A Reasonable Perspective On Ukraine

I haven’t written a lot about Ukraine because I think there is a lot of false news floating around about Ukraine and I don’t want to be misled by something that looks real but isn’t. However, I trust the Center for Security Policy, so I am posted excerpts from their article on Ukraine. The article was posted on March 3rd.

The article reports:

The courageous leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, faces some harsh choices. But so does Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Russia has taken many casualties, with more than 5,000 soldiers killed already. The Russian currency has all but collapsed and there is deep-seated anger in Russia against Putin and his war. Putin needs to wrap this war up fast, or he could be replaced by his adversaries in Russia.

Both Russia and Ukraine have asked for security guarantees –from NATO. Sorting out the NATO relationship is all important.

…A solution covers four main issues. The first is the future of the Donbass area; the second is NATO membership for Ukraine; the third is the Crimea; and the fourth involves nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the easiest solution is Donbass, which the Minsk Accords saw as becoming autonomous regions of Ukraine. Since Russia has now recognized the two breakaway areas (Donetsk and Luhansk) as independent states, it is more difficult now to find a way to a solution. Nevertheless, it is possible. One formula would be for the two breakaways to remain independent only while their status as autonomous Ukrainian areas is worked out, at which point it would be politically and economically expedient for them to become autonomous parts of Ukraine.

NATO, however, is a bigger issue for the Russians and for Ukraine. Ukraine believes, rightly or wrongly, that NATO guarantees their security (even though the support they have received from NATO has not achieved that goal at all). Russia believes NATO in Ukraine is a major threat to Russian security. How to solve this problem?

The article notes that the easiest solution to end the war would be for Ukraine to give up on the idea of joining NATO. That would solve at least part of the problem. Is that the problem or is the quest to reunite the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the real goal? I don’t know.

The article continues:

A straightforward solution is for NATO to give Ukraine a special type of membership whereby NATO would come to Ukraine’s help if it is attacked. But to assuage Russia, NATO would not put any troops in Ukraine nor any NATO bases, and would not try to convert Ukraine’s military infrastructure into the NATO system. NATO, of course, is not directly part of the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, but some sort of formula can be agreed (no NATO bases, infrastructure etc) in Ukraine, leaving aside Ukraine asking for special status under Article 5 (collective security) in the NATO treaty.

If NATO membership for Ukraine is actually the issue, that would be a possible solution.

The article concludes:

European leaders, especially Emmanuel Macron of France, have tried to find a way forward, which is more than can be said of Joe Biden, who has tried to exploit the Ukraine mess for domestic political reasons. Instead of Macron visiting Putin, maybe he should stop off in Washington and see if he can turn around thinking in the White House.

Meanwhile, Americans need to be very careful about believing what they are hearing from the mainstream media.

 

Moving Away From Peace

The Center for Security Policy posted an article today about a recent foreign affairs decision by the Biden administration.

The article reports:

Is the Biden Administration holding Egypt aid hostage in exchange for freeing a bloodthirsty Muslim Brotherhood leader?

The Biden Administration is currently withholding $130 million in security and counterterrorism assistance to the Egyptian government, unless 16 unnamed prisoners, among whom may be included a virulent anti-Semitic jihadist cleric, are released from Egyptian prisons.

That was the reveal in a recent floor speech by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this week. Cruz has been locked in a rhetorical battle with the Biden Administration for weeks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, centered around nominee Barbara Leaf, currently proposed for state department assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. Cruz has sought to force answers to questions about the conditioning of Egyptian security aid on the release of the unnamed prisoners.

“Not a single name. None of them. Congress doesn’t get to know who those 16 people are,” Cruz said during the speech, which featured a large poster board blow up of Leaf’s 1000-word response to Cruz’s questionnaire, “The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, not to put too fine a point on, go jump in a lake.”

Cruz called the Biden Administration’s action “extortion” and wondered aloud about the nature of the prisoner list, noting that the list of names is available to Congress in a classified form, but one that remains hidden from the public.

There seems to be some information about who the prisoners are in a recent Senate report:

One possible clue as to the identity of these prisoners may be language buried within a recent Senate appropriation report, which calls on the secretary of state to consider conditioning aid on the treatment of Egyptian prisoners Ola al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdelrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. Cruz noted that it is currently unknown who was responsible for the insertion of those names into the appropriations report.

Soltan’s is by far the most interesting name, as he is a well-known Muslim Brotherhood cleric and Hamas supporter. Soltan played a key role in leading U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations during his time in United States and has a long record of issuing blood-curdling anti-Semitic calls for violence. He is also known for praising Osama bin Laden, and even being an associate of the late Al Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki.

Soltan is currently in an Egyptian prison convicted of incitement to murder. He was formerly a U.S. resident, but his application for naturalization was denied after Soltan appeared at a Hamas rally in Turkey.

This is the kind of thing that happened when Barack Obama was President and spoke in Egypt. He brought members of the Muslim Brotherhood into the country from exile and seated them in the front row. He planted the seeds for the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, which was later overthrown.

This Book Is Worth Reading

On October 1, The Center for Security Policy posted a brief book review of The Arab Spring Ruse: How the Muslim Brotherhood Duped Washington in Libya and Syria, by investigative journalist John Rossomando.

The book review includes the following:

The new book, The Arab Spring Ruse: How the Muslim Brotherhood Duped Washington in Libya and Syria, by investigative journalist John Rossomando and published by the Center for Security Policy offers a definitive account ̶ derived from interviews with Syrian and Libyan opposition figures and a top Obama administration official, Hillary Clinton’s emails, social media posts, Arabic-language news accounts, and never before reported documents ̶ of the foreign policy disaster in Syria and Libya that placed the U.S. government on the same side as al-Qaida-aligned jihadists. Those countries have never recovered from these policies that led to the rise of ISIS and still on-going civil wars.

Now-familiar names, such as Antony Blinken, William Burns, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Lloyd Austin, make appearances as Rossomando details how the Obama administration opened the door to Muslim Brotherhood propagandists secretly aligned themselves with pro al-Qaida jihadists in Syria and Libya.

“With the unfortunate collapse of Afghanistan, this book could not be timelier,” said Kyle Shideler, the Center’s Director of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, “The Biden administration’s reliance on cooperation with the Taliban, falsely characterized as growing in moderation, is a mirror image of the failed Libya and Syria policies that John extensively documents.”

The Arab Spring Ruse details how liberal Arab opposition figures were snubbed in favor of the hardcore pro-jihadist figures, who allied with al-Qaida and ISIS, while being sold to Washington as “moderates.”

Emails to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal highlight how the Obama-Biden Administration knew about links between Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Libya and Egypt and al-Qaida figures during the so-called Arab Spring, but chose to support jihadist rebels anyway.

The book also details the role of U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders in influencing U.S. policy towards Syria and Libya. Operating out of a Northern Virginia mosque famous for being led by Al Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki and hosting two of the 9/11 hijackers, Islamist leaders created lobby groups that targeted Libya and Syria and served as a conduit to deceptively pass jihadists off as moderate supporters of democracy and human rights.

The Biden administration is simply the third term of the Obama administration and includes and will amplify all of the failures of the Obama administration. We can expect to see massive government overreach and a loss of many of the freedoms we take for granted over the next three years.

Actions Have Consequences

Yesterday The Center for Security Policy posted an article titled, “What happens in Afghanistan doesn’t stay in Afghanistan.” Unfortunately that is true.

The article includes a list of the events that followed the fall of South Vietnam.

This is only a small part of that list:

  • Moscow stepped up aid to Soviet-backed communist insurgents in Central and Latin America. They eventually took over in Nicaragua while amping up violence and instability in El Salvador, Colombia, Peru and elsewhere.
  • The Soviets established a military presence in the Horn of Africa and helped solidify an earlier Marxist takeover in Ethiopia, along with attendant mass slaughter.
  • The Marxist Khmer Rouge went to work in Cambodia and slaughtered a third of the population to set the stage for a Marxist utopia.
  • The Cubans, Soviet clients, dispatched a military task force to Angola in summer 1975 and when the U.S. government – scarred by the Vietnam collapse – refused to intervene in any serious way, the Cubans installed a pro-Soviet, Marxist regime. This was a piece of the puzzle that led to 40 years of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and scuppered any chance of Southern Africa developing in a more humane way.
  • In 1979 the Soviets went into Afghanistan – following a Marxist coup attempt in 1978. And the country has been ravaged ever since.

The article predicts the result of the fall of Afghanistan:

It will of course be bad enough in Afghanistan. The U.S. recently flew a rainbow flag at the Kabul Embassy to demonstrate progressive street credentials. It’ll now be the Taliban flag. The Taliban flag will also flutter over the soccer stadiums where attendance is mandatory to watch stonings of those who helped the Americans, as well as members of ‘rainbow’ communities who were foolhardy enough to trust American Embassy-funded programs that told them to ‘live their truth’, making them easier for the Taliban to find and kill.

But it won’t stop there. This time, it will be primarily Beijing, rather than Moscow, who will be stoking and spreading the fires designed to torch democracies and expand its hegemony. Some likely outcomes:

  • We can expect the Chinese to start telling leaders and concerned partners around the globe that America lacks the will – or even the ability – to challenge Beijing, beyond furrow-browed expressions of ‘serious concern’. Stepped up CCP political warfare worldwide will likely include trumpeting that the Americans are unreliable – and couldn’t even defeat 75,000 Taliban, so how can they stand up to close to three million trained, armed Chinese military personnel.
  • In Southeast Asia – expect stepped up Chinese pressure on Taiwan. Maybe the seizure of Malaysian territory and increased bullying of the Philippines – while daring the Americans to do something about it, and gaining momentum every time they don’t.
  • ASEAN is already wavering – just listen to Singapore’s Prime Minister all but saying the future is China. And that was before Kabul fell. 
  • The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will perhaps move ahead and complete the naval base it’s building (but denying) in Cambodia. It may not even feel the need to deny it anymore.
  • Japan will feel the heat in the East China Sea. Expect a full court press around the Senkaku Islands, for starters. The PLAN will swarm and warn off the Japanese. And maybe there will be ‘administrative fees’ for Japanese ships transiting the South China Sea.

Unfortunately, there is more. Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

Notes On A Truce

The first thing to remember when viewing the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is the Islamic concept of “hudna.” RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER  (is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence) describes the rule for making “hudna” (or truce) as follows:

If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him Peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as it related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. (from CATASTROPHIC FAILURE by Stephen Coughlin)

In the eyes of Islam, the purpose of a truce is to give the Muslims time to rearm and grow stronger. That is one of many reasons I am not impressed with the current truce.

The Center for Security Policy posted an article today which mentions some other problems with the truce. One of the main unresolved issues is the right of Jews to go to the Temple Mount. This issue has the potential to unravel the Jordan-Israeli peace treaty.

The article reports:

The fact is, since the rioting escalated to the Temple Mount surrounding the Muslim holiday of Laylat al -Qadr two weeks ago, the Israeli government barred any Jew from setting foot on the Temple Mount since May 5. It did so as a temporary tactical move to calm unnecessary tensions. However, the war is now over, which means in the coming days, Israel will have to make a decision as to whether it will lift that ban. If it does lift the ban, Jews will again be able to go to the Temple Mount, at which point Hamas will ensure that there will be violence so that it maintains and emphasizes its control of events. Israel will either have to lift that ban and a Jew will go to the mount. That event will represent an immediate escalation and Jordan will be unable to take a neutral position given the col de sac into which it has rhetorically maneuvered itself. The resulting violence which Hamas will instigate now that it has such immense currency on the Palestinian street will not only threaten the survival of the Palestinian Authority, but it could even reverberate enough to destabilize the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan.

The article concludes:

In short, Hamas has positioned itself in a win-win position over all its enemies, presenting the world with the final verdict in this 12-day war and positioning itself to gut Judaism and threaten both Jordan and the PA.

We will see shortly whether Israel lifts the prohibition and a Jew ascends the Mount. If so, then we have a crisis in which Jordan, because of its imprudent intervention, will be forced to react with such intensity that it may cause the peace treaty to falter materially. If on the hand the ban is not immediately lifted, then Hamas has successfully changed the status quo to ban Jews, leaving Jordan and Abu Mazen fatally weak.

This ceasefire is fraught with great peril, and the President should be careful not to attach too much of his or the United States’ reputation and stature to it. It may indeed turn out to be a historical turning point, but not a positive one.

The current ceasefire in Israel is as much of a minefield as the war. We need to step very carefully. Unfortunately, I am not convinced we have leadership that knows how to do that.