Obama

The long war in Ukraine has morphed into a new and decisive phase, one that could lead to Ukraine’s upset victory over its much larger, more aggressive neighbor. The global consequences of Russia’s loss – and Vladimir Putin’s humiliation – would be enormous. What is this new phase? Is there really evidence the tide has turned in Ukraine’s favor? To sort out the answers and understand what’s new about the war’s current phase, we need to do a brief tour of the three phases that preceded it. The first phase began well over a decade ago, in February 2014, when Barack Obama was president. Ukraine fatefully signaled it wanted much stronger ties with Europe and the United States, not Russia, at the very moment US deterrence was weak.

As he often does when things get a little hot in the kitchen, President Trump went after Rosie O’Donnell again yesterday. "We are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O'Donnell's Citizenship," he wrote on Truth Social. O’Donnell, he said, is "not a Great American," layering that on top of what he said in July, that Rosie is "not in the best interests of our great country." I don’t think anyone other than her closest associates would argue that Rosie O’Donnell is “Great,” but she is, technically, an “American.” If the Trump Administration wants to revoke citizenship for every mediocre celebrity who criticizes the President, well, then, Hollywood is going to have to do some fast outsourcing. Let’s think about who else is on the chopping block.

For decades, the picture of Earth’s future – as laid out by journalists and climate scientists alike – has been bleak. By 2070 we will see famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us, melted icecaps, flooding, extreme hurricanes and ever-present tropical storms. "Vast swathes" of the planet will be inhospitable for human life. And Greta Thunberg, in her late sixties, will wear a gas mask as she sits on the steps of Swedish Parliament with a cardboard sign declaring, "I told you so." Advocates have poured gasoline on the climate-alarmism fire earnestly, backed by reports declaring, "There really is no serious scientific debate remaining about climate change.

American politics is often reactionary. Barack Obama rode the dip of the 2007-2008 financial crash, but after eight years of neoliberal slog Middle America chose Donald Trump to extract the globalist cancer from their venerated land. The Democrats staged a counterattack in the 2018 midterms, thrusting names like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into the spotlight. A reaction to a reaction to a reaction. And right on time, now that Trump has returned to office, a new breed of even more radical young Democrats is on the ascent. Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is committed to radical socialism and will likely be enthroned as America’s most powerful local executive in November thanks to a tide of support from the young, wealthy and highly educated.

Yesterday, I wrote about the revelations with which Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, electrified the world.  We had all grown up chewing on the Russia Collusion Delusion, and most of us were happy to have that political enormity pass through the usual emunctory processes and be deposited in some far off midden or compost heap.   But Tulsi showed that, however expert we thought ourselves about the subject, that great precautionary motto – "things are always worse than they seem”– was pertinent even here.

Political imbrioglios often take on the character of theological controversy. Back in the 6th century, the wise men of the Western Church, pondering the Trinity, decided to make an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Holy Spirit, they determined, proceeded not simply “ex Patre” (“from the Father”) but also “filioque,” “and from the son.” No big deal, right? Wrong. For reasons I shall refrain from dilating on now, the Eastern Church repudiated the addition. Controversy raged for centuries. Indeed, what became known as the “filioque controversy” culminated, in AD 1054, in the Great Schism between the Eastern Church and the West. For most of us mortals, the controversy now seems arcane, not to say bootless. But at the time it was a matter of life and death.

As British Ambassador to Yemen from 2015 to 2017, and later in counterterrorism roles at the UN, I watched with growing frustration as Washington, despite its early clarity, lost the plot in Yemen – with consequences that are now rippling across the Red Sea and into Israel. In 2014, the international community got it right. UN Security Council Resolution 2140 blamed the right culprits: former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi leadership. The Houthis, a small sectarian militia allied with Saleh, were trying to hijack Yemen’s democratic transition – and the world recognized that.

Michelle Obama says Donald Trump’s immigration policies “keep her up at night.” But if immigration enforcement is a moral crisis, why wasn’t she losing sleep when her own husband deported more immigrants than any president in American history? Instead of helping the Democrats, this kind of out-of-touch moral posturing only highlights the party’s elite detachment from reality – and it’s costing them working-class voters who live with the consequences of the failed policies they are still defending.Michelle Obama may lie awake thinking about immigration enforcement. Many of us stay up worrying about what happens when our neighborhoods, wages and public schools are strained by policies designed to win applause, not provide order.

If you have ever been desperate and adrift, you understand the Democratic Party’s frustration. One day, James Carville tells his party to do nothing and let President Trump destroy himself. Another, the Montgomery Burns of American politics, Senator Chuck Schumer, advises a strategy of sustained resistance, rallying his troops to “make Donald Trump the quickest lame duck in history.” The old Senate Minority Leader feeds his angry, cannibalistic followers in hope they won’t eat him. Some Democrats protest their party has been too woke. Others, not woke enough. Pete Buttigieg, a man not often confused with a lumberjack, swaps “darn” and “shucks” for saltier words to demonstrate his party’s determination.