About L.A.'s Notoriously High Gas Prices

Like I said, I'm just glad I'm not driving much. I filled my tank at Costco about a month ago, for about $4.20 a gallon. I don't go out too much, though my wife has driven my Dodge Challenger. The tank's still half full.

I simply won't pay $6.95 a gallon. You couldn't pay me to pay that much. It's obscene for so many reasons --- it hurts the poor most of all. We'll see another huge exodus of folks fleeing California this year. Businesses too, taking jobs with them, often high-paying jobs. (Tesla moved to Texas, for example.)

At the Los Angeles Times, "The truth about L.A.’s most notoriously expensive gas stations."

And, "Rising gas prices from Russia-Ukraine conflict will hit Angelenos who can least afford it."

This Is Much Worse Than Obama's Iran Deal

From Gabriel Noronha, at the Tablet, "The last thing the world needs is another nuclear-armed dictatorship flush with cash and attacking its neighbors. But that’s what President Biden and his Iran envoy Robert Malley are creating in the deal they are about to close in Vienna, according to career State Department sources":

Anyone seeking to gauge the imminent outcome of the international talks over Iran’s nuclear program being held in Vienna should take a look at reports from late January that three top U.S. diplomats had quit—largely in protest over the direction set by U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley, who serves as the U.S. government’s chief negotiator.

Having served for two years in former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Iran Action Group, I knew that this development was tantamount to a public cry for an intervention. Such resignations—not of conservative dissenters, but of career staff and President Joe Biden’s own political appointees—should have been cause for Biden or Secretary Antony Blinken to recall Malley and investigate. Their failure to do so is a sign either of a troubling lack of attention to the talks, or else the possibility that Malley—who served in the same capacity under President Barack Obama when the first Iran deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was originally negotiated and signed—has been given a free hand to negotiate whatever he wants, as long as he gets Iran to sign.

Evidence for the latter view can be gleaned from the fact that Blinken has reneged on his pledge that his Iran negotiating team would have “a diversity of views.” Instead, he has let Malley continue to concede issue after issue in Vienna. Multiple career officials view these capitulations as so detrimental to U.S. national security that they contacted me requesting that I rapidly share details of these concessions with Congress and the public in an effort to stop them.

Reports out of Vienna indicate that a deal could occur within the next few days. While some issues are still being ironed out—such as whether the United States will grant Russia immunity from any economic sanctions relating to Iran, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has publicly demanded—the details that follow have been conveyed to me as finalized. My subsequent discussions with foreign diplomats—including those directly involved and those outside but close to the negotiations—confirmed their claims. Ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov, who led negotiations on behalf of Russia, has crowed that “Iran got much more than it could expect. Much more,” and bragged about how Russia teamed up with China and Iran to get dozens of wins over the United States and European negotiating positions.

The list of concessions that follows is long, detailed, disturbing, but also somewhat technical. But this much is clear to me: The deal being negotiated in Vienna is dangerous to U.S. national security, to the stability of the Middle East, and to the Iranian people who suffer most under that brutal regime...

 More.

Pentagon Rejects Poland's Deal to Send MiG-29 Combat Jets to the U.S.

At the New York Times, "Pentagon says Poland’s fighter jet offer is not 'tenable'":

The Pentagon on Tuesday rejected an offer from the Polish government to send its MiG-29 fighter planes to a United States air base in Germany for eventual use by Ukraine, a rare note of disunity between two NATO allies as they confront Russia.

The disagreement underscored the pressures the United States and its allies are under as they seek to provide military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia without getting pulled into a wider war.

Ukraine has been pleading for more warplanes, and American officials have raised the possibility that Poland could supply Ukraine with its older Soviet-era fighters in return for U.S. F-16s to make up for the loss. Ukrainian pilots are trained on the Russian aircraft.

Poland’s minister of foreign affairs said in a statement earlier on Tuesday that the country was ready to deploy its MiG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where they would be placed at the disposal of the U.S. government. In return, Poland expected the U.S. to provide it with used aircraft of comparable capabilities, the statement said.`

But a Pentagon spokesman, John F. Kirby, said Poland’s proposal to send the planes to a U.S. base in Germany, which caught American diplomats by surprise, was not workable...

 

Bloodied Man in Hospital Gown Broke Into Cole Valley Home Early Saturday Morning (VIDEO)

It's a neighborhood in San Francisco, the most unlivable city in America. 

See Dion Lim on Twitter.

Kyiv Residents Prepare for the Arrival of the Russians

 At Der Spiegel, "The Ukrainian Capital Under Fire":

The people of Kyiv spend their nights in subway stations and their days preparing for the arrival of the Russians. Fear is rising, but so too is the resolve to defend their country from Putin’s invasion.

It is a restive night in the subway car. Those sleeping on the floor or narrow benches snore, rustle and cough their way through the night as cold air seeps through the cracks in the doors. From above, from the surface, the muted sounds of war can sometimes be heard. Kyiv is under attack, on this night as well.

"It’s rumbling longer than usual. What is that?" asks a woman in the half-light.

"No idea. Why don’t you go up and have a look," a man’s voice jokes, earning a giggle from someone.

Kyiv these days is a city on the frontlines. It is a city where the subway stations are for sleeping, providing protection against rocket attacks. It is a city where the streets are blockaded with automobile tires and cement blocks. Where men with yellow armbands made of tape examine identity papers at roadblocks and hunt down spies and saboteurs. A city with burned-out cars standing at intersections and long lines of people in front of the grocery stores. Where bizarre signs are ready to greet the enemy troops who hope to force their way into the city: "Russian soldier, go fuck yourself!"

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his war against Ukraine a week ago. And even if he wasn’t able to rapidly take control of Kyiv, one thing is clear: This city remains his primary objective. On both sides of the Dnieper River, which runs through the Ukrainian capital, Russian troops are advancing from the north in the hopes of cutting the city off from the surrounding countryside. It is a city where just a few weeks ago, the cafés were full and the streets bustling with life – and which is now preparing for a long siege and house-to-house fighting. For the residents of Kyiv, dark days are upon them.

On Tuesday evening, a few colleagues and I do the same thing many Kyiv residents do every evening: We pack up pillows, blankets and food and descend into the subway. The heavy metal doors that can seal off subway stations in Kyiv are almost completely closed, we have to slide through a gap to enter the station at Poshtova Square. It’s 6 p.m. and an air-raid warning has sounded. Our plan is to make our way to the Obolon station to meet up with my colleague Krystyna Berdynskych, a Kyiv journalist.

The nightly curfew is set to begin in two hours. Those who remain on the streets after that will be treated as saboteurs or spies, city officials have warned. Fears of Russian spies and of a pro-Moscow fifth column are widespread in Kyiv. And they are growing as Russian troops advance on the city, especially from the north. The first Russian soldiers have long since reached the Kyiv suburbs.

The Obolon District is also in the northern part of the city. On just the second day of the war, on Feb. 25, shooting erupted there, with Ukrainian military leaders reporting the incursion of Russian agents. For Kyiv residents, it was a shock that the enemy had turned up in the heart of their city so early on in the conflict. In hindsight, there is much to suggest that it was a false alarm.

As we head north, I look into the tired faces of the passengers and begin wondering if those in the subway far below the city would even realize if Kyiv were to fall to the Russians in the night...

Still more.

 

Wall Street Journal Poll: 70 Percent of Americans Back Ban on Russian Oil Even if Energy Prices Rise

This has got to be a form of the rally 'round the flag effect. The national average is about $4.00 per gallon, but I dare anyone to come live in work in Los Angeles. We'll see how long that rally lasts.

At WSJ,

A wide majority of Americans, 79%, said they favored a ban on Russian oil imports even if the prohibition increased energy prices in the U.S., according to data from a new Wall Street Journal poll. Just 13% said they opposed it.

President Biden on Tuesday halted the purchase of Russian crude oil, certain petroleum products, liquefied natural gas and coal—the latest economic impediment the White House has placed on Moscow in an attempt to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The new Journal poll showed broad support for the energy ban across political breakdowns. The ban had support from 77% of Republicans and 72% of voters who said they would support former President Trump if he ran again in 2024. Among Democrats, 88% said they favored the moratorium on Russian oil imports, including 94% of Democratic men...

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Strongmen

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.

Fiona Hill, Former Senior Director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, on Vladimir Putin (VIDEO)

On Stephen Colbert's: 

Biden's Energy Policy: Rewarding Tyrants to Fight Tyranny

It's Noah Rothman, at Commentary: 

Even before Russian tanks poured over the Ukrainian border to overthrow the government in Kyiv, the Biden administration warned that the West’s duty to safeguard Ukraine’s independence would not be “painless.” Joe Biden didn’t elaborate on this prediction in great detail, but he did promise to “limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump.” Save, however, from coordinating the release of less than a day’s worth of global oil consumption from the world’s strategic reserves, the administration tried to suggest that none of its green-energy priorities needed to change in response to the Russian menace.

Pressed last week by reporters to explain why the administration had not responded to a crisis that puts downward pressure on the global oil supply by pursuing policies that would augment domestic fossil-fuel production, White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki shrunk into a defensive crouch. It’s the oil producers’ fault for not ramping up production to take advantage of record prices, she suggested. The domestic wells and pipelines that the White House prevented from opening would have “no impact” on global energy prices, she insisted. Indeed, the crisis in Europe “is all a reminder, in the president’s view” of “our need to reduce our reliance on oil” by doing more to “invest in clean energy.”

A week has not passed since Psaki made these remarks, but the ground has shifted beneath the administration’s feet...

Continue reading.

 

The Dangerous Allure of the No-Fly Zone (VIDEO)

From Mike Pietrucha and Mike Benitez, at War on the Rocks:

A press conference with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson captivated the world when Daria Kaleniuk, a Ukrainian activist, implored him and other Western leaders to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine to shelter its people from Russian aircraft. The tragedy of the current situation, the sincerity and sadness of the activist, and prime minister’s delicately worded but practical response — in which he told her that there would not be a no-fly zone due to the risk of a NATO-Russian war — made footage of the press conference go viral.

The internet has since buzzed with the question: Why hasn’t a coalition established a no-fly zone?

Contrary to what so many in the commentariat seem to believe, a no-fly zone is not a military half-measure. It is a combat operation designed to deprive the enemy of its airpower, and it involves direct and sustained fighting. The fact is, a general European war has not started, and we must do everything we can to ensure it does not. That means that a no-fly zone should be off the table. Part of the reason that no-fly zones keep being brought up as solutions is that the nature of airpower is so poorly understood. Advocates have trumpeted airpower as a strategic and tactical shortcut for nearly a century — the way to win battles and even wars without the messy complications inherent in the operations of other military arms.

After the rise of airpower in World War II, it was invigorated by the lopsided victory in 1991’s Operation Desert Storm and propagated through repeated limited military air-centric actions. These conflicts reinforced the notion that airpower is the solution to all military challenges overseas. The problem with this view is that it is not supported by a century of evidence. Although airpower can prove decisive and has even been used as the primary method of settling conflicts, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Air campaigns, just like naval and ground campaigns, must be carefully tailored to political and military objectives, the adversary, the environment, and the prevailing conditions. Unfortunately, a byproduct of a generation of low-intensity operations has only reinforced this evolving political infatuation with two pillars of what we term political airpower: airstrikes and no-fly zones. While each can be effective, neither is a shortcut around a need for a comprehensive strategy — both are merely elements of one...

More.

 

How the War in Ukraine Could Get Much Worse

From Emma Ashford and Joshua Shifrinson, at Foreign Affairs, "Russia and the West Risk Falling Into a Deadly Spiral":

During the first week of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian leaders repeatedly raised the prospect of a nuclear response should the United States or its NATO partners intervene in the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded his speech announcing war in Ukraine by warning that “anyone who tries to interfere with us … must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history.” He subsequently emphasized Russia’s “advantages in a number of the latest types of nuclear weapons” while ordering Russian strategic nuclear forces on alert. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned to this theme a few days later, noting that a third world war would be a nuclear war and urging Western leaders to consider what a “real war” with Russia would entail. The message was crystal clear: nuclear escalation is possible should the United States or its NATO partners intervene in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Observers have expressed shock at the notion of a return to Cold War nuclear brinksmanship. The U.S. government even tried to reassure Moscow by postponing an intercontinental ballistic missile test planned for early March. These steps are clearly for the best; no one wants a nuclear exchange. Yet the heavy focus on nuclear escalation is obscuring an equally important problem: the risk of conventional escalation—that is to say, a non-nuclear NATO-Russia war. The West and Russia may now be entering into the terminal stages of an insecurity spiral—a series of mutually destabilizing choices—which could end in tragedy, producing a larger European conflagration even if it doesn’t go nuclear.

Indeed, the coming weeks are likely to be more perilous. The United States should be especially attuned to the risks of escalation as the next phase of conflict begins, and should double down on finding ways to end the conflict in Ukraine when a window of opportunity presents itself. This may involve difficult and unpleasant choices, such as lifting some of the worst sanctions on Russia in exchange for an end to hostilities. It will, nonetheless, be more effective at averting an even worse catastrophe than any of the other available options.

Observers have expressed shock at the notion of a return to Cold War nuclear brinksmanship. The U.S. government even tried to reassure Moscow by postponing an intercontinental ballistic missile test planned for early March. These steps are clearly for the best; no one wants a nuclear exchange. Yet the heavy focus on nuclear escalation is obscuring an equally important problem: the risk of conventional escalation—that is to say, a non-nuclear NATO-Russia war. The West and Russia may now be entering into the terminal stages of an insecurity spiral—a series of mutually destabilizing choices—which could end in tragedy, producing a larger European conflagration even if it doesn’t go nuclear. Indeed, the coming weeks are likely to be more perilous. The United States should be especially attuned to the risks of escalation as the next phase of conflict begins, and should double down on finding ways to end the conflict in Ukraine when a window of opportunity presents itself. This may involve difficult and unpleasant choices, such as lifting some of the worst sanctions on Russia in exchange for an end to hostilities. It will, nonetheless, be more effective at averting an even worse catastrophe than any of the other available options.

TIT FOR TAT

In the parlance of security studies, an insecurity spiral ensues when the choices one country makes to advance its interests end up imperiling the interests of another country, which responds in turn. The result is a potentially vicious cycle of unintended escalation, something that’s happened many times before. For example, Germany’s attempt at the turn of the twentieth century to build a world-class navy threatened the naval power on which the United Kingdom depended; in response, London began to bulk up its own navy. Germany responded in kind, and soon, the scene was set for World War I. The origins of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union share a similar genesis, as both sides sought influence throughout the world and engaged in an arms race. In each case, a tit-for-tat spiral drove states toward conflict.

Today, the United States and Russia have already taken steps to shore up their real or perceived sense of insecurity, spurring the other side to do the same. As the scholars William Wohlforth and Andrey Sushentsov have argued, the United States and Russia have been engaged in a slow-motion spiral throughout the post-Cold War era as each sought to refashion European security to its liking and tried to limit the other side’s inevitable response. Recent events highlight the trend: the 2008 Bucharest summit, at which NATO pledged to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance, was followed by Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia. A 2007 dispute over the Bush administration’s plans to base missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic was followed by Russian violations of related arms-control agreements. In 2014, the EU’s offer to Ukraine of an association agreement precipitated the Maidan revolution in Kiev, heightening Russian fears of Ukrainian NATO membership and prompting the Russian seizure of Crimea that year.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, has dangerously upped the ante and accelerated the spiral’s pace. In response to Moscow’s wanton and illegitimate aggression, the United States, NATO, and EU member states have sent Ukraine significant quantities of lethal weapons, placed draconian sanctions on Russia’s economy, and launched a long-term military buildup. Currently, Moscow sees the United States and its partners threatening to make Ukraine into a de facto ally—a situation Moscow’s own aggression helped cause—whereas the United States sees Moscow threatening the core principles undergirding peace in Europe...

Still more.

Jamie Lee Curtis

A spectacular woman. 

She was the hottest woman in the movies in the 1980s and 1990s. 

On Twitter.

Fallout From the Pandemic: Children Are Severely Behind in Reading

If last November's elections are any guide, next to gas prices inflation, K-12 education will be the most volatile electoral issue facing congressional Democrats in this years midterms.

At the New York,Times, "It’s ‘Alarming’: Children Are Severely Behind in Reading":

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — The kindergarten crisis of last year, when millions of 5-year-olds spent months outside of classrooms, has become this year’s reading emergency.

As the pandemic enters its third year, a cluster of new studies now show that about a third of children in the youngest grades are missing reading benchmarks, up significantly from before the pandemic.

In Virginia, one study found that early reading skills were at a 20-year low this fall, which the researchers described as “alarming.”

In the Boston region, 60 percent of students at some high-poverty schools have been identified as at high risk for reading problems — twice the number of students as before the pandemic, according to Tiffany P. Hogan, director of the Speech and Language Literacy Lab at the MGH Institute of Health Professions in Boston.

Children in every demographic group have been affected, but Black and Hispanic children, as well as those from low-income families, those with disabilities and those who are not fluent in English, have fallen the furthest behind.

“We’re in new territory,” Dr. Hogan said about the pandemic’s toll on reading. If children do not become competent readers by the end of elementary school, the risks are “pretty dramatic,” she said. Poor readers are more likely to drop out of high school, earn less money as adults and become involved in the criminal justice system.

The literacy crisis did not start with the pandemic. In 2019, results on national and international exams showed stagnant or declining American performance in reading, and widening gaps between high and low performers. The causes are multifaceted, but many experts point to a shortage of educators trained in phonics and phonemic awareness — the foundational skills of linking the sounds of spoken English to the letters that appear on the page. The pandemic has compounded those issues. Children spent months out of the classroom, where they were supposed to learn the basics of reading — the ABCs, what sound a “b” or “ch” makes. Many first and second graders returned to classrooms needing to review parts of the kindergarten curriculum. But nearly half of public schools have teaching vacancies, especially in special education and the elementary grades, according to a federal survey conducted in December and January.

Even students with well-trained teachers have had far fewer hands-on hours with them than before the pandemic, which has been defined by closures, uneven access to online instruction, quarantine periods and — even on the best days — virus-related interruptions to regular classroom routines. Now, schools are under pressure to boost literacy as quickly as possible so students gain the reading skills they need to learn the rest of the curriculum, from math word problems to civics lessons. Billions of federal stimulus dollars are flowing to districts for tutoring and other supports, but their effect may be limited if schools cannot find quality staff members to hire...

 

United Nations Advises Staff Against Using 'War' or 'Invasion' Regarding Ukraine

Well, let's not call it a war or anything. I mean, it's all daisy-chains and puppies over there. Over 2 million Ukrainian refugees? Pfft. That's crazy talk. Folks are just taking advantage of the March thaws to get out and see the sights. 

At the Irish Times, "Email on communications policy reminds worker of responsibility to 'be impartial'."

Yes. "Impartial." If you've watched any of the recent sessions at the Security Council, you can be assured *everything* is impartial because the Russian delegation currently holds the rotating chair of the council's presidency.

No worries. IT'S ALL IMPARTIAL!

Tucker Carlson: 'What We're Watching is the Beginning of a War Between the United States and Russia' (VIDEO)

I quit watching Tucker last year, after he started getting so freakin' conspiratorial. He was great in 2020 when the pandemic just got going, but after Trump lost the election, it was crazy times at 6:00pm at Fox.

Make what you will of it:

Biden Announces Ban on Russian Oil, Then Lies and Claims He's Not Stopping U.S. Oil Production (Despite Running on Doing Just That)

At AoSHQ, "Gas prices just hit a record -- before this announcement, though the entire Democrat-Media Complex is now claiming that this announcement has reached back in time and retroactively caused Biden's inflation."

And watch, "BIDEN: 'It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production'."

Charles Kupchan, Isolationism

At Amazon, Charles Kupchan, Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World.

Poll: Biden More to Blame Than Trump Over Ukraine; Majority Favors Drilling to Combat Rising Gas Prices

The common sense of the American public. Ahh, at certain times, something to behold. 

At Newsweek, "To the extent that American foreign policy encouraged Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, more registered voters blame President Joe Biden than they do his predecessor, Donald Trump — and they're ready to punish Democrats for it in November, according to a new poll."

Whoa! Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis

A world axis of oil is developing which may very well prop up the Russian state under Putin.

At WSJ, "Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere":

The White House unsuccessfully tried to arrange calls between President Biden and the de facto leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as the U.S. was working to build international support for Ukraine and contain a surge in oil prices, said Middle East and U.S. officials.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the U.A.E.’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan both declined U.S. requests to speak to Mr. Biden in recent weeks, the officials said, as Saudi and Emirati officials have become more vocal in recent weeks in their criticism of American policy in the Gulf.

“There was some expectation of a phone call, but it didn’t happen,“ said a U.S. official of the planned discussion between the Saudi Prince Mohammed and Mr. Biden. ”It was part of turning on the spigot [of Saudi oil].”

Mr. Biden did speak with Prince Mohammed’s 86-year-old father, King Salman, on Feb. 9, when the two men reiterated their countries’ longstanding partnership. The U.A.E.’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the call between Mr. Biden and Sheikh Mohammed would be rescheduled.

The Saudis have signaled that their relationship with Washington has deteriorated under the Biden administration, and they want more support for their intervention in Yemen’s civil war, help with their own civilian nuclear program as Iran’s moves ahead, and legal immunity for Prince Mohammed in the U.S., Saudi officials said. The crown prince faces multiple lawsuits in the U.S., including over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

The Emiratis share Saudi concerns about the restrained U.S. response to recent missile strikes by Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen against the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia, officials said. Both governments are also concerned about the revival of the Iran nuclear deal, which doesn’t address other security concerns of theirs and has entered the final stages of negotiations in recent weeks. The White House has worked to repair relations with two key Middle Eastern countries it needs on its side as oil prices push over $130 a barrel for the first time in almost 14 years. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are the only two major oil producers that can pump millions of more barrels of more oil—a capacity that, if used, could help calm the crude market at a time when American gasoline prices are at high levels. Brett McGurk, the National Security Council’s Middle East coordinator, and Amos Hochstein, the State Department’s energy envoy, both traveled to Riyadh late last month to try to mend fences with Saudi officials. Mr. McGurk also met with Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi in a bid to address Emirati frustrations over the U.S. response to the Houthi attacks.

One U.S. official said the Biden administration has worked diligently to strengthen Saudi and Emirati missile defenses, and that America would be doing more in the coming months to help the two Gulf nations protect themselves. It may not be all the two countries want, the official said, but the U.S. is trying to address their security concerns.

But the Saudis and Emiratis have declined to pump more oil, saying they are sticking to a production plan approved between their group, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a group of other producers led by Russia. The energy alliance with Russia, one of the world’s top oil producers, has enhanced OPEC’s power while also bringing the Saudis and Emiratis closer to Moscow.

Both Prince Mohammed and Sheikh Mohammed took phone calls from Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, after declining to speak with Mr. Biden. They both later spoke with Ukraine’s president, and a Saudi official said the U.S. had requested that Prince Mohammed mediate in the conflict, which he said the kingdom is embarking on...

Keep reading. 

 

Ukraine, the New Right, and Defending the West

 From Ben Domenech, at the Transom:

What we see illuminated in the rapid shift of Americans on Ukraine is actually the pathway toward a moderate, realist, interest-based American national-security approach that falls into neither the cul de sac of the New Right, nor the dead end utopianism of neoconservatism. An America that has no messianic mission, does not automatically assume that it can do anything, and also possesses the self-confidence and competence to act as a force for good in the wider world, is an America that reflects what Americans actually want. It is an America where a real discussion of the national interest can be had, without the obscuring and distorting priors inflicted by neocons and New Right alike...

RTWT.