Americans won't vote for socialism once they know what it is

When challenged to differentiate himself from traditional socialism, Sanders claims that he is a Democratic socialist, not just a socialist. Sanders does not want to acknowledge that Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Once people have seen what socialism is, they will not vote for it, but by that time, they may have no choice. 

go to The Hill

A nuclear option for Vladimir Putin

Mr. Trump’s many critics claim that he has gone easy on Mr. Putin because Mr. Putin has something on him. In my view, the “something” is Mr. Putin’s ability to sink the Trump administration in a constitutional crisis via a false admission of collusion. Mr. Putin would find in the U.S. media and among Mr. Trump’s many enemies on both sides of the political aisle willing accomplices.

Yes, Mr. Putin has the leverage. Thank you, political class. Remember my words when Mr. Putin pulls this rabbit out of his hat and paralyzes the U.S. political system for months and perhaps years.

go to washingtontimes.com

A Distrustful Kim Should Look at Ukraine not Libya

Ukraine, the holder of the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, agreed to give them up in signing the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. In return for de-nuclearizing, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia assured Ukraine’s territorial integrity. When Russia annexed Crimea contrary to international law and Russia backed an invasion of Eastern Ukraine, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom fulfilled its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. In its hostile actions against Ukraine, Russia broke the foundation of postwar peace; namely, the sanctity of existing national boundaries.

I find it strange that, in the discussion of the de-nuclearization of North Korea, reference is made mainly to Libya’s Gadhafi giving up his nuclear program, as an example of the untrustworthiness of major-power guarantees. Gadhafi voluntarily allowed in inspectors who oversaw the dismantling of the Libyan weapons program, but he received no guarantees of personal safety or territorial integrity from the major powers.

The Ukraine case, on the other hand, constituted a clear abrogation of treaty obligations on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom, and, of course, Russia. If General Secretary Kim of North Korea has doubts about entering an agreement with the United States that would leave him without nuclear weapons, he should ponder the case of Ukraine. 

A nuclear Ukraine would likely still be in possession of Crimea and not have Russian troops and equipment in its East.

My War With Russian Trolls by Paul R. Gregory

Putin bases his legitimacy on high approval ratings. To counter the Russian people’s sense that they have no say in how they are governed, Kremlin propagandists must sell the story that Western democracies have it worse. Downtrodden Americans, they say, face poverty, hunger, racial and ethnic discrimination, unemployment, and they are governed by corrupt, inept, greedy, dysfunctional, and feuding politicians who sell out to the highest bidder on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley. This brings us to how the ballyhooed Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election has given Putin a gift that keeps on giving—a paralyzed federal government, incapable of compromise, in which a significant portion of the governing class questions the legitimacy of a new president.

go to DefiningIdeas

Overlooked in Putin's Reelection: The Kremlin's Challenge Is From The Left

Stalin famously remarked that "the people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Under Putin, voters are nothing compared to those who decide who can be on the ballot. Indeed, Putin’s Central Electoral Commission rejected Putin’s main liberal rival (Navalny) on a technicality. Other potential contenders have been assassinated (Boris Nemtsov) or subjected to death threats (Mikhail Kasyanov). There should be no talk of a Russian “election” when the sitting president chooses his opponents, controls mass media, and has all the instruments of power behind his campaign.

go to Forbes.com

Putin's nuclear posturing part of effort to win back displeased public

Putin’s message to the West: “Do not mess with us. If you do anything that threatens the Russian state (namely me), you will be subject to devastation. Russia’s nuclear arsenal can defeat any missile defense system that the U.S. and NATO can deploy.”

Putin enjoys needling his opponents. He surely has not missed the fact that the U.S. can do little against a weak and dysfunctional North Korea, whose deliverable nuclear arsenal is scarcely measureable compared with Russia’s.

Whereas Kim Jong Un threatens nuclear retaliation if attacked, Putin threatens nuclear annihilation if his enemies meddle with his regime, and he decides what, how and when.

go to The Hill