P.M. Carpenter

Does Putin have a target on his forehead?

​​​​​In today's photo (Sputnik, via Agence France-Presse), Vladimir Putin met in his usual paranoid style with "top officials." convened "to address the economic crisis touched off by Western sanctions," In Putin's remarks, he again referred to the West as "the empire of lies." That may be emotionally satisfying for the Russian dictator, but it won't resolve the economic crisis. Nevertheless, propaganda is about all that Vladimir has.

My guess is that the dominant thinking at the far end of the table was, How can we rid ourselves of this maniac?

This reminder, from Maria Popova, a Russia and Ukraine specialist at Canada's McGill University: "Two-thirds of authoritarian leaders are removed by their own allies. If he tightens the screws too much, if he tries to really increase his power at the expense of the ruling authoritarian coalition, then he is threatening his own position."

By refusing to condemn Trump, the GOP refuses to condemn Putin

As unbelievable as it may seem, the Republican Party has hit a new low.

Its former and continuing leader is Donald Trump, who has called Putin's ghastly invasion of Ukraine "genius," "wonderful," "very savvy" and "smart." When asked by George Stephanopoulos to condemn those statements, Republican senator and presidential wannabe Tom Cotton's repeated reply is that the host must ask Trump about his views on this or any other topic. Because Cotton, you see, doesn't "speak" for others. Take a look at his Twitter feed; it's groaning under the weight of Cotton's caustic remarks about Joe Biden's views and actions. (He even begins this clip by slamming President Obama.)

The cowardice of Republican Party leadership to refuse to criticize or condemn Trump on Russia, even when they disagree with him, was on full display again this morning. pic.twitter.com/7vB3v5TAXb

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 27, 2022

"Cowardice" fails to fully capture the rank gutlessness of Cotton and Republicans like him, who are pretty much all of them. The party's pro-Ukraine remarks are belied by its refusal to condemn Trump's pro-Putin remarks. But such is today's Republican Party: gutless to the core.

In negotiations, Ukraine's one demand?

​Ukrainian resistance has been nothing less than astounding. Every military analyst expected a long insurgency by Ukrainians, but not one analyst anticipated a virtual stalemate in the initial fighting, conducted largely by a force, as the Times put it, of "baristas, snowboarders, accountants, lawyers, teachers and janitors."

Ukraine's Armed Forces released a statement yesterday assessing Russia's military status: "Enemy troops, deprived of timely replenishment of fuel and ammunition, are stopped, The personnel of the occupying forces, the vast majority of whom are young conscripts, are exhausted by previous military exercises and have low morale.”

This comes from a layman removed thousands of miles from the conflict, but from what I have seen in videos and heard in interviews, "low morale" — "a lack of will" — seems to be key. Russian soldiers aren't sure why they're there; the resistance isn't quite squaring with the propaganda they had been fed. A friend in Montreal sent me an email from a State Department friend who related that in the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968, the same phenomenon occurred. The Russians expected to be greeted as liberators. 

The U.S. military made the same mistake in Iraq. Also like Russia, which has committed less than 200,000 troops, the U.S. underestimated the number of troops necessary for a quick resolution in Iraq. Indeed the American general who, early on, suggested a military force of several hundred thousand was sacked for being a naysayer.

U.S. intelligence is still predicting a Russian victory, whatever victory means. Putin has plunged into a hornet's nest, and extrication is going to be the trickiest maneuver in the history of military and diplomatic disasters. He may topple Zelensky's govenment, but then what? An endless insurgency. Crushing sanctions. European air space cut off. Domestic unrest. A frozen central bank. A world that despises him.

In today's negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Belarus, I should think Ukraine's demands would consist of one: reparations.

No matter what the military outcome, Putin lost this war before it began. Now somebody must pay for the needless loss of life and material destruction. And the world is looking at you, Vladimir.

A fresh push toward Kyiv?

Jesus! Take a look at these Russian ground forces lined up for more than three miles, about 40 miles north of Kyiv. The forces are said to be carrying reinforcing supplies as well, which have been lacking because of Ukrainian sabotage, slowing the Russian advance.

The Times has also posted this video of an incoming convoy, which, the paper concedes, might be the one pictured above.

UPDATE: Employees of Chechen "Rosgvardia" in Pripyat, don, February 27, 2022

Employees of FSVNG "Rosgvardia" in the Republic of Chechnya in the vicinity of Pripyat, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

✅Verified Video and Informations #UkraineRussiaConflict #Ukraine #Russia https://t.co/h8wD49XGzS

— Ukraine Russia Bot Check (@UA_BotTwitte) February 27, 2022

Kyiv was relatively quiet last night. Let us hope the quiet repeats — although it's not looking that way. It could also be that Putin will use these forces (in reserve) as a "stranglehold" card against Zelensky, in negotiations tomorrow.  

***

On the lighter side:

This farmer stealing a tank. pic.twitter.com/y6YCiZvQIr

— Helen Kennedy 🌻 (@HelenKennedy) February 27, 2022

I don't know about this, Mr. Zelensky

A Zelensky delegation has agreed to meet with the Russians for negotiations in southern Belarus, "where [they'll] be safe." Putin's caporegime, Belarusian president Aleksandr Lukashenko, "has taken responsibility for ensuring that all planes, helicopters and missiles stationed on Belarusian territory remain on the ground during the Ukrainian delegation’s travel, talks and return."

The first minute will suffice:

Ukraine and the ultimate, fatal flaw in the West's non-interventionist reasoning

Rarely in the history of international conflicts has there reigned so much cognitive dissonance — on one side.

The West stands at a pivotal intersection, even an "existential" crossroad, we are told. The globe is engaged in a life or death struggle between democracy and autocracy, the West's leaders exclaim. The planet faces a future of either tyrants or governments by the people, it is unremittingly said. And nothing less than the entire international order, which has kept the peace for four score, is at stake, we hear correctly.

Yet, when further faced with brazen acts of Russian aggression, of tyrannical and autocratic revanchism and of the international order's destruction, the West asks: What can we do? As in, what else can we do, other than militarily aid (to some limited extent) the aggrieved combatant and slap a few sanctions on the ruthless aggressor?

Why the tepid response, if a real "response" it can even be called? Yesterday I heard the answer, for the umpteenth time. I listened to former defense secretary William Cohen calmly and briefly explain on CNN that the West cannot intervene militarily in Ukraine because Vladimir Putin has "threatened" the use of nuclear weapons.

Cohen's was a bit of an overstatement; Putin has threateningly reminded the West that he has nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, this mere reminder — logically enough? — causes the West to back off. What else can it do? It can't risk nuclear annihilation over the future of one democratic nation. So go ahead, Vladimir, take it. Ukraine is yours.

I wish to point out, however, that by Cohen's (et al.s') logic, all of Eastern Europe is Vladimir Putin's to have. What next? Putin says, Gee I'd sure like to have Latvia — oh, and just a reminder, I possess nuclear weapons. According to Cohen's logic, the West would then have no choice but to cut Latvia loose. Then Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, etc.

To be clear, I am not advocating American boots on Ukrainian ground. Nor am I arguing against that. My only point is one of logic — and again, it is this: If Putin's reminders of nuclear weapons in his possession are all that's required to restrain the West from military interventions in Eastern Europe, then Eastern Europe is already gone, lost to Russian tyranny.

Such is the deep, self-devouring and fatal flaw in Cohen et al.s' reasoning. Is Mr. Putin to have it — whatever it may be — that easy? Does the signpost at our "existential" crossroad really read, Caution: Russian reminders shall result in unopposed Russian revanchism. 

Someday, Putin's personal End Times?

He was at it again today, even more frenzied and dodo-guano mad than on Monday.

Barked President Putin in a sniveling speech: "Nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, unhealing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. Therefore, one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same 'empire of lies.'"

American "behavior" is that of a "con-artist," he added, while he, Vladimir, must honorably battle the NATO-supported "far-right nationalists" and "drug addicts" and "neo-Nazis" of Ukraine's criminal regime — led, incidentally, by a Jew. You would have to scour the rambling, feiry paranoia of Mein Kampf to find comparable rants, and you still might be disappointed. Vladimir's ravings now make Adolf's seem eloquent.

But if nothing else, Putin has accomplished this much: He has the entire world asking, What in God's name is his end game? He can't possibly occupy all of Ukraine with a mere 200,000 troops; his imminent puppet regime in Ukraine won't be accepted by the indigenous population; he has almost certainly fomented a long, slogging, armed insurgency in Ukraine; he has largely isolated Russia diplomatically and economically; and far from fragmenting the West, he has unified it. 

The problem with asking and trying to answer the above question is that both endeavors entail a good deal of rationality. And yet Putin appears to be growing more irrational by the day. Just witness his Monday night gibberish and today's monomaniacal ravings. Does he any longer possess the mental capacity to strategically link his Ukrainian objectives with other, future aims? That, perhaps, is the more valid, more pertinent question.

If indeed he does still possess such a capacity, his next adventurism will probably center on isolating the Baltic States. This objective he could pursue by geopolitically and militarily linking Belarus, a de facto Russian state, with the nearby, actual Russian state of Kaliningrad, west of Lithuania, which would essentially sequester the Baltics from the rest of NATO.

What he might then pursue is quite literally anyone's guess, since I doubt Putin knows, either. I would venture this much, however: He'll never militarily confront NATO. Not directly. Even a madman couldn't be that mad. Keeping NATO nervous and the Baltic States panicked, though, would make his day.

Meanwhile, he has one helluva mess on his hands in Ukraine. That should keep him occupied for a good long while. And should that situation become even dicier, more costly and yet deadlier for his own army, one can always hope that his generals might begin pondering another regime change — at home. Someday, Vladimir's fate could be that of Benito's.

The GOP: The "blame America first" party

You can start with Trump and work your way down through all the smaller Trumpers, each of whom hopes to fill the Donald's little WH shoes, and each of whom is as shamelessly demagogic as the Orange Blight. Never in the history of U.S. foreign policy crises has the minority party so uniformly and preemptively trashed the president and commander in chief. The GOP is less the "America First" party than the "Blame America First" party it so seethingly denounced in the 1960s and beyond. It has no honor, no honesty, no shame.     

Trump says Putin invaded Ukraine because the 2020 US election was rigged. pic.twitter.com/Uic2sxVZQU

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 24, 2022

Vladimir Putin is on the verge of recreating the Russian Empire, if not the Soviet Union. It wasn’t so long ago that the leader of the free world prevented that from happening. Today, under Biden, our weakness is teasing Russian aggression.

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) February 23, 2022

Biden’s war on American oil & gas made #Russia’s energy more valuable, #Putin more powerful & the U.S. more vulnerable to what’s happening in #Ukraine

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 23, 2022

Vladimir Putin is the same person he was during our administration.
The only thing that has changed is American leadership.

— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) February 22, 2022

Joe Biden has shown nothing but weakness and indecision. Now is the time to show strong purpose. Sanction Russia’s energy sector - the engine of its economy - to its knees and reopen American energy production full throttle https://t.co/TftZiAGb8L

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) February 24, 2022

President Biden’s timid sanctions tonight are wholly unequal to this moment. Russia is invading Ukraine now. The time has come for the “swift and severe” sanctions that Joe Biden has long threatened but refused to impose. There is not a minute to lose.

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) February 22, 2022

During the campaign, Biden sold himself as an expert on foreign policy. Now, his weakness on the global stage has created *another* international crisis.

But the truth is Biden has always been a foreign policy disaster.

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 21, 2022

Putin is Hitler, and 2022 is 1939

Last night, when Putin announced he would "carry out a special military operation” on the ground, in eastern Ukraine only, I stayed tuned to CNN and turned up the volume, expecting to hear reports of Russian military operations virtually everywhere in Ukraine. Because Putin is a colossal liar. The network had stationed reporters in Kyiv and Kharkiv. I anticipated the commencement of Russian hostilities at 4 a.m., Ukraine time. I was wrong. The bombings — the explosions — began at 5 a.m. I shall never forget watching the rattled CNN reporter in Kyiv, the first to be caught on camera nervously reaching for his flak jacket after hearing bombs drop near the capital city's airport. Minutes later, artillery fire began raining on Kharkiv, too.

And with that, the world changed — the first large-scale, European ground invasion since the Second World War. All because of one man's calculated irrationality. How else to put it? His belligerence is madness, but determined and meticulously executed. He kept the West guessing for weeks, as though he would transport nearly 200,000 troops to Ukraine's borders at huge expense, only to then withdraw, or just threateningly sit there? His intervening diplomacy was as phony as his announcement of merely an eastern Ukraine operation; he used "negotiations" only to buy military-prep time. This, the Biden administration knew, but was obligated to play the diplomacy game nevertheless.

There was always a slim, very slim chance that Putin's belligerence would stall at the last minute, of course. But the odds were so slim, the number of onlookers who bought them is rather shocking. Case in point: Putin's invasion "appeared to surprise people in the oil markets" today — prices are now soaring — with one energy analyst admitting "there was a mistaken view in the market as recently as yesterday that either Putin had gotten enough to pause or that things would be limited to the Donbas." The depth of such blindness held firm even after the Russian dictator's Monday night rant in which he denied even the legitimacy of an independent Ukraine.

What has struck me most powerfully, though, is the number of expert onlookers who failed to explicitly articulate who Vladimir Putin really is: a little Hitler. Another case in point. Yesterday, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright published a NYT op-ed in which she recalled meeting the freshly established Russian ruler in 2000: "[He] is small and pale, so cold as to be almost reptilian," she recorded in notes. She then proceeded to point out the vast mistakes that Putin is now making:

"Instead of paving Russia’s path to greatness, invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled and strategically vulnerable in the face of a stronger, more united Western alliance.... What is sure to be a bloody and catastrophic war will drain Russian resources and cost Russian lives.... It’s important to remember that his competition of choice is not chess, as some assume, but rather judo. We can expect him to persist in looking for a chance to increase his leverage and strike in the future" — which, however, might be averted by U.S. and allied diplomacy and multifaceted support of Ukraine, continued Albright.

You no doubt catch my drift. What Secretary Albright outlined had been consistently outlined in the 1930s, about the small, pale, reptilian Herr Hitler. All of her criticisms, critiques and assessments of Putin were similarly leveled at Germany's dictator, too, and not one of them stopped him from launching a bloody, catastrophic, strategically vulnerable, German resource-draining and lives-costing war. Hitler could also be "patient and pragmatic," as Albright noted of Putin; judo-like, he first tactically probed and prodded in the Rhineland, for example, looking for chances "to increase his leverage" and "strike in the future." And the world let him. Because the world wasn't giving peace a chance; it was, tragically, giving diplomacy a chance.

And that's where the title of Albright's op-ed, "Putin Is Making a Historic Mistake," is vastly ironic. For it's the West that will make a far more calamitous, historic mistake if it fails to stop Putin now — he'll not be satiated by this fifth "victory" in 15 years (Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria and now Ukraine) — just as it failed to stop Hitler then. As was true for the latter, Putin and his Russian vision are doomed. But as was also true for the little corporal, the former KGB agent will take countless others down with him, most of them innocent.

Vladimir Putin has never threatened NATO. Which is smart. But NATO might want to think about threatening Vladimir Putin.

The GOP finally proposes an idea. Raise taxes!

Our long, national nightmare of an idealess Republican Party is over. The waiting is over. The angst is over. For the GOP, under the ghoulish guidance of Sen. Rick Scott, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has an idea, a plan, a kind of platform. They party hasn't had an idea, plan or platform since 2017, when it slashed taxes on the wealthy in the midst of a healthy economy, a rather novel macroeconomic maneuver that no one had ever thought of before, because doing so is ... idiotic.

But Rick has a plan, a new plan, in fact an exciting, 11-point plan for the 2022 midterms. Among its thrilling imbecilities, it would abolish the Department of Education, complete Trump’s border wall, cut the IRS' budget (so that the deficit can grow ever larger), limit congressional lawmakers and federal workers to no more than 12 years of service, cancel all federal legislation after five years, and — this is important — stipulate the existence of only two genders.

But wait. The real highlight of Sen. Scott's plan? Raise taxes. On the poor. Subject everyone to some percentage of income tax, no matter how destitute the potential taxpayer may be — even though the very poorest among us already shell out payroll and sales taxes. But about 50 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, and that's just more than Rick can bear. "All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game," he says.

It seems no one reminded him that his party's 2017 tax cut — which he voted for — doubled the standard tax deduction for everyone, which, by design, increased the number of non-taxpayers. It further seems that Sen. Scott, then, favors both reducing the number of taxpayers and increasing the number of taxpayers. That, perhaps, is the most novel aspect of his macroeconomic thinking.

Anyway, when asked by Fox News if his tax increase would increase taxes, he replied, "Of course not."

Take heart. If Sen. Scott's plan, all 11 points of them, fails to enthuse you, just keep this in mind: The brilliant Kevin McCarthy is working with Newt Gingrich to come up with their own 2022 elections plan, parts of which, no doubt, will demand Puritan stocks in every village, a pregnant (white) woman in every kitchen, the evangelical return of Prohibition, and repeal of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

Another stomach-turning transcript: Trump love - for Putin

As revolting as Vladimir Putin's remarks were Monday night, they were nothing compared to Donald Trump's yesterday, while speaking on some on-air atrocity by the name of "The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show."

As a Russian dictator in the mold of a Stalin-lite, Putin isn't expected to be lovably American or pro-West. So in that sense, whatever inanities, hatreds and prejudices he spews can be accepted. But Trump, I regret to remind you, was president of the United States. And there, in that sense, no matter how inane, hateful and prejudiced he is, it's still painful to hear him side with that other guy against America, against its interests, against the civilized West, and against the free people of Ukraine.

Here, as they say, is what went down yesterday, on Clay & Buck:

BUCK: Mr. President, in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an "invasion." That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently?

TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius." Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.

So, Putin is now saying, "It’s independent," a large section of Ukraine. I said, "How smart is that?" And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.

By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, "I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent," he used the word "independent," "and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace." You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that.

If you're a regular reader of this site and it has been a while since you made a contribution to its continuation, now would be an excellent time to get caught up. Your help is needed. Very much. Especially if you are among the regular readers and regular contributors to this site. Every year I ask the first group that hasn't yet joined the second group to rectify their financial absence, and every year I am — I'll be charitable — disappointed. (The "Make A Donation" button is on the left.) But I shan't give up. I shall ask again. Realistically, however, it is you, the regular reader/contributor, who keeps this site going. So I hope and trust you'll make another donation today. I count on you. Thanks — P.M. (Phil)

Vladimir Putin's Monday night crackup

Last night, upon sensing that my situational depression was dropping to unacceptably substandard levels, I decided to turn things around by reading all of Vladimir Putin's Monday night speech​. That did the trick. Soon I was crying for mercy. For starters, the Russian dictator, in the best of Cuban dictator style, rattled off an astounding 7,465 words — the equivalent length of 10, back-to-back newspaper columns, or, counting applause, one-ninth of an average State of the Union address, America's annual test of public endurance.

Far more distressing than its verbosity, though, was the speech's content. I'm not yet foolish or cruelly despondent enough to reproduce the full speech here, but I did think you might like to read a few of its highlights, which should give you some idea of what The Atlantic's Tom Nichols called "simply unhinged":

"I will start with the fact that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia.... It is a historical fact.

"Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence.

"The Ukrainian authorities always preferred dealing with Russia in a way that ensured that they enjoy all the rights and privileges while remaining free from any obligations. The officials in Kiev replaced partnership with a parasitic attitude.

"It should be noted that Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood. And, therefore, in 1991 it opted for mindlessly emulating foreign models, which have no relation to history or Ukrainian realities.

"[Ukrainians] literally struggle to survive. What happened? Why is this all happening? The answer is obvious. They spent and embezzled the legacy inherited not only from the Soviet era, but also from the Russian Empire.

"There are more and more acts enabling the Ukrainian military and law enforcement agencies to crack down on the freedom of speech, dissent, and going after the opposition ... [and] Kiev continues to prepare the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

"As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging.

"The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations.... Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases.

"The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over.

"Moreover, [the West is] again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces.

"Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks.... The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this.

"Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy.

"How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity.... Everything was in vain."

This was probably coincidental, but after piecing together these quotes for posting I became violently nauseated, and still am. I kid you not.

Biden's sanctions, pretty tough ... but ...

President Biden's imposition of new sanctions on Russia, just announced, are tougher than many international observers had speculated (though not the full monty). Weaker sanctions, much suspected, would have been an error in judgment — a mistake; a political, diplomatic and Big Power mistake. That, it seems, he avoided.

The Times editorial board argued this morning that he would "wisely [desist] from firing the full fusillade of punitive measures he has threatened should Mr. Putin unleash the invasion he has prepared," since "the possibility of ... diplomacy simply cannot be abandoned so long as it has the slightest chance."

That statement would be truer if diplomacy with Putin indeed possessed such a chance, however slight. It doesn't. Has the Times really not yet learned that lesson? To Putin, diplomacy is merely a military tactic; a head fake, a gambit, a way to buy time.

Either way, none of Biden's choices was optimal. The choices he did make, however, were judicious. The sanctions hit Russia's larger banks and the sale of sovereign bonds. Smartly, the administration does not plan — or does not yet plan — to sanction Russia’s oil and gas industry, since that would only spike gasoline prices in the U.S., create more energy problems for our European allies, and cause global economic disruptions. 

That said, no matter what choices Biden made, this much must be remembered: By all Russian accounts, Putin gives not one damn about sanctions. Going forward, most of his massive, kleptocratic wealth will remain secure; he has taken steps to insulate his oligarchs from sanctions' most damaging effects; and he sure as hell doesn't care how sanctions might diminish the average Russian citizen's standard of living.

Putin's mind is set on Peter the Greatness stuff; and there, Western sanctions simply make no dent.

Nor, as noted, will Putin seriously entertain the West's diplomatic maneuverings. He only toys with diplomats. What he will entertain, most assuredly, are retaliatory cyberattacks on Ukraine. Possibly Europe and the U.S., too.

Next up? Russian offensive operations outside of eastern Ukraine. Putin hasn't gone this far to stop now, and thereby stop short.

God bless Putin for having given me at least a brief holiday from Republicans

The Russia-Ukraine crisis hasn't been all bad. In fact, it has presented one major upside, which is this: Ever since the European conflict began deepening, it steadily pushed news coverage of Republican pols off the front page and diminished their presence on what little social media I follow. Thus, except for reading up rather assiduously on the globe's 1939 redux, I've been on quite a refreshing holiday from all the pseudoconservative morons who so poisonously embody the modern Republican Party.

But, as with all good things, my holiday couldn't last forever. For yesterday, there at the top of my sporadically visited Twitter feed was one of the leading Republican imbeciles of our day: Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, pontificating about our blundering president, babbling about all that Biden has done to bring about the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Ron Johnson is blaming Biden tonight for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/mlDZJOBITA

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 22, 2022

​​​​​"What [he] should have done is maintain strength," military as well as economic strength, said Johnson. Instead, "just about every action Biden has taken has weakened America" and "emboldened our enemies" who, when "sensing weakness," will act. And sure enough, one has acted. Russia. But again, this wasn't Putin's doing, heaven forfend. No, no, it was President Biden's.

And from that I gather Sen. Johnson has also been on holiday — from the news.

Only two months ago, Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, by the way, passed in a bipartisan Senate vote of 88-11. Among other things, the bill raised pay for servicemembers; added spending on submarines, ships and aircraft; planned for the modernization of military technology; and, not least, reauthorized the European Deterrence Initiative — a military precaution aimed straight at Russia.

Since then, President Biden has held our European alliance together, which Johnson's "strong" president, Trump, tried his best to demolish. In addition, Biden repeatedly warned the world of Russia's intentions in Ukraine and he relentlessly disabused some of our European allies' skepticism about Putin's ultimate aggression.

As early as last October, Biden began outlining to those allies the countermeasures to be taken against Russia; he has shared with our allies the highest, most sensitive intelligence the U.S. has acquired; he has strengthened our NATO troop presence in Eastern Europe; he has sent more arms to Ukraine; he's been preparing — warning — the American public of what may come in Eastern Europe; and he and his national security staff have initiated every conceivable diplomatic resolution to the crisis.

As for maintaining America's economic strength, that too the president has done a bang-up job of. My question to Sen. Johnson would be: When was the last time you and your Republican colleagues in Congress assisted the president in maintaining that strength?

I should note that one of Johnson's partisan colleagues, Sen. Lindsey Graham, has demanded that Vladimir Putin "immediately be met with forceful sanctions to destroy ... the Russian oil and gas sector." Would this be helpful in maintaining America's economic strength? Hardly. It would send gas prices skyrocketing — for which, of course, Republicans would then blame President Biden.

At least the Ron Johnson video was, mercifully, only 25 seconds long. On the other hand, short as it was, it still put an end to my holiday from Trumpian morons.