot that all of the living former secretaries of Defense felt the need to sign a letter in 2020 affirming that the military has no proper role in determining the outcome of America's elections.

What about the courts? The judiciary has been a stalwart check on Trump. Will that hold? Trump will spend the next 11 months discrediting the entire judicial system in order to vitiate the impact of any guilty verdict. And what is to stop him from pardoning himself for any and all depredations of the Constitution, which he has already declared should be "terminated"? What can the courts do against the plenary pardon power?

Our institutions are weak. The checks and balances, like the impeachment power, have proved toothless. There is only one check on autocracy that remains — the electorate — and with every poll, doubts about that one accumulate.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.