Edward Lozansky on Anticipating January 20

McConnell or whoever wrote this article for him calls them isolationists who “unwittingly peddle the fiction that military superiority is cost-prohibitive or even provocative.” In the Senator’s inflated brain, “the United States’ security and prosperity are rooted in military primacy. Preserving that decisive superiority is costly, but neglecting it comes with far steeper costs.”

Other Foreign Affairs authors go deeper to support the same “guns vs. butter” cause, saying that although the Ukrainian conflict “is first and foremost an imperial pursuit to end Ukraine’s independence, Putin’s ultimate objectives are to revise the post–Cold War order in Europe, weaken the United States, and usher in a new international system that affords Russia the status and influence Putin believes it deserves.”

I am sure that the majority of CFR members are smart enough to know that almost every word in these articles is a lie, but they need to justify the increase in military spending required by their sponsors. In reality, it is all the way around. Starting with Gorbachev and continuing with all Russian leaders after him, including Putin, the country was in favor of integration with the West, only to be turned down by those whose goal was to keep Russia weak and not even think of challenging the unipolar world order led by the “supreme leaders” sitting in Washington.

In their eyes, Putin is the ultimate villain who violated the unipolar rules by claiming Russia’s equal place at the world roundtable. This is absolutely unacceptable and must be prevented at all costs, ideally with some proxies to avoid the risk of direct conflict with the nuclear superpower.  A most convenient proxy candidate was found in Ukraine who agreed to sacrifice his country and its people for money and, what is even more important for comedian actors, the unthinkable glory on the world stage.

The majority of these leaders from the 50+ countries who cynically applaud him for these sacrifices and keep throwing their taxpayers’ money and weapons to reject diplomatic efforts to end this conflict have embarrassing ratings at home and will find their disgraceful places in the historical annals.

All eyes are now on Trump, and many are anxiously waiting for January 20 next year, when he might attempt to end this horror. However, his opponents are not waiting and are demanding that Trump not make any concessions to Moscow, such as sanctions relief, saying that this will strengthen Putin’s hand for the subsequent aggression.

“The United States and Europe must invest in resisting Russia now or pay a far greater cost later,” scream Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Michael Kofman in Foreign Affairs, “Russia hosted the annual summit of BRICS with dozens of world leaders in attendance, demonstrating a growing interest in the group’s role as a platform for challenging Western power and influence.”

One of the indicators of Trump’s possible success in pursuing peace in Ukraine is whether he manages to overcome the resistance of Republicans, who want to prevent his pick for future cabinet from passing successfully through the Senate torture chambers.  I am speaking about former Congresswoman, US Army veteran, and Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, whom Trump nominated for Director of National Intelligence, overseeing all 18 US intelligence agencies and playing an important role in formulating foreign policy.  Immediately, nearly 100 former national security officials signed a letter criticizing this choice and called for closed-door Senate hearings to review any government information about her.

“Several of Ms. Gabbard’s past actions call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus,” the letter said.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Gabbard on the Trump transition team slammed the letter, as well as the signers’ credentials saying that

“These unfounded attacks are from the same geniuses who have blood on their hands from decades of faulty ‘intelligence,’ including the non-existent weapons of mass destruction,” said spokesperson Alexa Henning, referring to a purported justification for the start of the Iraq War that turned out to be wrong.

“These intel officials continue to use classification as a partisan weapon to smear and imply things about their political enemy without putting the facts out,” Henning continued. Gabbard, has long criticized U.S. foreign policy as imperial and heavy-handed.

As director of national intelligence, a position created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gabbard would oversee 18 intelligence agencies with a budget of $106  billion and serve as the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters.

Outraged lawmakers accused Gabbard two years ago of echoing Russian propaganda after she posted a video on social media asserting “the undeniable fact” of purported bio labs funded by the U.S. across Ukraine.

Gabbard also said the war could have been prevented had the U.S. and the West recognized Moscow’s concerns about Ukraine’s possibly joining the NATO alliance.

In a Democratic presidential primary debate in 2020, Gabbard called for “an end to this ongoing US foreign policy doctrine of regime change wars, overthrowing dictators in other countries, needlessly sending my brothers and sisters in uniform into harm’s way to fight in wars that actually undermine our national security and have cost us thousands of American lives.”

Considering the slim Republican majority, if some of them vote ‘no,’ there are doubts about whether her nomination will secure Senate confirmation and it is far from clear that Gabbard’s nomination is doomed. Some senators closely aligned with Trump have endorsed her and said they expect her confirmation. No Republican has opposed her publicly, although some have said they want more information, and any that do risk a primary challenge if they are up for re-election in 2026.

In recent days, other Democrats have accused Gabbard without evidence of being a “Russian asset.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has claimed, without offering details that Gabbard is in Russian President Vladimir “Putin’s pocket.” However, senators closely aligned with Trump have endorsed her and said they expect her confirmation.

In any event, what happens to Gabbard will give us an idea of whether to expect bad or good news next year, but we can only hope for the best and wish all readers and their families a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

Edward Lozansky is President of American University in Moscow.