Monthly Archives: December 2024

The Biden Decline Chronology.

Posted on by
Reply

            In January 2024, President Joe Biden began the new year with a job approval rating in the area of 40 percent.  That is where it had been hanging for some time. 

            In February 2024 Special Counsel Robert Hur argued that his chance of winning a post-presidential case against Biden for “willfully retaining” secret documents would be unlikely to succeed: Biden would present as a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”  Democrats heaped abuse on Hur as a Republican partisan who strayed from his brief. 

            In March 2024, Donald Trump led Biden in opinion polls by 1-2 percent. 

            In June 2024, Biden gave a disastrous performance in his first scheduled debate with Trump.  The “cognitive decline” on display seemed much worse than what Robert Hur had described.  Democratic support for Biden immediately collapsed. 

            In July 2024, Biden withdrew from the race under massive pressure from leading Democratic politicians orchestrated by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Biden immediately endorsed his failed Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement.  This short-circuited the possibility of a mini-primary selection process favored by the people who had forced out Biden.[1] 

            In August 2024, Harris chose Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her Vice President candidate.  A bump in opinion polls more than reversed Trump’s 1-2 point lead over Biden to a 2-3 point lead for Harris.  Joy spread everywhere among Democrats. 

            In September 2024, Harris clearly won her debate with Trump.  The Joy Juggernaut gathered speed.  From this point onward, President Biden was really Former President Biden. 

            In October 2024, opinion polls showed that the Harris rebound had ebbed.  Trump and Harris were tied.  This shift occurred in spite of “mis-steps” by the Trump campaign.[2]  As the election drew nigh, the mood in the Harris campaign was described as “nauseously optimistic.” 

            In early November 2024, Trump defeated Harris 49.9 percent to 48.4 percent of the vote. 

            In December 2024, the Former President Biden riff gathered speed.  He embarked on a series of exhausting foreign trips far from the ugly realities at home.  President-Elect Trump was courted by foreign leaders even before he takes office.  Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for anything he did or may have done since 2014.[3]  Later, he pardoned almost everyone on the Federal “Death Row.”  This included Kaboni Savage.[4]  Will he pre-emptively pardon Luigi Mangioni for any Federal crimes? 

            In a particularly awful irony, the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris, will have to preside over the Senate when it certifies the results of the November 2024 presidential election.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) takes over if Harris understandably skips out.    

[1] Before he named Harris as his Vice President, a photographer caught a picture of Biden carrying a note that said of Harris “Do not hold grudges.”  Biden’s notes on display: ‘Do not hold grudges’ against Sen. Kamala Harris  Apparently, he has to be reminded. 

[2] Trump’s speeches became much longer and more wandery-aroundy, and it was noted that people attending them began to leave after a while.  However, Trump did about twice as many campaign events as did Biden and Harris.  It looks like he was becoming exhausted, while his opponents were, frankly, indolent either through age or basic nature. 

[3] I’d a done the same thing.  For my sons, not for Hunter.  But putting Hunter, a recovering drug addict, in prison as punishment for some non-violent crimes wouldn’t do the kid—or society at large–any good.  He’s still got a chance to make a decent life. 

[4] See: Kaboni Savage – Wikipedia 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 13.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Why does health care cost so much? 

One theory is that, traditionally, medicine could not really do much for the sick and injured.  For almost all of human history, science and medicine knew nothing of many things.  Anesthesia and antiseptics for example, or what was a “normal” blood pressure or heart rate.  “Doctors” could be “real” or they could be “quacks” and you couldn’t tell the difference.  Surgeons could lop off arms or legs with a fair chance that the patient would survive.  They could do nothing about deep puncture wounds to the thorax.  They could administer heroic doses of laxatives and they could “bleed” patients to restore the balance of humors in the body.  As for psychiatry, Ben Franklin once helped out his sister by paying for her disturbed son to be chained up in a farmer’s barn to keep him from harm. 

Then, from the mid-19th Century onward, a medical revolution occurred.  It was just as dramatic—and probably more important—than the various political revolutions that have enlivened journalism over the same period.  Invasive surgery became safe and commonplace.  Drugs treated many diseases.  Vaccination warded off a host of terrible killers.  Then, in the second half of the 20th Century, still greater marvels appeared.  However, these ones were vastly more costly than the earlier innovations.  Organ transplants and fertility treatments, for example, are very costly.  Chronic illnesses in a population with an extending life-span is a new development.  In sum, modern medicine is just really expensive.  The best solution is to socialize the costs through government taxation and payments to providers. 

Another theory is that none of this is the real explanation for high health costs.[1]  It isn’t ALL medical costs that are so high.  It is only AMERICAN medical costs that are so high.  On a per capital basis, health care is about twice as expensive as it is in other advanced countries (i.e. Western Europe, Japan).  European doctors with comparable education and skills earn about half of what American doctors earn.  Members of the administrative hierarchy in hospitals and medical networks earn high salaries.  Medical tests, surgeries, and prescription drugs are far more expensive in the United States than they are elsewhere. 

According to this second theory, if you want more affordable medicine, you’re going to have to take it out of the incomes of the health profiteers.  This means everyone from your GP to the pharmaceutical companies.  Trying to compress incomes to cut costs for consumers (patients) will involve battling powerful entrenched interest groups, everyone from the American Medical Association to Big Pharma. 

In all of this, the health insurance industry plays the Bad Guy.  They’re the ones who interact with customers/consumers/patients.  Often they bring bad news.  Some charge is denied, or you still haven’t exhausted your out-of-pocket obligations, or you need to get your doctor to re-authorize some prescription that you’ve been taking—and will be taking—for years.  In truth, health insurers make a profit that is less than half of the average profit for corporation on the S&P 500. 

It is interesting that none of this has come up in discussion of Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.[2]  What could/will Trump force through? 

[1] “The reason health care is so costly,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 14. 

[2] “RFK Jr. softens positions amid Senate scrutiny,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 4. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 12.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: The Middle East. 

Syria’s fifty-year-long government-by-massacre suddenly collapsed under a surprise assault by Turkish-sponsored Arabs.[1]  Bashar al-Assad fled (with his millions) to Russia. 

The lead group among the victorious rebels, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), began establishing a government.  While people are more or less glad to be shed of Assad, HTS could be problematic.  On the one hand, the group is an off-shoot of al Qaeda; they’re Islamists; and they’ve be labeled as terrorists by Western governments.  On the other hand, HTS and the “Syrian National Army” are Turkish puppets.[2] 

Other countries began adapting to the new situation.  The Russians began cutting their losses by pulling out their men and material.  Israel has every reason to suspect Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of harboring anti-Israel sentiments.  He may want to create an Islamist-governed “ally” on Israel’s door-step.  Of late, there has been much celebration of the whole series of blows dealt to Iran’s allies and proxies (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria).  Erdogan won’t have missed the lesson.  He may use his proxies to exert pressure on Israel.  Israel exploited the opportunity by bombing Syrian bases and arms stockpiles to reduce the weaponry available to the HTS that had toppled Assad (just in case). 

Both Syria and the members of the European Union (EU) began nudging Syrian refugees to go home.  About 3 million Syrian refugees remain in Syria.  Erdogan would like them to go home.  About 1.5 million Syrians fled the civil war that began in 2011 for Europe.  Their arrival contributed greatly to an anti-foreign, anti-liberal reaction in many European countries.  European politics shifted right in an alarming fashion.  Many Europeans are saying “Go.” 

The United States and its European allies began talking to the people who are the de facto rulers of Syria.  They would like the rebels-turned-government to say the right things.  It’s a sticky situation.  It seemed brilliant to overthrow Libya’s Ghaddafi, but the follow-on effects—civil war, gangs, a migrant surge toward Europe—continues to trouble the region.  What if this turns out to be the same basic story? 

            Most immediately, there is the “problem” of the Kurds.  “Kurdistan” sprawls over Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.  The Kurds have been a dangerous thorn in the side of Turkey for decades.  They form the largest minority population within Turkey and they have long harbored nationalist ambitions.  The successive American wars against Iraq made that problem much worse by creating, then enlarging, a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  Moreover, the Kurds have been a loyal—and better yet, effective–ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS.  Indeed, the chief check on ISIS has been the Kurds.  In north-eastern Syria, Kurds braced for a likely attack from Turkey or its Syrian proxies.  If Turkey or its minions do attack the Kurds, that isn’t likely to be Turkey’s last move. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said “Syria is not America’s problem.”  He may mean it, more than did predecessors who hoped to “pivot to Asia.”  Is Israel also “not an American problem”?  What about Turkey, nominally a NATO member, but bound on its own course?  Whether he can sustain that resolve to disengage will be an early test. 

[1] “Turkey prepares attack on U.S. allies in Syria,” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 5. 

[2] “Syria: From Iranian client to Turkish puppet?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 16. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 11.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Entitlements.  The financing systems for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have been crumbling for some time.  Exhaustion of the funding sources looms.  What to do?  For the Democrats, the standard answer has been “Make the rich pay their ‘fair share,’[1] then spend the money like a drunken sailor.”  For Republicans, the standard answer is “Dump the dependency-fostering bureaucratized systems in favor of sensible market-based solutions; you know, like Boeing and Wells Fargo.” 

            The Republican favorite, “Medicare Advantage” plans, are private health insurance plans that can be chosen by customers as an alternative to regular Medicare.  “Advantage plans” cover hospitalization and surgery, visits to doctor, prescription drugs, and vision, dental and hearing care.  They also limit out-of-pocket spending.[2] 

How do they do this?  They strive to be more efficient and cost-saving than regular Medicare.  For one thing, members are offered a more limited pool of network doctors to consult.  No insisting on the doctor whose manner or reputation you prefer.[3]  For another thing, they require prior authorization by the company for many treatments and services.  Insurance companies often refuse authorization for things that they regard as CYA or treatment-padding.[4]  Beyond these “sensible, market-based solution,” the plans are also accused of “up-coding” procedures.  That is, they turn whatever was done into something higher on the scale, the bill the government for the more costly thing.  Then there is the complaint that they deny services recommended for patients by doctors.  On the one hand, they increase the money paid by the government; on the other hand, they dodge around providing costly procedures. 

Then there is the touchy question of end-of-life spending.  Seventy percent of Americans die from a one or more chronic diseases.  The last few years of life often involve treatments for those chronic diseases.  This makes chronic diseases “the leading drivers of health care costs.”[5]  Almost 950,000 Americans die of heart disease or stroke every year; and more than 600,000 die from cancer.  Shedding end-of-life patients by denying them desired coverage could be good for the bottom line of Advantage Plans by pushing them to shift to Medicare.   

            The new administration may actually try to carry out a sweeping overhaul of entitlements.  They’re going to start with Medicare.  President-Elect Donald Trump has nominated Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Oz has a track-record of having supported the expansion of “Medicare Advantage” plans.  He also “criticized the drug industry over high prices” during his 2022 Senate campaign.  Will the new administration sustain, and build on, the Biden administrations negotiation of drug prices? 

            Leaving things just the way they are doesn’t seem like a good choice. 

[1] “Fair share” is never defined beyond my beloved sister-in-law’s “More, we’ll tell you when to stop.”  Honest. 

[2] “Dr. Oz: Expanding Medicare’s private option,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 33.

[3] This is a big issue for many people, but if you get hurt in a car wreck or have a heart attack, you go to the nearest ER.  Nobody says “I want to see MY doctor and I’ll wait until they’re available—don’t slip on the blood pooling on the floor.”  Why should it be different with an annual visit? 

[4] See, for example, Nicholas Bakalar, “Overtreatment is Common, Doctors Say,” NYT, 6 September 2017; Ryan Levi and Dan Gorenstein, “When routine medical tests trigger a cascade of costly, unnecessary care,” NPR, 14 June 2022, When routine medical tests trigger a cascade of unnecessary care : Shots – Health News : NPR 

[5] Fast Facts: Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Conditions | Chronic Disease | CDC 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: deporting the illegals and others. 

Broadly, immigrants vulnerable to President-Elect Donald Trump’s promised “mass deportations” fall into three categories.[1]  First, there are the illegal immigrants, whom Democrats long preferred to call “undocumented immigrants,” as if there had been some kind of bureaucratic snafu.  Second, there are those seeking asylum in the United States on the grounds that they face grave danger in their own home county.[2]  Third, there are those in the United States who have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[3] 

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  One careful estimate for the period February 2021 through October 2023 suggested that 4.2 million people had found entry into the United States.  Of these, about 2.5-2.6 million had been released into the country, while 1.6 million were estimated to have evaded all contact with the Border Patrol.  A further 2.8 million were expelled immediately back to Mexico.[4] 

Who goes first?  Thomas Homan, Trump’s nominated ICE commissioner, says that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the United States in addition to having entered the country illegally, will head the list.  Homan also has said that Texas provides a good model for national policy.  Texas governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” has called out the National Guard and put physical barriers along and in the Rio Grande.  Texas has also sent about 120,000 illegal immigrants to Democrat-led cities in the North. 

For a good while now, some Democrat-led cities have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities where local authorities will not co-operate with ICE.  These same cities often receive federal funding for various programs.  The Trump administration could try to compel co-operation by holding back these funds. 

One question is “Can this policy succeed?”  A second question is “What will it cost?”   The latter question has two sides to it.  On the one hand, there is a monetary expense to the government.  One estimate is that deporting a million people a year would cost $88 billion a year.  On the other hand, the illegals work in great numbers in construction, farming, restaurants, and hospitality.  Who will take those jobs if the illegals are deported?  American teenagers and college kids?  The homeless?  Folks for whom coding “boot camp” didn’t work out?  Another cost will come in fewer houses built, less fruits and vegetables in the grocery stores, slower service in restaurants, and longer turn-around times for hotel rooms.  All of it at a higher price. 

So why do it?  One answer is “Democracy, that’s why.”  According to an Ipsos poll,[5] fifty percent of Americans favor shutting down the U.S.-Mexican border.  Citizens live under the laws of their country.  To see the laws openly flaunted may be infuriating.  To see the spike in demand on various kinds of humanitarian support services in places where the illegal immigrants first arrive may be infuriating.  The pay-off through their eventual contributions to the country may be hard to discern in the current moment.  It’s a tough parlay to make. 

[1] “Immigration: Preparing for the crackdown,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] In 2023, about 750,000 people applied for asylum.  Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands p. 3.  Many of the illegals released from custody are asylum-seekers. 

[3] There were 1.2 million people with TPS in March 2024.  How TPS has expanded under the Biden administration | Pew Research Center 

[4] Lori Robertson, Breaking Down the Immigration Figures – FactCheck.org  27 February 2024.  Old-timers may wonder if the “gotaway” estimates resemble the Vietnam War “body counts” of our youth. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
Reply

            Is it emblematic of American politics and the media that we are talking so much about individual people, rather than about the deep problems facing America that the people have been nominated to address?  For example, Donald Trump has nominated Peter Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.[1]  It seems beyond doubt that Hegseth is utterly unqualified for the job.[2]  Yet it took Hegseth’s nomination to elicit a warning that “Head-spinning technological changes are revolutionizing combat” and China is “expanding its nuclear forces and space capabilities.”  Not much of a pressing topic in coverage of the Biden administration, but now cited as a justification for rejecting Hegseth.[3] 

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation in need of sweeping change and reform?  Well, it was excoriated in the Report of the 9-11 Commission.  Some thought was then given to removing the FBI’s counter-intelligence division and creating an entirely new agency.  The FBI promised to do better, so it managed to hold on to this responsibility.  Now, though, one observer claimed that the intelligence agencies “are in desperate need of reform.”  If the FBI does need reform, then what sort of person is best suited to head the FBI?  Do we want “a rabid critic of the very institution he’s being asked to lead”?  As opposed to what, a senior career FBI official who believes that things are pretty much OK the way they are? 

Donald Trump believes that the FBI does need “reform.” The basis for his belief is “Crossfire Hurricane,” which conducted a prolonged investigation of an accusation that Trump knew—not “believed,” but knew—to be false.  That investigation badly disrupted his first term as President.  The investigations by Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, and John Durham, a Special Prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr, documented the origins of the allegations of “collusion” in a dirty trick carried out by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  It was facilitated and prolonged by inexplicable “errors” committed by members of the investigation team. 

President-Elect Trump nominated Kash Patel to replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, although Wray still has three years to run in his ten-year term.  Other than Republican Senators, almost everyone from the left to the right thought this a terrible idea.  William Kristol, for example, warned that Patel would “use the FBI to carry out Trump’s professed agenda of political retribution.”  Worse, it would put a Trump loyalist in charge of the FBI, the national police force.  If Patel gets the job, wrote David Frum, “the seizure of power [Trump] unsuccessfully attempted in 2021 could be underway in 2025.”  Unfortunately, Republican Senators are the only people with opinions that matter. 

In addition to escaping two impeachments unscathed and unrepentant, Trump has also escaped Special Counsel Jack Smith.[4]  Smith closed down his inquiries because of the Justice Department ban on prosecuting a sitting president.  A judge dismissed the charges “without prejudice.”  He can be prosecuted again in 2029, once he’s an elderly man with a poor memory. 

[1] “Trump taps ‘Deep State” critic Patel to lead FBI,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p.4. 

[2] Not only unqualified, but unqualified in multiple ways.  People seem confident that if he managed to not mess up in one way, then he would mess up in another. 

[3] See: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog 

[4] “Trump: Beyond the reach of the law,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

The Start of a New Chapter in Syria.

Posted on by
Reply

The awful Syrian Civil War (2011- ) appeared to have guttered out in a Russian-assisted victory for Assad Jr.[1]  Assad’s government held 70 percent of the country.  Kurds held territory in the Northeast where Syria abuts the Kurdish sections of Iraq…and Turkey.[2]  Opponents of the regime also remained in possession of a chunk of Northwestern Syria centered on Idlib.  The most formidable of these opponents were the Islamists of the group “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham,” at least nominally linked to al Qaeda.  There is also a Syrian opposition militia sponsored by Turkey.  Both groups receive support and direction from Turkey.[3] 

In early December 2024, they launched a sudden attack which soon stampeded the surprised Assad forces.  Soon, the insurgents took possession of Aleppo.  Surprised and panicked, Assad asked his Russian and Iranian allies for help.  Russian air forces stationed in Syria did some bombing.  Iran sent an estimated 300 troops from those already stationed in Iraq.  All this seems like small potatoes for a threatened ally.  However, Russia is bending all its strength to beat Ukraine.  For the past year Israel has been grinding away Iranian commanders and forces in Syria whenever it has a free minute from leveling Gaza and then beating up on Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran may prefer to keep its reach short in a country that borders Israel.  What with Israel’s touchy sensitivity about Iran.[4] 

            National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan remarked that “we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, is facing certain kinds of pressure.”  “Certain kinds of pressure” my left foot!  By 8 December 2024 Assad was in Russia and Damascus had fallen to the rebels. 

            I didn’t see this coming.  But “I only know what I read in the papers,” as Will Rogers said.  Did anyone else see it coming?  These developments caught many journalists specializing in the Middle East flat-footed.  One asked “Will Assad survive”?  Another speculated that Turkey had sponsored the attack in the expectation that it would be possible to impose a peace deal on Assad that allowed the better than 4.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey to go home, while also checking the power of Kurds in Syria.  Still another argued that “the Kremlin has too much at stake” to give up on Syria.  We’re way beyond that now. 

What about the C.I.A., Israel’s Mossad, Russia’s F.S.B., Iran’s intelligence service? 

Turkey’s intelligence service, the MIT, must have known, permitting or ordering the attack.  It was their clients who attacked.  Did they not share the information with the United States?  Probably not.  Both may belong to NATO, but Turkish and American interests have diverged in important areas over the last several decades.  The United States has cooperated with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, while Turkey sees Kurdish nationalism as a grave danger.  The American overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 created a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  American efforts to battle ISIS/ISIL have required close cooperation with Kurds.  Like Israel, Turkey has a foreign policy to advance its own interests. 

[1] “Islamist rebel attack reignites Syrian civil war,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 5.

[2] There are about 900 American Special Forces troops in the Northeast.  They work with the Kurdish forces, primarily against the remnants of ISIS. 

[3] See: National Intelligence Organization – Wikipedia 

[4] Wouldn’t want somebody in Jerusalem shouting “OK, that tears it!” 

Ukraine Crisis.

Posted on by
2

            The military situation of Ukraine continued to decline.[1]  Russian ground forces have been making steady progress against Ukrainian forces in the east of the country.  Hoping, perhaps, to stave off a Ukrainian defeat until the Biden administration had left office, “Biden”[2] agreed to allow Ukraine to fire American-supplied “ATACMS” missiles into Russia itself.  The prickly, humorless Vladimir Putin saw this as another of “NATO’s aggressive actions against Russia.”  He argued that Russia had the right to hit not only Ukraine itself, but also countries “that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”  He didn’t say that Russia would do that, just that it had the right.  The incremental increases in Western military aid, always modulated by the United States, has been a long-running grievance for Putin.  Putin hasn’t wanted to come into a direct conflict with the West, any more than the West has wanted a direct conflict with Russia. 

What Putin did do was to order the bombardment of Ukraine with swarms of drones and a few new ballistic and nuclear-capable missiles.  Ukraine’s Volodymir Zelensky described the ballistic missile attack as an “escalation” that should be countered by the delivery of American more air defense artillery (like the HIMARS system). 

            War weariness is taking hold in Ukraine.  The share of the population that favors a negotiated peace has risen from 25 percent a year ago to over 50 percent now.  Why would Putin agree to negotiate or take less than his maximum aims?  It isn’t clear that Putin would have agreed to negotiate two years ago, when things were going badly for him.  Why would he negotiate now, when the boot is on the other neck?  Russian soldiers are fighting and dying, Vladimir Putin is not. 

            What does Putin want?  Some Western observers think that he will settle for possession of the Donbas and all the other territory acquired in the war.  Some think that Ukraine will now settle for remaining a sovereign state with most of its pre-war territory still in its possession. 

            What is NATO willing to do for a non-member under an unprovoked attack?  What NATO countries have done so far has not been enough to turn the tide.  Russia possesses a considerable numerical advantage over Ukraine. Providing weapons doesn’t create trained forces to use those weapons on the battlefield.  There is a degree of theater here. 

            There is one final, awful thing to consider.  The historian John Lewis Gaddis usefully renamed the “Cold War” as the “Long Peace.”  That peace was assured by deterrence based Mutual Assured Destruction.  The Indian-Pakistani nuclear rivalry has been based on a similar deterrence.  The American refusal to exploit its nuclear monopoly against Russia prevented the Berlin Crisis of 1948-1949 from becoming a one-sided nuclear war.  However, we’ve also seen what can happen when one country possesses nuclear weapons and its opponent in war does not.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

            How would the United States—under either Biden or Trump—respond to a nuclear attack on Ukraine? 

[1] “Russia gains ground as U.S. rushes aid to Ukraine,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 5.  See: Ukraine down the drain. | waroftheworldblog 

[2] Within quotation marks, the term refers to whatever group of people (perhaps Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Avril Haines) is conducting American foreign and defense policy behind the façade of the man in the Biden-Trump debate. 

Ukraine down the drain.

Posted on by
3

            In November 2022, about a year into the Russo-Ukraine War, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said publicly that neither side could win a decisive victory.  He argued that a negotiated peace offered the best hope for peace.[1] 

            This was emphatically not the advice that people wanted to hear.  The Biden administration chose a different course.  In essence, the United States has provided (and has encouraged European allies to provide) arms that could be used in a struggle to recapture the territories lost to Russia since the initial Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory in 2014. 

However, for most of the last two years the Biden administration has rejected any measures that would put the United States at risk of a war with Russia.  Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO.  Biden refused repeated requests from Ukraine for long-range weapons that would allow it to strike Russian forces and military sites within Russia itself. 

Now the Russians are driving the Ukrainians back in parts of the front lines.  Now they have been joined by 8-10,000 North Korean “volunteers.”  Now Ukraine has lost about 57,000 dead and many others wounded.  Now the Ukrainian army is finding it hard to replace such losses.  Now the danger of a collapse by the exhausted and increasingly demoralized Ukrainian army grows.  Essentially, events have proved General Milley correct.  A negotiated peace, or at least a cease-fire, is the logical step if Vladimir Putin will settle for half a loaf.  

            As Biden’s term staggers to a close, some administration defense and foreign policy officials have suggested that the United States do what it has not done so far.  Specifically, they have allowed Ukraine to use longer range missiles; they have committed to provide Ukraine with anti-personnel mines[2] to shore up the sagging front; and they are pushing the remaining authorized military aid out the door before President Trump can stop them.   The weapons “are unlikely to change much on the battlefield” and “it will be difficult for Ukraine to regain the ground that Russia has steadily seized over the past few months” authorized leakers in the intelligence community told the New York Times. 

So why do it?  Administration sources offer the rationale that better terms for a cease-fire or peace can be obtained if Ukraine can slow the Russian advance and punish Russia in the final stage of the war.  Moreover, any cease-fire or peace will be at risk of violation by Russia.  Building up a strong defensive capacity could deter or defeat any new Russian attack. 

This seems nonsensical.  If Russia is exhausting the Ukrainians now, why not keep going until they totally collapse?  NATO membership is the only thing that might deter Russia. 

At the same time, the despised Trump administration looms.  The Biden administration is hurrying to issue $2.1 billion worth of contracts for arms to be delivered to Ukraine.  They have two months to go before the Trump administration takes office, although “normally” it takes four to nine months to issue such contracts.[3]

Is the Biden administration trying to encumber the path of the new administration?    

[1] Helene Cooper, Andrew E. Kramer, Eric Schmitt, and Julian Barnes, “Trump’s Vow Leaves Kyiv With Few Options,” New York Times , 22 November 2024. 

[2] Neither the United States nor Russia have signed the Ottawa Treaty outlawing landmines, but Ukraine has signed and ratified the treaty.  List of parties to the Ottawa Treaty – Wikipedia  Who could blame them for breaking it? 

[3] It is good news that one can cut all the red tape at the Pentagon if you want to cut it.   

“It’s pretty bad.”

Posted on by
5

            President Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden. After promising on national television not to pardon him. 

I’d a done the same.  For my sons of course, not for Hunter Biden.  I understand why Joe Biden did it.[1]  I don’t hold it against him.  Fathers among the “commentariat” are either going to skip the chance to be interviewed or say what I just said. 

That said, “it’s pretty bad.”[2] 

For one thing, there are a lot of people who are in prison now or who have been in prison for some other equivalent crime.  What relief do they get?  None.  Apparently, according to a person being interviewed on the PBS “News Hour” last night, President Joe Biden has an unusually thin record on granting pardons.  He’s not a naturally empathetic or merciful guy.  So the pardon for Hunter seems to me to be an even greater injustice than it appears at first blush. 

Then, there’s the nature of the pardon.  A while ago, Hunter had a plea deal with the Feds go south at the last minute.[3]  There were a couple of reasons for that.  One of them was the scope of what was covered by the plea deal.  Hunter’s lawyers claimed that the plea deal covered anything that he had ever done.  The Feds claimed that it covered only the gun and tax charges. 

Hunter Biden’s lawyers may have had the rights of it.  However, a firestorm had blown up because two Internal Revenue Service investigators swore under oath that there had been Department of Justice meddling with their investigation.  Republicans and the media jumped on these allegations with varying degrees of ferocity.  So, the Feds may have crawfished at the last moment.  No blanket plea deal for Hunter Biden. 

Now, in the lees of his Presidency,[4] Joe Biden has granted Hunter Biden a blanket pardon for anything he did or may have done in the last ten years.  Same as the plea deal he didn’t get before.  The sweeping nature of the pardon makes me wonder if there are serious things as yet unknown to the public.  If so, were they known to, but not investigated by, the Department of Justice under the Trump and Biden administrations? 

In any case, there is likely to be a rat hunt under the direction of whoever ends up as Attorney General in the Trump administration.  Just because they can’t prosecute Hunter Biden doesn’t mean that they can’t investigate.  And compel testimony.  And prosecute for perjury if it can be proved.  Trump is no more empathetic or merciful than is Joe Biden. 

[1] I got called to participate in an intervention.  Drugs.  We do the intervention and the person agrees to go into a treatment center; the person does a bunk along the way; we spend a lot of time looking for him/her/they before he/she/they finally surfaces.  Along the way, I call the police, asking if I can nark on the person, get him/her/they off the street.  The cop says, “If he/she/they have a problem with drugs, jail is the last place you want him/her/them: easier to get drugs there than on the street.”  NB: Language adapted to modern times. 

[2] One of my sons, who has not needed a pardon. 

[3] For a quick overview, see: Weiss special counsel investigation – Wikipedia 

[4] It must be a sad and bitter time for him.  Finally elected to the office for which he had always hungered, his policies inflicted hardship on low-income people; he suffered a humiliating defeat on national television in the debate with Doanld Trump; then got tossed overboard by a mutiny among the colleagues with whom he had spent his working life; then saw his hand-picked Vice President and hand-picked successor candidate go down in flames; then saw himself blamed by many Democrats for having caused the defeat.  In these circumstances, he may well have felt that he was owed SOMETHING by this rotten system.