Biden - Trump -- Again????

I’m surprised to find myself writing this, but I haven’t wanted to vote for a president of the United States since the 2016 election, and it doesn’t appear my view is about to change anytime soon. In ’16, I thought it was Hillary Clinton’s to lose and figured she’d win up until that fatal moment when she castigated half of all President Trump’s supporters as deplorable. She lost my vote with that comment; instead, I voted for the Libertarian.

In 2020, I very reluctantly voted for Trump – and much of that was due to President Biden’s mental acuity, which reminded me all too well of my mother when she was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. I don’t believe for a second he’s fit for office. On the other hand, one might say he’s got a decent staff that (mostly) keeps him going.

Given that Trump never figured out how to act presidential, I wasn’t surprised he lost in 2020. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial just prior to the election, only Trump could fire Trump and, given his petulance over the course of four years, he did – successfully!

Enter the 2024 election, and my only thought is please, God, spare us another contest between those two.

I’m ever hopeful – I’m allowed to dream, right? – others will want the presidency as much as Biden and Trump do and give them a run for their money during the primaries. On the Republican side, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins could make interesting candidates. So could former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker as well as current Governors Chris Sununu and Brian Kemp. I wonder if former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley can pull off the nomination. She appears to be as much of a longshot as U.S. Sen. Tim Scott.

Given that we’ve heard so much from Florida’s Ron DeSantis, I wouldn’t be surprised if he burns out. If that happens, Murkowski, Collins, Baker or, possibly, Sununu or Kemp could step in. Given Kemp’s two election wins over Stacey Abrams, he could make a very viable candidate.

The Republicans need to moderate their stance on abortion (as Haley has suggested) and push more of an economic agenda with lower taxes. They also need to go heavy on defense and crime. If they can figure out the messaging on those issues, they can probably win the presidency in 2024.

The Democrats need to have a heart to heart with Biden. Forget his politics, his mental health makes him bad for the country. Democratic politicians who should consider running against him for the nomination include U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. There are likely others.

The Democrats need to modify their stance on abortion, too, put a damper on woke politics, take the southern U.S. border issues seriously, and moderate their views that the government can solve all problems. Like Biden, they need to say that people like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are threats.

Alas, I dream!

People, Putin and Vladimir's Great Terror

If anything is surprising about Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, it’s that the plan was practically written by a retired British Army general. Sir John Hackett, in his novel, The Third World War: August 1985, published more than 40 years ago, along with his co-authors, described how the Soviet Union invaded western Europe, used a nuclear missile, and, after Great Britain and the United States responded in kind, experienced a coup. Coincidentally enough, in the novel, it’s a Ukrainian, Vasyl Duglenko, who becomes the Soviet Union’s new leader and sues for peace, bringing down the federation and leaving Russia isolated and alone.

The only question today is how Putin’s "special military operation" ends. Will he turn to nuclear weapons, as described in Sir John’s book, or will he continue to fight a conventional war, possibly expanding it against NATO? Will another revolution break out in Russia, similar to what happened during the First World War? And will Putin’s allies, whether it’s China or a former Soviet republic, join him on his military adventure or decline the opportunity? 

The only thing that’s certain, as of right now, is that the West is responding to Russia’s aggression and Putin’s war aims haven’t been met, at least not yet. Given that NATO appears to have found its backbone, it doesn’t appear Russia will be successful.

 

The best way to end this – to show the average Russian, and those in the government, that Putin’s military adventurism was ill-conceived and without any payoff – is for Ukraine to inflict the highest number of casualties possible against Russian armed forces and to liberate the territory that Moscow seized in 2014. Anything less could provide the average Russian, as well as someone in Putin’s government, with a lingering sense that their invasion is or was winnable. 

 

As for Putin’s latest speech, if he wants to return the country to its “glory days” of the 19^th century, so be it. By isolating his country from the West, which has a higher standard of living than Russia, Putin is leading it onto a suicidal path, economically and militarily. In addition, he is, without question, worried about his citizens because he’s censoring and silencing them. Most certainly, he’s making sure Moscow has one reliable ally, China, which could very well be encouraging this fool’s errand so it can gain insight into the U.S. and allied response should it attack Taiwan.

 

Then there’s the issue of Moscow suspending The New START Treaty. Could this lead Putin to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or a NATO country? It’s hard to fathom he isn’t aware of how NATO would respond. But given the underestimation of NATO’s response to his conventional attack, a nuclear exchange isn’t out of the question.

 

If Russia’s military operation continues without success, say for another year or two, which appears possible, Putin could likely become even more apprehensive, not so much about how he’s perceived by other countries but by his own people, perhaps even those closest to him. Will it lead him to enact a modern-day version of Joseph Stalin’s Great Terror?

 

Russia has a history of revolution. It’s not limited to just 1917. Its people turned against their leaders recently, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, taking down the Soviet Union. At some point, after experiencing the despondency of a soured economy and anguish and torment from burying their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, and uncles from a failed military operation, they’ll likely do what Sir John and his co-authors wrote: They’ll revolt.

 

How bloody could this next revolution be? Could it be successful and who will be in charge next – one of Putin’s former cronies or a surprise, someone no one saw on the horizon?

 

Putin would be well-advised to declare victory and leave Ukraine.