Ukraine, Part IV (Some Comments By The Media)

(Note:  I am presenting these comments by those in the media, with only an occasional comment by me, and my final comment at the end of the post.)  

"Could there be a better display of United Nations impotence than Russia presiding on Wednesday over a Security Council session on Russia's invasion?"  (From the 2/25/22 Editorial in the Wall Street Journal.)  And from the same editorial:  "Some Americans will want to concede Russia this sphere of influence and say it's Europe's problem.  But a world in which Russia dominates Eastern and Central Europe, Iran dominates the Middle East, and China dominates East Asia will not be safe for U.S. interests.  Regional powers have a habit of becoming global threats, especially when they work in concert - as Russia, China and Iran are already doing."

"The sight on TV and social media of Ukrainian civilians preparing to defend their cities is something to behold...This is a lesson in the price of freedom that ought to instruct Westerners offended by 'microaggressions.'  Real aggression is a tank rolling down your street."  (From the Editorial in the 2/28/22 WSJ.)  (My comment:  It also ought to instruct us on the importance of citizens here and in the West of having the right to keep and bear arms.)  And from the same Editorial:  "The people of Ukraine are showing a too complacent West what it means to fight for freedom."

Bret Stephens, writing an Op-Ed in the 3/2/22 New York Times, makes a number of interesting points.  "In the cause of freedom, the world has found in Volodymyr Zelensky its most Churchillian figure in decades...His inspiring appearances on the streets of Kyiv recall Britain's wartime prime minister during the Blitz, personifying his nation's determination to resist."  And:  "Long before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt understood that America could not be indifferent to Britain's fate, even with the odds so overwhelmingly against it."  

And this from Stephens:  "The threat a free Ukraine poses to his (Putin's) regime isn't, and never will be military.  It's political.  It's the thought that if democracy, the rule of law and civil rights can take root in Kyiv, they might soon take root in Moscow, too, bringing an end to his rule and accountability for his crimes."  

From an Editorial in the 3/2/22 WSJ:  "Mr. Biden (in his State of the Union address) did offer stirring support for Ukraine and its fight for freedom, which received bipartisan applause.  His Administration deserves credit for helping to rally Europe and other nations to impose sanctions and provide more military aid.  He was properly condemning of Mr. Putin."  And this:  "What we also didn't hear was a vow that Russia will not be allowed to conquer and hold Ukraine.  There was no warning to Mr. Putin not to launch missiles into residential neighborhoods, or surround and starve cities into submission like a medieval siege."  

Writing an Op-Ed in the 3/3/22 WSJ, Daniel Henninger said this:  "An argument is going to emerge in Washington that spending on defense and national security needs to rise significantly in light of both the Putin armies moving west and the threat from China."  (My comment:  I do not see that happening under a Biden Administration.  He ought to have a Warp Speed energy production, but we know he is against fossil fuel production, which he demonstrated in some of his executive orders upon taking office.  And his party has little interest in defense spending; rather, the interest is in climate change, and diversity, equity and inclusion, and other woke objectives.)  

Henninger:  "The orderliness of life doesn't just happen.  Order has come from centuries of political effort, much of it to make the rule of law stronger than the law of the jungle.  Maintaining that order is a political responsibility.  It requires political leaders who are willing to ensure that the line between order and disorder doesn't blur, or collapse."  

Henninger:  "...Mr. Putin and no doubt China's Xi Jinping saw a West on the brink of political and moral decadence, countries whose leadership allowed marginal issues such as windmills and gender complexity to displace national self-preservation.  John Kerry's lament that war in Ukraine would damage the climate may be the last word on political self-absorption.  For now anyway."  

And, in an article in the 3/3/22 New York Times, we were told this:  "For Mr. Biden, the moment (his State of the Union address) was in some ways the culmination of decades of experience in foreign policy as a senator, vice president and now president."  (My comment:  Too bad Biden learned nothing in all those years of experience.)  "He vowed to make Mr. Putin 'pay a price' for the invasion...He asserted forcefully that Mr. Putin would regret the decision to send his forces across a sovereign border."  (My comment:  I prefer Teddy's approach - speak softly but carry a big stick.  Biden had some tough talk with no stick.  And, a shame that the NY Times does not care about our sovereign border.)  

The House, by a near unanimous vote, passed a resolution in support of Ukraine.  Three Republicans voted against it.  In explaining his vote, Representative Paul Gosar (Rep. AZ) said this:  "Talk to me when our border is secure."  (My comment:  I have repeatedly discussed the need for border security in this blog.  But that comment is simply idiotic.  As bad as the invasion of nearly 2 million people across our southern border was in 2021, it is not equivalent to the bombing and destruction we've seen in Ukraine.  And we should be able to focus on more than one thing at a time.) 

And finally, we have the VP on a radio show called the "Morning Hustle," after being asked to explain the conflict in "layman's terms."  Harris:  "So, Ukraine is a country in Europe.  It exists next to another country called Russia.  Russia is a bigger country.  Russia is a powerful country.  Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine.  So, basically, that's wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for."  (My comment:  Any questions, children?)  

(And, my final comment.  I feel like we are back in 1938-39, when Hitler (may he rot in hell forever) was invading other countries as the rest of the world sat back and allowed it to happen.  If we cannot fight Russia in Ukraine because they have nuclear weapons, then how can we fight Russia when it invades the Baltic states.  Or Poland.  Or Hungary.  Or Slovakia.  It is not an answer to say they are part of NATO and we are obligated to defend them by our treaty obligations.  Either we are willing to stand up to the bully Putin or not.  The 1938 Munich agreement, surrendering part of then Czechoslovakia to Germany, did not result in deterring Hitler from moving into other countries.  Appeasement does not work.  Meanwhile, the US and Europe continue to pay Russia for oil and gas.  And the US is allowing Russia to take the lead in the negotiations with Iran about a new nuclear deal, which Biden is anxious to agree to regardless of the terms.  Sanctions have not deterred Putin.  Besides, China is assisting Russia in ways that lessen the impact of Western sanctions.  Biden is not the president for our times.  He is not Roosevelt or Churchill or Zelensky.)