In politics, as in much of life, timing is key. Sometimes there are windows of opportunity that can be missed. Such seems to be the case with the so-called "People's Convoy," a group of American truckers who launched a copycat imitation of the Canadian truckers' protest, in the hopes of bringing media attention to their cause (or just themselves, perhaps). But their time -- if it ever even existed -- seems to have passed long before the big-rigs arrived near Washington D.C.

I've long been interested in the phenomenon of political protest, especially the mechanics and tactics used to gain public support and sympathy for a grand cause, no matter what issue the protest centers around. As the truckers in Canada proved, using 18-wheelers as actual protest vehicles can be a powerful display (whether popular or not). But the American imitation protest seems to be doing no more than spinning their wheels and driving in circles. Literally.

The truckers might have made a bigger impact if they had stuck to the original plan, which was to arrive in D.C. on the night of the State Of The Union speech. That would have given the television cameras something to focus on: "...outside the Capitol, however, a rather large and noisy protest was taking place." Except that that didn't happen -- and what did happen wasn't until the speech was long over anyway.

Unlike the Canadian truckers, the American protest was a rather Seinfeldian protest to begin with, since it is essentially a protest about nothing. Canadian truckers were expressing their anger at vaccine and mask mandates. The American truckers, however, faced no such mandates at all. There is no rule stating you must be vaccinated to drive a truck here, and the last statewide mask mandate just ended in Hawai'i. So what was the protest even supposed to be about?

Continue Reading »

I must admit that while I am usually open to considering nuanced diplomatic (or military) reasons why something which seems obvious simply cannot be done, for the life of me I cannot comprehend why the MiGs Poland is offering aren't already being flown by Ukrainian pilots over the skies of Kyiv. Because in this case any diplomatic or military concerns are contradicted by what Poland and the rest of NATO are already openly doing, as well as what the United States secretary of State publicly stated last weekend.

The idea was a fairly simple one to comprehend. It isn't a small idea and it is complex, but it was still pretty easy to understand. Poland has aging MiG-29 fighter jets in its air force, leftovers from the Soviet era. Ukrainian military pilots already know how to fly them, so there would be no learning curve for them. Poland wants to donate these planes to Ukraine. To fill the void in their air fleet, Poland is asking for American-made F-16s (not new ones, they'll take older used ones, even) to replace them. Poland gets an upgrade to their air force, Ukraine gets fighter jets it desperately needs, and the U.S. and the rest of NATO shift some planes around so that the Polish forces aren't temporarily depleted in a crucially-important time and place. How the permanent replacement planes would ultimately be paid for and where they'd come from seem to be rather minor details in the grand scheme of things. After all, Ukraine needs these planes now.

Continue Reading »

President Joe Biden announced today that he was banning Russian oil and gas from the American marketplace. This is a wildly popular position to take and is supported not only by politicians across the political spectrum but also by an overwhelming majority of the American public. We all see the horrific scenes of death and destruction caused by Vladimir Putin and the thought that we are funding that in any small way when we fill up our cars is abhorrent to many. At least, that's the case right now.

I do wonder, however, how the American public will feel about pain at the pump two or three months from now. Because while the public is easily stampeded towards a defiant political stance in dire times, modern Americans are not exactly notable for being able to sustain sacrifice over extended periods of time. Instead, we tend to like instant results, followed by the whole issue fading quickly away -- which is not always the way the world works, of course. The war in Ukraine is not likely to be wrapped up within a few weeks, to state the painfully obvious.

Continue Reading »

With the world in a very dangerous place after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the one thing just about everyone worldwide hopes is that saner minds will prevail. There are always plenty of hotheads and madmen in the midst of a crisis, but we can all certainly hope that the cooler heads will win out in the end.

I say this to address both sides of the fight. Obviously, the entire planet hopes that saner minds within Russia will eventually prevail over Vladimir Putin's self-destructive madness. Somehow, the hope is, Putin will be stopped from his belligerence. How, exactly, is left unsaid -- since nobody really has an answer to that. Putin holds pretty much all the reins of power within Russia, and so far he has shown no signs whatsoever of flinching in any way from fully using them to achieve his goals. At the very least, the hope is that Putin won't lob a nuclear weapon into the fray -- which once would have been unthinkable, but these days there aren't a whole lot of things that truly qualify as unthinkable when it comes to Putin. As Russia intelligence expert Fiona Hill put it in a recent interview with Politico, when asked if she thought Putin really would use a nuclear weapon: "The thing about Putin is, if he has an instrument, he wants to use it. Why have it if you can't?" This is not some armchair analyst on a cable news show, this is a woman who was hired to provide such intelligence to three successive U.S. presidents. So it's hard not to take her opinion very seriously.

Hill also points out during this interview that Putin issued a veiled threat to Donald Trump when the two met, although she did express doubts that Trump even understood what Putin was alluding to (emphasis in original):

Continue Reading »

This week, President Joe Biden gave his first State Of The Union speech to the United States Congress, to the American people, and to the rest of world. This speech had to be hastily rewritten at the last minute, obviously, due to intervening events. Russia's Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine at the end of last week, which was obviously a lot more important than any political points or laundry lists of proposed legislation. So the speech got a quick makeover.

What emerged from this process was almost certainly a lot better than the speech Biden had initially planned on giving. The first 15 minutes or so (of a speech that lasted a wee bit longer than one hour) were entirely devoted to addressing the invasion, the geopolitical situation, and what America was doing and where we stood. Now, Biden doesn't technically count as a "wartime president" during the crisis (since the U.S. is not actually at war with Russia), but it is still having a major effect on how the public sees both him and our country. Biden calling for everyone to stand united with Ukraine is an effective political stance, it cannot be denied. Even the extremists on right-wing cable channels have had to very abruptly cease their admiration for Putin and their denigration of the seriousness of what's happening in Ukraine. America is unified once again against Russian tyranny.

Which, you've got to admit, is a good way to start the biggest political speech of the year. For those old enough to remember the Cold War, it is merely a return to what you grew up with. For those young enough not to remember this, it must seem like something out of a history book has come horrifyingly alive. For all those (of any age) who may have believed major land wars were just never going to happen again, it was a jarring wakeup call.

Continue Reading »

It is hard to admit, but the world should really not get its hopes up too high for any sort of outcome in Ukraine other than the one Vladimir Putin initially set out to achieve. Putin wants to completely subdue and occupy Ukraine, which he sees as nothing more than a part of Russia. He will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. And although not inevitable, the most likely outcome by far is that Russia will completely crush the Ukrainian military and eventually conquer every city in the entire country.

It is very tempting to believe that this can somehow be avoided. In the first week, the Ukrainians have done far better than anyone ever believed they could have done. Russia's advance has slowed from a blitzkrieg to siege warfare. More Russian soldiers have been killed than anyone believed would happen. Russia still does not control the Ukrainian skies, as Ukraine's air defenses have proven more effective than predicted. Russia has actually only taken over a few towns and cities so far, and their advances have slowed -- and in some instances, have seemingly halted. The invasion is not going according to plan, obviously. That all engenders hope that somehow Ukraine will defy all the odds and win this conflict.

But if Putin remains in power (if the oligarchs or others don't assassinate or otherwise depose him), if the Russian people don't rise up en masse, and if the Russian army doesn't collectively lay down its arms and surrender, then given enough time Putin will achieve his goal. He has already shown he does not care what this victory costs him or his country. He will continue throwing enough bombs, missiles, soldiers, helicopters, and fighter jets at the remaining Ukrainian-held territory until the entire country has been subdued. He's got enough of these to do so, even if it's not an endless supply. If his war generals don't get the job done, he'll no doubt find better generals to take their place -- ones who will be open to increasingly ruthless and inhumane tactics. Given enough time, the entire country will be under the Russian bootheel.

Continue Reading »

Is President Joe Biden poised on the brink of a resurgence in the polls? Well... maybe. It's no sure thing, but the conditions do seem to be improving for him so it wouldn't come as a complete surprise. The next two months will be key.

Presidents used to routinely get a bump just after their State Of The Union speeches to Congress, but these events have become less and less impactful over the past decade or so. Fewer people watch, being instead content to read or hear what someone else thought about the speech. But by at least one measure, Biden's speech last night was well-received by the people who did watch it -- a CBS insta-poll showed an astonishing 78 percent of those polled approved of his remarks while only 22 percent disapproved. Will that translate into better job approval ratings for Biden overall? It's certainly possible.

Continue Reading »

President Joe Biden delivered his first State Of The Union address tonight to a joint session of Congress and the American people. Overall, I thought it was a fairly good speech in many ways. He hit all the notes he needed to hit, although he has obviously dialed back his policy agenda to fit the reality of a 50-50 Senate (with two very reluctant Democrats), so he tried to instill a feeling of unity among the lawmakers and the public.

As usual, I'm writing this before reading or hearing much other commentary, in order to set down my initial reactions without being influenced by others. Also as usual for such columns, the quotes provided here were hastily jotted down and may not be word-for-word accurate, so mea culpa for any errors.

First, I'd like to give my overall impressions of the speech and how it was delivered and received, then I will review the content of Biden's speech itself, before finishing up with a few brief words about the Republican response.

Continue Reading »

President Joe Biden will give his second speech to a joint session of Congress tomorrow, in his first official State Of The Union address. That seems like a contradiction, due to the quirk that the first time a president gives such a speech it is not officially known as the State Of The Union, but few care about splitting such hairs. After being in office for over a year now, the president will inform Congress and the American people what his view of the country is, looking both backward at his first year's accomplishments and forward to what he hopes to achieve in the coming year. This is normally a balancing act, but this year's speech will be unusual in that large portions of it are being rewritten at the last minute, due to the developing situation in Ukraine.

Before this month began, foreign policy was likely only going to receive cursory mention in Biden's address, perhaps towards the end of the speech. Now, however, Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is going to have to be a central issue at the forefront of tomorrow night's speech. This will actually fit in well with a theme Biden has tried to strike all along -- the serious world struggle between democracy and autocracy. Biden has long framed this as the central issue the world faces today, and never has it been more important as when the entire world can see the literal battle between the two playing out in a European country. Dictators may be able to make decisive decisions and act swiftly, but democracies have strongly banded together in condemnation to isolate Vladimir Putin and Russia in response.

Continue Reading »

Some weeks, obviously, are more momentous than others. This past week may be looked back upon as being one of the most historic anyone alive has ever lived through. The world order shifted on its axis and nobody is quite sure what is coming next.

We should begin by saying that we're going to get to our outlook on what has already happened and what is likely to happen in the future in a much more "big picture" way down in the talking points. It's not a "rant" (as we are sometimes wont to write), it is instead a sober (and hopefully sobering) take on what might be looming on the horizon. This isn't a week for partisan political talking points, we felt.

Continue Reading »