P.M. Carpenter

Comments no more

I'm at a loss to understand it. Either my writing and general polemics are so stupendously brilliant no one could possibly think of a counterargument, or readers of this site are abnormally shy. I'm rather certain neither proposition accounts for hundreds of posts with successive "0" comments, even though a thousand visitors may have read each one; it's not unusual, to quote Tom Jones. Rare is the day there is a criticism, critique, agreement, or even that old comment section favorite, "You're an idiot." Whereas, therefore and henceforth, I am terminating the comment section; it's too underused to keep around. However if you wish to let me know that I'm an idiot or an over-the-hill Wunderkind, you may email me at pmcarp at mchsi dot com. (The email address will remain printed beneath my cheerful visage, upper left.) I may, from time to time, post remarks — anonymously, unless directed otherwise — pertaining to something I've written. Odds are, no one cares about any of this, but I thought it advisable to announce. Thank you for your understanding. —PM

***

P.S. I should have added that you're welcome to comment on this post or any post at my Facebook pages — "P.M. Carpenter" or "The Carpentariat"

Or on Twitter, @CarpenterPM

Every post on this site goes up on the above sites.

P.P.S. I am delighted to report that, so far at least (a day later), I've received not one word of complaint about striking the comment section. I suspected as much, but this total lack of unhappiness is still a relief.   

Joe Biden should not run again

​​​​​Puck political news (paywalled) reports that President Biden has chosen to remain President Biden:

"White House aides are carrying on preparations for his big [reelection] announcement, which would typically come during sometime between November and January. Staffers have been told to arrange for Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign, while his inner circle works out details like when and where they will officially announce it. 'There is no daylight between whether he’s running [or not]," said a senior White House official."

My preference as to a 2024 Democratic nominee is irrelevant. To the point is what's relevant to voters universally, and there, the early news is not good. You think Trump's polling is bad? Take a look at Biden's. Both were assessed in a June 10-13 YouGov poll. On the question of whether Trump should run again, 55% said no, and 31% said yes. On Biden, 64% said no, 21% yes.

It gets worse. Among Democrats, not even half (43%) said yes, while 36% said no.

Okay, what if voters have no choice but a Trump-Biden race? "The majority favoured Trump," 42% to 39% percent, 20% not sure.

Need I add that these are miserable numbers? True, 2024 is a long way off, but any public that would even narrowly favor a known criminal over a notably ethical president is a public that cannot be trusted, two years from now, to put an honorable person in the White House. Republicans may not need to cheat, they may win outright.

(An aside, an additional polling question: "Do you think the January 6 Committee is reporting the truth about the attack on the U.S. Capitol?" We already knew the "yes" response would be low among Republicans, but this low? A mere 12% of them said yes. [Among independents, 27%.] A tiny fraction of GOPers said "Yes I believe the overwhelming video, audio, and print evidence and the live Republican testimonies all saying — or rather confirming — that Trump is a crook." The American people are making it quite hard to retain any faith in American democracy.)

Based solely on others' preference, this much seems clear enough to me, based on objective findings: Joe Biden should reconsider a reelection effort. And some other Democrat should challenge him, should Biden choose to proceed.  

What's the matter with Missouri? Not much, except that it sucks.

A recent ad from Republican candidate Eric Greitens, running for U.S. Senate in my state of birth and rearing, Missouri, which I once loved.

An early-June Emerson poll (graded A-, 538), found this gun-happy moron, once-about-to-be-impeached governor (he resigned), campaign-finance scoundrel and scumbag of a sexual deviate leading the Republican pack. Will Greitens' additional, less-then-subtle advocacy of stalking and murdering Republican pols one strongly disagrees with help or hurt him? My guess is that he'll not only continue leading the pack, he'll soon leave others in the dust.

America.

***

P.S. I saw one news clip in which the anchor, talking about the ad, said his station wouldn't air it because of its scandalous content, or words to that effect. Such is precisely the wrong way to cover the story. All of America should see firsthand just how utterly insane the Republican Party has become.   

Apple and user coercion

My computer has been out of commission for nearly four hours; after the "breakdown," one hour on the phone with Apple Support, and three hours to and from a computer store to buy a new mouse — $100. The Apple technician was stumped. Two other (Logitech) mice suddenly and simultaneously stopped working, he wasn't sure why. He suggested I reload the entire operating system, which took two hours and which completed while I ventured out for an Apple mouse, since, as the tech also advised, the Logitech mice may no longer be compatible with my Mac, which I had to buy about four months back because the other's keyboard and sound went kaput. Logitech is probably the most widely used mouse in the cosmos, for a mere $20, but Apple's technology now requires a $100 Apple mouse. (To explain, I simply cannot use keypads. I'm an old dog.)

U.S. officials are lying about Russia's gains in Ukraine. The Russian-American propaganda war is escalating.

The NY Times interviewed defense department officials about the bloody course of the "war's path" in Ukraine, and came away with this staggeringly false and reportorially undisputed portrayal of Russia's advances in the East: "After weeks of bloody battles ... Russia holds roughly the same amount of territory in Donetsk as the separatists controlled in February before the invasion."

The Pentagon's assessment of Russian-held, southern Donbas territory is simply, and shockingly, untrue. To maintain compensatory parity in the Russia-U.S. propaganda war, the Kremlin could similarly claim that Russia holds territory extending to Kyiv. Contrary to each side's publicity campaigns, however outrageous they are and may become, here is a map of current reality in eastern Ukraine, from the BBC.

Since the Times article is about the "war's path," meaning all affected Ukrainian areas, it's reasonable to assume that the story would cover all the affected Ukrainian areas. Yet for corresponding reasons of feel-good propaganda, both the Times and the U.S. defense department ignore the southern Ukrainian territory held by Russia. Again from the BBC, as of yesterday:

The motivation for the Pentagon's seductions by falsehood and omission are, of course, to subdue warranted criticism of the U.S.'s (and NATO partners') inadequate shipments to Ukraine of essential military hardware. The Biden administration boastfully waves the U.S. and Ukrainian flags upon each announcement of aid, such as the much-ballyhooed $40 billion package of late. The number is deceptive. In actual military assistance, the figure is roughly $5.6 billion since 24 February.

Another subterfuge practiced by multi-starred Pentagon officials is the "We're not too late" refrain. There's always more aid promised, which, they say, will turn the war in Ukraine's favor — somewhere down the road. "If they use it properly, practically, then they’re going to have very, very good effects on the battlefield," says the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Mark Milley. That is true, and for that we are thankful. It also cunningly dismisses the tremendous toll on Ukrainian lives in the interim. The civilian body count is, to date, already in the tens of thousands and sure to grow, and at the confirmed rate of 200 Ukrainian soldiers killed each day, nearly 20,000 more will die over the next three months. Needlessly.

When it comes to Russia's outlandish propaganda pretensions, much comedy and head-shaking are had throughout America. But we should stop laughing and start questioning our own propaganda game, almost as outlandishly circulated by U.S. defense officials — and the journalists who uncritically cover them.

Russia is accused, so Russia accuses

The European Union's top foreign policy official charged today that Russia's blockade of Ukraine, which has halted its national exports of grain and other vital commodities and is assuming the spectre of world hunger, is a "war crime."

Of no mere coincidence, then, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov told reporters that Lithuania's ban on the transportation of Russian goods to Russia's European province of Kaliningrad is "more than serious," a "violation of everything," and "an element of a blockade."

Going a step better than the EU, Russian authorities are now threatening Lithuania with some largely unspecified sort of retaliation, should it not end the ban, which it can't, of course, since Lithuania is only obeying EU sanctions.

"If cargo transit between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of the Russian Federation via Lithuania is not fully restored in the near future," intoned Russia's foreign ministry, "then Russia reserves the right to take actions to protect its national interests.”

Lithuania is anything but frightened, especially since it is protected by NATO. Said Laurynas Kasciunas, the Lithuanian Parliament's chairman of the national security and defense committee. "The Kremlin has very few options for how to retaliate." If effect, "Go away, kid, you're bothering me."

This little item, included in The NY Times reporting on Russia's pouting about Lithuania, is particularly amusing: "Just two weeks ago, a member of Russia’s parliament from Mr. Putin’s United Russia party submitted a draft law declaring Lithuania’s 1990 declaration of independence illegal."

That is what's known as just a trifle-belated, foreign policy temper tantrum.

America's antidemocratic machinery is legally gearing up

Somehow, the Associated Press neglected to attach the appropriate graphic to its story, "Justices seem poised to hear elections case pressed by GOP." I have corrected this unfortunate error.

The AP's lede: "The Supreme Court seems poised to take on a new elections case being pressed by Republicans that could increase the power of state lawmakers over races for Congress and the presidency, as well as redistricting, and cut state courts out of the equation.... The Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independent state legislature doctrine."

The doctrine is a vile, Republican-concocted theory that "would leave partisan politicians, rather than independent administrators, overseeing elections — possibly even overturning results they don’t like," wrote Pew Trust in March.

It is "a read­ing of the Consti­tu­tion, pushed in recent years by a small group of advoc­ates, that would give state legis­latures wide author­ity to gerry­mander elect­oral maps and pass voter suppres­sion laws. It has even been used as polit­ical cover to try to over­turn elec­tions," explained the Brennan Center for Justice.

Wrote election-law specialist Richard Hasen to the AP, the "theory would potentially give state legislatures even more power to curtail voting rights and provide a pathway for litigation to subvert the election outcomes expressing the will of the people."

In short, it's a Republican wet dream. And given the five fascistic onanists on the Supreme Court, Republicans will likely have their dream firmly in hand as well.

Just in time for the 2022 elections. Which will put a GOP lock on 2024 — and it will all be perfectly legal, very much like Hungary's corrupt system.

If we are to survive this Trumpian onslaught, we must cheer up, stick together, and tear that system down. 

Putin's new, parroted propaganda pitch. It's a humdinger.

Russian propagandist and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan appeared on a fellow propagandist's program, Sunday Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, "gushing about her recent meetings with Putin," reports the Daily Beast. What follows, then, would appear to be, in the Russian propagandist department, fully Putin conceived and articulated.

Said Simonyan of Ukrainian soldiers: "He doesn’t even care where to live. He has no military-patriotic feelings that he’s defending his Motherland. He understands perfectly well that he isn’t defending any Motherland, but somebody else’s interests that have nothing to do with his own. He couldn’t care less where he ends up living: in Donetsk, Belgorod or his village near Kyiv, where he’s from."

Of course, Simonyan also needed to again expose the dark side of the Ukrainian army: "There is a significant number of Nazis and indoctrinated people, with whom there isn’t much to be done, other than to have them shot under the laws of the [the Donetsk People’s Republic]."

But then came the bobby-dazzling lollapalooza of all gobsmacking Russian propaganda yet. Not only is Russia's war on Ukraine not a war, as foreign journalists enjoy writing, because they "have simply gone nuts," says Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, "This isn’t even a special operation against the Ukrainian Armed Forces," said Simonyan. "This is a civil war in Ukraine ... [and] Russia is simply supporting one side of those warring parties.... That’s all."

Like Trump, Simonyan also understands the importance of unceasing, jackhammering repetition of any Big Lie. She added that as long as Russian media abroad persist in bellowing the above bullshit, the American and European public will eventually swallow it, and Western leaders' reelection odds "would tumble downward, from 20-30 percent approval rating all the way to zero."

I suspect she's pretty close to right about the real possibility of the twin publics' coming disaffection, but more so because of their increasing lack of support, in time, for a war they'll perceive as a lost Ukrainian cause. (That is, not because of Russia's virtuous partisanship.) Western leaders, however, would likely get ahead of such disillusionment, demanding that Ukraine negotiate a self-harming end to the war. The time to head off that awful development is now, via honest assessments of Ukraine's perilous position and, in logical turn, a massive enlargement of Western military aid, or Western military intervention.

Biden is too old for a 2024 race and there are no "obvious Democratic alternatives," says the Wall Street Journal

Because of Mr. Biden's age, which, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, has rendered him unfit for duty, "the drive to shove the President out the door has already begun. The New York Times kicked off the kicking with a story quoting various progressive sages [of course] suddenly admitting what everyone has known all along: Mr. Biden is the oldest serving U.S. President at age 79, and he’ll be 82 when he finishes his term."

Nowhere in the WSJ's editorial is it mentioned that the GOP's likely nominee, the seditionist, impeached² Trump, would also be 82, were he to finish a second term. Such would be possible only by a reduction in the bloated gasbag's cuisine of artery-clogging, cholesterol-gushing cheeseburgers. (Don't tell Donald.)

The solicitous editors remark that "[Biden] looks and sounds every bit his age." That may be — and that, we are expected to see as a bad thing — however one chief difference betwixt Biden and Trump is that the latter sounds like 3-year-old, and a bratty, tantrum-throwing 3-year-old at that.

The Journal concludes its one-sided geriatric analysis by writing, "The President may not want to leave town as easily as some Democrats want him to. All the more given the lack of obvious Democratic alternatives to Mr. Biden in 2024."

Here the editors are sharp as always, and spot on. Other than, say, Chris Murphy, Phil Murphy, Brian Schatz, Gretchen Whitmer, Tony Evers, Tammy Duckworth, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobuchar, Andy Beshear, Eric Garcetti, Angus King, Chris Coons, Tom Wolf, Jean Shaheen, Jay Inslee, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey and Eric Adams, there are indeed no Democratic alternatives to Joe Biden.

The unforgivable deceptions of U.S. military think tanks

The American public is being mislead about developments in the Russia-Ukraine war by two U.S. think tanks — one, independent; the other, federally funded — much as the public was misled about the factual circumstances of the Vietnam War (though in a completely different context), ultimately and famously exposed by the Rand Corp.'s Daniel Ellsberg via the Pentagon Papers.

The current facts on Ukrainian ground are, for the defender, dismal. Russian forces are tightening their grip on the strategic cities of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in the Luhansk province, the Donbas. Russia has nearly surrounded thousands of Ukrainian troops there, potentially stranding them. The at-risk defenders still control a small opening to the west, although entry and exit roads are frequently shelled by Russia and, reports The NY Times, "Russian troops have been creeping forward to close the gap."

Mykolaiv, a major port city and transportation hub still in Ukrainian hands, suffered missile strikes over the weekend, and, more ominously, the northeastern city of Kharkiv, which recently appeared to be back in Ukrainian control, is again sustaining a Russian rocket offensive. Ukraine's interior minister, Vadym Denysenko, warned yesterday that "Russia is trying to make Kharkiv a frontline city," and he characterized the region's situation as "difficult."

Enter the two think tanks, the Institute for the Study of War and the Center for Naval Analysis.

Funded by U.S. defense contractors, the ISW has consistently reported positive developments on the Ukrainian side at the expense of objective analyses, which are essential in war settings. The ISW's latest report — and this is just one example of the Institute's manipulation of public opinion — framed Ukraine's dire situation in Severodonetsk as one of Russian weakness: "Concentrated Russian artillery power paired with likely understrength infantry units remains insufficient to enable Russian advances within Severodonetsk."

The ISW previously disputed other military analysts' criticism of Ukraine's refusal to reinforce its fighting units in Severodonetsk; shrewdly, argued the ISW, Ukraine instead reinforced its southern units to draw Russian forces away from the city. That strategy, quite obviously, was less than shrewd. Conversely, the CNA, a federally funded think tank for all U.S. military services, argued that Ukraine chose "to fight for [Severodonetsk] in an effort to exhaust Russian forces."

Neither has that worked out for Ukraine. Each day it is losing up to 700 men — nearly all the casualties are occurring in the Luhansk province — and the strategic city of Severodonetsk is about to fall. But not to worry, effectively said Michael Kofman, CNA's director of Russia studies, on another Russia-watch site, 3 June: "The overall trends in the military balance still favor Ukraine."

Both analyses, those of the ISW and CNA, are inexcusable deceits. Ukraine's "favorable" military balance would be a splendid reality had the West supplied Ukraine properly and expeditiously from the beginning. By now, Russia would be on its heels and huddled close to its own border. No such needed assistance took place, however. So it's Ukraine on its heels. Yet the ISW and CNA say otherwise — as strategic cities fall, as troop losses mount, as civilian deaths continue to rise, and as Western aid, wanting in appropriate firepower, trickles in.

By these two think tanks, the American public is being deceived. Honest, objective analyses would likely be of greater benefit to Ukraine than those of habitually upbeat takes on its ground and air situations. Perhaps the public would then demand that Ukraine's essential military aid be increased, sufficient, and timely. Maybe not, though in either case, more straight-talking candor is called for.

The 2022 election: America's beginning of the end, for at least a generation

"Republicans are more likely to 'preserve Democracy' than Democrats."

That's a Fox News headline, so naturally it's inaccurate. The public is tied on the question, 46% Republican and 45% Democratic. (The poll's MOE is 3%.) That Fox's headline is erroneous is no surprise. But that public opinion is evenly divided on which party would better preserve democracy is just downright appalling.

One cannot blame the polling results on Fox News' unfaltering bias. The network uses Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), which combined rates an A from FiveThirtyEight. The real culprit is ironclad partisanship. One might think that since the poll was conducted just after the first, primetime Jan. 6 committee hearing — shocking, loathsome, and all Republican — public opinion would at least lean toward Dems as the good, democratic guys.

But more than that, the poll's results come after years of Democratic warnings about Republicans' electoral hijinks in many notable ways that need not be rehashed here. The sorry truth is that rank-and-file Dems were listening, and they cared, but no one else did.

"This is going to cause some heads on Twitter to absolutely explode," tweeted one Republican pollster. I assume millions of heads did just that. When I read the polling results, ny head simply dropped in firmly resigned cynicism, as well as feeling the deepest of shame at this country, so willing to cut its own throat.

Oh, the poll also found that the electorate trusts Republicans more than Democrats to deal with inflation (55% to 36%) and crime (52% to 39%), even though Republican pols have proffered not one bloody idea on either issue. In what should be a midterm election revolving around Anything But Trumpism, we'e instead looking at an election swirling with thoughts of Anything But Democrats.

As Russia conducts a campaign "shockingly barbaric," Ukraine must "wait for weapons to arrive"

In a NY Times article that focuses on the Russian military's "costly" losses in equipment and manpower, there are eight extraneous words that distract in their shame, heavy regret and vileness: "As Ukraine anxiously waits for weapons to arrive."

Whatever troubles are facing Russia, Ukraine's fighting a war weaponless is far more troublesome. In another and much lengthier Times story which required the efforts of nine investigative journalists, noted is that Russia, notwithstanding its perturbations, is executing a "shockingly barbaric and old-fashioned wartime strategy"; it is pummeling "Ukrainian cities and towns with a barrage of rockets and other munitions.... The attacks have made repeated and widespread use of weapons that kill, maim and destroy indiscriminately ... [and] have left civilians — including children — dead and injured."

This war is about to close out its fourth month, and yet there sits Ukraine, still "anxiously waiting for weapons to arrive." This leads us to yet another Times story, "Western leaders warn that the war in Ukraine could last years." That, in part, is because Western leaders have insufficiently and sluggishly supplied the courageous defender with appropriate military hardware. Four months, and at least one previous month in which Russia's Putin made clear that he would attack, And Ukraine waits.

So now we find NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, telling the Bild am Sonntag of the costs that "Ukrainians have to pay every day with many lives," and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson writing in The Sunday Times, "I am afraid that we need to steel ourselves for a long war, as Putin resorts to a campaign of attrition, trying to grind down Ukraine by sheer brutality."

Johnson also articulated the intelligent, far-thinking notion of one's own national security interests. In supporting Ukraine, "we and our allies will be protecting our own security as much as Ukraine’s," he wrote, for if President Putin should succeed, "every dictator would feel emboldened to pursue their own ambitions by force — and no nation anywhere would be safe."

The NATO alliance has been resolute in its noble sentiments about Ukraine, yet it's been rather miserly when it comes to commensurate, tangible support of Ukraine. As their Soviet-made artillery breaks down, for which there are no available parts, front-line soldiers are seeing no Western artillery. The U.S. has refused its longest-range sort, and though Russia owns the skies, NATO fighter jets have also been withheld.

Some diplomatic historians argue that the West should have come to Hungary's defense against Soviet savagery in 1956. That the West did not was among the most delicate of judgment calls. There are not, or at least there should not be, however, challenging questions when it comes to defending Ukraine against Sovietlike savagery. A vigorous defense is not only the right thing to do for this unjustly embattled democracy, it's the right thing to do for the West's democracies.

That the West has been less than vigorous in supporting Ukraine — and has done nothing in the way of directly confronting Putin — is, as noted, shameful, deeply regretful and vile. And that, future historians will chronicle. 

Texas Republicans Gone Wild (but more to come)

Sometimes they sits and thinks, and sometimes they just sits. But not last week, no siree bob. Texas Republicans closed out their three-day convention of Thursday through Saturday, having deeply pondered what a near-perfectly goofy platform might look like for the party. And they came pretty close to writing one. Among its resolutions:

President Joe Biden "was not legitimately elected." Homosexuality is "an abnormal lifestyle choice." Texas students must "learn about the humanity of the preborn child" and that life begins at fertilization. Remove the state legislature’s power "to regulate the wearing of arms." Persons under 21 years of age are "most likely to need to defend themselves"; they may also need to buy a weapon "in emergencies such as riots." Amend the U.S. Constitution, fixing the number of Supreme Court seats at nine and repealing the 16th Amendment (the federal income tax). Abolish the Federal Reserve.

Also last week I read Anne Applebaum's essential Twilight of Democracy. She cites Karen Stenner, a political scientist who specializes in the authoritarian mind. Stenner maintains that the far right is less closed-minded than simple-minded, in that its adherents cannot tolerate complexity. It's worth noting that at a 1964 campaign rally — the year, some historians claim, that ignited the GOP's unhinging — presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said "the big trouble with the so-called liberal today is that he doesn't understand simplicity." In reality, Goldwater meant that the right demands simplicity. (It's also worth nothing that the far left is not exempted from this line of "thought.")

As other histories of authoritarianism have shown, there is no end to a party's furthering radicalization. The truest believers demonstrate their worthiness of purity and loyalty to "The Cause" by moving ever rightward (or leftward), which often results in their party advancement. The phenomenon has never ended well — but radicals are poor historians. 

Brings back memories

Oh no.. 😂 pic.twitter.com/X6cXUGMxSQ

— Buitengebieden (@buitengebieden) June 13, 2022

In the 1950s my father used to bass fish with a German friend, who once reached into his tackle box and proudly announced, "'Dis ist mein favorite lure." He then tossed it into the water and prepared to cast. The problem? He had forgotten to tie the lure to his line.    

Russia is pushing a "significant increase in provocation," and not only in Ukraine

Given the surge in international tensions because of Russia's war on Ukraine — and the West — it is inconceivable that a Russian airstrike this week on a U.S. base in southern Syria, there as part of a multilateral force training locals to prevent an ISIS comeback, was not approved at the Kremlin's highest level.

The al-Tanf base, which houses 200 of the 900 American troops stationed in Syria, was struck by two Russian Su-35s and an Su-24. No U.S. forces were present during Wednesday's strike, and there were no casualties. "But," reports The Wall Street Journal, "the operation punctuated what a U.S. military official characterized as a 'significant increase in provocation' this month."

Said the head of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Erik Krill: "We seek to avoid miscalculation or a set of actions that could lead to unnecessary conflict: that remains our goal. However, Russia’s recent behavior has been provocative and escalatory."

The Russians also deployed two Su-34 fighter jets this week to northeast Syria, where U.S. forces were raiding an ISIS bomb-making site. The U.S. scrambled its own jet fighters to repel Russia's jets. In the al-Tanf incident, U.S. forces were alerted to the coming airstrike by Russia through a longstanding communications line. The Russians alleged the airstrike was in response to an assault on Syrian government forces. In reality, the strike was a case of bullying the U.S., a common — and perilous — Russian tactic.

Russia's provocations in Syria have of course "alarmed U.S. military officials," notes the Journal. Any minor miscalculation could escalate into a major conflict between the U.S. and Russia.. One can reasonably say that the Kremlin's incitements are anything but reckless, since the provocations are carefully planned. Nevertheless, Moscow is playing an immensely dangerous game. And Vladimir Putin knows that.

Which leads to this ineluctable verdict on U.S.-Russia relations. In Ukraine the former has striven to exorbitant lengths to avoid direct contact with the latter's forces. Fears of a Putin Unleashed, via a chemical or tactical nuclear attack, have led the U.S. (and its NATO allies) to treat the Russian dictator with the very finest of kid gloves. Yet these fears are manifestly illogical, since just as plainly Mr. Putin is predisposed to ghastly unilateral decisions. He requires no U.S. or NATO provocation.

The result of U.S. timidity is that Putin has been granted carte blanche atrocities against Ukraine's civilian population. NATO, unofficially led by the U.S., argues that it cannot or will not intervene in Ukraine, for the country is outside the alliance. Did NATO assert the same during the Bosnian War? — when intervention was approved for humanitarian reasons?

In Ukraine, Western intervention is an even greater essentiality. More than a humanitarian rationale is the coherent defense of a free and democratic nation, brutalized by an authoritarian, Stone-Aged leviathan. The West trumpets heroic words about preserving democratic freedoms and opposing aggressive autocracies around the globe. However when a despotic oppressor slaughters civilians and crushes liberty in Ukraine, the West is more solicitous toward the murdering Stalinist who is Vladimir Putin.

The Russian reactionary is, as I recently described him, the sanest madman on earth. And so he soldiers on. He does this not only in Ukraine, he has added Syria at the tensest of times. After recuperating from his current war criminality, he will eye Moldova and the Baltics. Putin possesses no political checks on his belligerence, as he has forcefully shown in Central Europe and now the Middle East — and in his twisted mind, he's on a roll, pushing, provoking and escalating.

Yet the West is worried about inflaming this horrendous, already constant Putin-inflaming state of international affairs. That's neither sane nor mad. It's just boneheaded.