No, America Should Not Ditch Strategic Ambiguity For Reckless Hawkishness On Taiwan

No, America Should Not Ditch Strategic Ambiguity For Reckless Hawkishness On Taiwan

For several decades, the United States has had to navigate the tense conflict between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. This residual dispute from the Cold War could turn hot should America abandon a tried-and-true strategy in favor of reckless hawkishness.

For over 50 years, the United States has maintained a one-China policy, which asserts there is one China of which Taiwan is part. Successive administrations from both parties maintained a “strategic ambiguity” when asked whether the United States would fight to defend Taiwan. This approach has kept the peace in the Taiwan Strait because China could never be sure if it would have to contend with America’s military might. But casual discussions on Sunday talk shows about our ability to repel the People’s Liberation Army aside, a war in the Taiwan Strait would be catastrophic.

Despite Carl von Clausewitz’s warning that “war is the realm of uncertainty,” we can be sure such a war would, at a minimum, disrupt the global economy, cost billions of dollars, and take an untold amount of lives.

Some of the world’s largest economies would clash on a global battleground. China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and all those doing business with those countries operate within the potential battle zone. More than 80 percent of the world’s largest container ships connect the global economy through the Taiwan Strait. For perspective, imagine the disruption of the Covid lockdowns and multiply it by 10.

Specific sectors of the global economy would be devastated. Taiwan is a major player in the global technology business. Taiwan’s semiconductor sector industry accounts for U.S. $115 billion, and Taiwanese companies account for 60 percent of the world’s semiconductor market. A disruption to Taiwan’s economy would hamper the production of these vital products and services.

And if you think the over $113 billion in aid the United States provided to Ukraine in the last year is high, the price tag for a war over Taiwan would easily surpass that amount. Taiwan is an island nation with limited resources and would need everything from the materials to wage war to food. This cost will primarily fall on American taxpayers, regardless of whether their opinions are considered about the wisdom of intervention. Unlike the artillery-dominated war in Ukraine, a war in the Taiwan Strait would be conducted by waves of aircraft, fleets of ships at sea, and high-tech missiles.

With that kind of warfare comes a hideous cost of life. Taiwan is home to nearly 24 million people. Every bomb, bullet, or missile that hits Taiwan will do damage and cause casualties. To put it in perspective with current events, Taiwan is less than one-tenth the size of Ukraine with half as many people. There is nowhere to run on the island. The casualties both in and out of uniform would be horrendous.

Fortunately, the one-China policy has avoided this kind of war. But hawks in Congress and the administration are pushing for a more aggressive stance against China, at times even expressing support for a break from the one-China policy and at least tacitly pushing for Taiwanese independence. While one can understand the desire to support the self-determination of the Taiwanese people, the bellicose tone taken by some risks talking the United States into a war with a China that has a growing military and alliances with other American adversaries.

Some would suggest that unambiguously aggressive support for Taiwan against the PRC is the best way to support self-determination and avoid war. But we must remember that taking a jingoistic adversarial position could elicit a stronger reaction than anticipated. Pushing for Taiwan’s independence is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that is more likely to cause the very war we are trying to prevent. In any naval war with China, we stand the chance of losing more Americans in a day than we did in the 20 years of our wars in the Middle East. The loss of one aircraft carrier alone could mean 5,000 casualties. China isn’t Iraq, and it isn’t Russia.

While we seek those solutions, let’s not continue to toss matches at a pool of gasoline. Certainly, we can take the steps that are prudent to ensure our military can handle any scenario, but these must be done without fanfare.

The way to preserve peace is to reaffirm the one-China policy. Aggressive U.S. policies designed for domestic audiences without regard for international ones could inadvertently signal to China that it has no choice but to prepare for war and strike when conditions are most advantageous.

Keeping China guessing about America’s response has kept the peace. America and the world cannot afford to abandon the one-China policy.

Rand Paul, MD, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.


Neocons Accidentally Endorse Ron DeSantis’s Foreign Policy Prudence

Neocons Accidentally Endorse Ron DeSantis’s Foreign Policy Prudence

Neoconservatives have launched another ill-considered assault, this time against Ron DeSantis. The popular Florida governor (and presumptive GOP presidential contender) issued a statement on the war in Ukraine asserting that Ukraine is not central to American interests, and we should not endlessly fund the Ukrainians.

This sensible view echoes an older, more restrained Republican foreign policy, which is why the neocons then went after him with (rhetorical) guns blazing. Voters should consider this a point in his favor. Indeed, it is difficult for me to think of a better endorsement for DeSantis’ nascent foreign policy than being denounced by the people I most regret having heeded in my younger years.

A partial roll call includes John Bolton, who tweeted he was “disappointed” and that DeSantis was “badly wrong.” Bill Kristol, who ran the Weekly Standard into the ground, imperiously demanded that the editors of still-publishing conservative media outlets “not only come out strongly against DeSantis on Ukraine, but also discuss whether being on the wrong side of the defining foreign policy issue of our time isn’t disqualifying for the presidency.”

David French, who has sold out his conservative Christian principles all the way to a New York Times gig, declared DeSantis is projecting “moral confusion and profound timidity” and that a DeSantis victory would mean that “the Reagan Republican Party is truly lost, its moral clarity is gone.” National Review’s Jay Nordlinger proclaimed, “Ukraine is the frontline of a broader contest between freedom and tyranny. If Putin were allowed to eat Ukraine, he would not be sated. He would go on to his next meal. Aggression, if it goes unchecked, will aggress on. Once more, a dictator is redrawing the borders of Europe by force. We have seen this before.”

Well, we’ve certainly heard this song before, back when they played on our patriotism, anger, virtue, and ignorance to goad us into trying to make the Middle East safe for democracy. The tune has lost its luster since then.

Twenty years after invading Iraq, these voices are showing they have learned nothing from their mistakes. They are still sounding the same notes. But Republican voters are no longer so charmed by their song of moralistic interventionism—although the neocons have found an audience with Democrats, who are increasingly enthusiastic about American intervention overseas (much of the Left didn’t hate war, they just hated Bush).

Despite the many foreign policy debacles of the past two decades, neocons have barely even updated their rhetoric, let alone their thinking. They presume to have moral clarity, but good intentions aren’t nearly enough in foreign policy.

After all, we had plenty of moral clarity regarding Iraq, which was ruled by a tyrant with whom we were still in a low-level conflict. But the people who insisted they had a plan for after he was gone were actually clueless. Kicking out the dictator wasn’t enough for good to triumph.

After Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and so on, the neocons’ clarity seems less than moral and their intentions less than good. Genuine moral clarity must be thoroughly realistic, not arrogantly self-righteous.

With regard to Ukraine, yes, Russia is the aggressor and has committed horrific war crimes. In a just world, Putin would hang from a gibbet. But we do not live in a just world, and the use of force to try to deliver justice requires prudence to avoid making matters worse. The price of delivering justice in this life to Saddam was too high, and the cost of bringing Putin to justice would be much worse.

Furthermore, many of the neoconservative claims are ridiculous. For example, Putin is not going to roll through Europe if he isn’t stopped in Eastern Ukraine. This war has shown the Russian army would be no match for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in a conventional conflict. That is why many European nations see this as an opportunity to further freeride on the U.S. military, rather than a warning to improve their own forces. The European Union’s enthusiasm for more military spending has faded quickly.

The U.S. interests in this war are limited, and they are primarily about hurting Russia (and perhaps prodding our ersatz allies to pull their own weight in NATO). The grandiose stakes dead-end neoconservatives posit are imaginary.

We cannot bring Putin to justice without risking global thermonuclear war, and we don’t need to stop the Russians in the Donbas to keep from fighting them in the suburbs of Paris, or even of Warsaw. There is no risk of a larger catastrophe unless we foolishly provoke it through mindless, moralistic escalation.

There is plenty of space for reasonable debate over how much to aid the Ukrainians, how much it is in our interest to bleed Russia of men and resources, and what costs and risks we are willing to run to achieve those ends. DeSantis did not foreclose that debate, nor declare that we should cut Ukraine off entirely.

But there will inevitably be a limit to how much we will do to help Ukraine, and Putin may be willing to outbid us in blood and treasure, given the enormous asymmetry of interest in this conflict. Russia will always care more about Ukraine than the United States will. Furthermore, China, our primary geopolitical rival, is aiding Russia, hoping it can drain us of resources and keep American focus on Europe.

It is therefore in our interest to work for a negotiated settlement, rather than prolonging the war. Indeed, after the failure of Russia’s initial campaign, it was inevitable that this war would end around a conference table.

Democracy is not at stake. The future of Europe is not at stake. The international order is not at stake. The question at issue is how much land Russia will get to keep. That is what people are dying for as each side tries to improve its negotiating position. As much as we may sympathize with Ukraine, there is not a vital American interest or principle here.

DeSantis, to his credit, appears to understand this. His most vociferous critics do not, as they are high on their own self-righteousness. Fortunately, even if they have learned nothing from their failures, the rest of us have.

Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


Why Is The New York Times Urging America To Buddy Up With Communist China

The New York Times editorial board published a piece last weekend that shows a worrying bias for America’s greatest foe: the Chinese Communist Party.

The piece, titled “Who Benefits From Confrontation With China,” is a masterclass in misdirection and falsehood. If it were not published in America’s “paper of record,” it would be just as at home in China Daily.

Arguing that Americans must avoid a “glib” and “misguided” cold war narrative, the editorial seeks a policy of “emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation.” The line mimics CCP agitprop and ignores geopolitical realities. The editorial board frames the rising tensions between China and the United States as primarily the fault of American politicians — particularly in the Republican Party — who are hyperbolizing the danger from the CCP.

In reality, the U.S. has been far too soft on China throughout the 21st century, with each presidential administration doing its part. Former President George W. Bush brought China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Former President Barack Obama studiously avoided conflict with the CCP. Former President Donald Trump put trade pressure on Beijing while simultaneously praising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s life tenure, and President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and his family have financial ties to the Chinese regime.

Despite two decades of favorable or neutral treatment, China has consistently provoked and aggrieved its neighbors and the U.S.-led world order. China has militarized the South China Sea — an international waterway. It has used civilian fishing fleets as cover for military actions. It has waged brutal battles against Indian soldiers for control of disputed territory high in the Himalayas. It has, at best, covered up the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and, at worst, deliberately released it from a virology lab. And, most recently, it floated a spy balloon across the entirety of the continental United States, including our sensitive military sites. This is not mere friendly competition.

The editorial uses various tropes commonplace among CCP apologists, all meant to downplay or excuse the malign actions of the Chinese government and shift the narrative in Beijing’s favor.

First, the editorial board claims the U.S. must reduce tensions with China because the relationship economically benefits both countries. But the United States does not benefit like China does. China abuses its economic power to stifle competition, promotes the “digital fentanyl” of TikTok to America’s youth, and steals important intellectual property — most often in the military realm. The New York Times-owned magazine published an incredible exposé on Chinese government industrial espionage only a few days before this major editorial.

Second, the editors mention that the U.S. needs China to combat climate change, or else the whole planet is doomed. Setting climate change science aside, they presume Beijing will act in good faith. China has massively accelerated its construction and use of coal-fired power plants — a fuel source that activists including Swedish truant Greta Thunberg protest against in nations like Germany. The editorial board has previously excoriated Republicans for not doing enough on climate while ignoring China’s actions.

Third, the editors argue that China “continues to show strikingly little interest in persuading other nations to adopt its social and political values.” They claim, then, that China is not a threat on par with the Soviet Union.

But Xi has consistently sought to export the “China model” abroad, specifically stating as much in official communiqués. American experts, including Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations, have proven that China exports its ideology. Budding authoritarians the world over salivate at the totalitarian information control that the CCP exerts at home, while still advancing the basic standard of living to forestall popular revolt.

Fourth, the editorial board claims that anti-American sentiment does not unite Chinese political leaders. This is a page torn right from the old pro-Iran playbook, in the purported split between “moderates” and “hardliners.” As with Iran, the dichotomy does not apply to China. Xi’s increasingly personal rule has cemented that fact. Just before the editorial’s publication, Xi was given a third term as Chinese dictator — effectively making him ruler for life. The vote was a foregone conclusion as were the appointments of his allies to all key positions in China’s government. There are no “moderates” in charge of China, and The New York Times would do well to note that.

The editorial board’s fifth and last pro-engagement argument is that the U.S. cannot “pull back from forums where it has long engaged China,” such as the World Trade Organization. The editors oddly picked the international institution that China has most abused. It has ignored or deliberately broken WTO rules from day one by continuing prohibited policies and refusing to comply with the judgments of trade courts. China has also captured the World Health Organization, which failed to investigate Covid-19’s origins.

American politicians are finally seeing the CCP’s threat to the U.S. But The New York Times views the growing bipartisan consensus on opposing China as the provocation. This purposeful reversal of cause — Chinese malfeasance — and effect — the building bipartisan consensus on China — follows CCP propaganda and aims at turning U.S. policy and public opinion toward a non-confrontational posture.

The editorial board’s pro-CCP bias has many causes, but most revolve around profit. For years, the NYT took money from the Chinese government to run more than 200 propaganda advertorials. The NYT scrubbed those puff pieces from its website in 2020. The articles reached millions of Americans. The immoral editorials did not drive the paper’s profits, though the CCP paid several hundred thousand dollars for them. The key profit motive, subscriber revenue, reinforces the pro-CCP bias.

The NYT maintains and grows its subscriber base by appealing to the professional-managerial class. And that class has the most direct and intricate economic links to China. They would lose the most from an escalation or decoupling, so the editorial board defends the status quo and thus its readership’s bias

Unlike the NYT, the American people are rejecting China as a partner and seeing it as the danger that it is. Since 2020, American public opinion on China has drastically shifted in a negative direction, with most people in both parties viewing Beijing as a threat instead of a partner. Congress has begun to reflect these concerns with the establishment of the House China Committee and efforts to counter CCP influence.

The American people and their representatives have woken up to the China challenge. It is far beyond time we reject the naïve idea of engagement with China and The New York Times editorial board with it.

Mike Coté is a writer and podcaster focusing on history, Great Power rivalry, and geopolitics. He blogs at, hosts the Rational Policy podcast, and can be found on Twitter @ratlpolicy.


The Deplorable State of Affairs in Canada’s Federal New Democratic Party (NDP)

The Deplorable State of Affairs in Canada’s Federal New Democratic Party (NDP)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


I once again find myself in a position where I must comment on the federal NDP’s stance regarding foreign affairs. Only this time, its position on some foreign affairs reverberates in a deplorable reactionary manner in the party’s actions within Canada.

Before I deal with the current situation, I would like to briefly alert the readers of Ethnorama to a time when I felt compelled to take the federal NDP to task over its foreign affairs policies in the past.

Shortly after Jagmeet Singh took over as leader of the NDP in the fall of 2017, I wrote an article entitled: “Open Letter to Jagmeet Singh: NDP’s reactionary foreign policy positions must be changed.” In this article I denounced the NDP’s policies that were totally aligned with US policies to undermine Venezuela, the NDP’s support for Ottawa’s adoption of the Magnitsky Act and sanctions on Russia, its support for the White Helmets in Syria, its partisan support for Israel, its support for the 2014 US-inspired reactionary coup d’état in Ukraine, and other matters. I sent the article to all federal NDP members – without a single response. Moreover, the NDP since then has not changed its position on any of these reactionary policies.

Earlier still, in 2015 I published an article entitled, “Lament for a Party that has lost its way.” As the 2015 election approached, consistent public opinion polls indicated that the NDP was headed to form the government. But then because of plainly stupid reactionary policies, the NDP was dealt a devastating blow, reducing it from the 103 seats it won 2011 to 44 and relegated it once more to third party status. I started my article saying:

“I write this with sadness and dismay. . . the NDP must do some serious soul-searching to find its true raison d’être. From my perspective, it is fundamentally wrong for the party to abandon its basic social democratic principles in a misguided attempt to veer to the centre-right and try to become “electable” as a supposedly non-threatening capitalist party, not much different from the Liberals or the Conservatives.”

I then pointed out that columnist Thomas Walkom commented after the election:

“What is the point of a social democratic party that is afraid of democratic socialism? What is the point of running as faux Liberals when the real Liberals are already there? . . . If a left- wing party’s only chance at power is to move rightward, why bother?”

But enough with the past; let’s take a look at the present. In mid-October Winnipeg MPs Leah Gazan and Daniel Blaikie contacted Ethnorama and stated that they had been instructed by the Ottawa NDP to cancel their advertisements in Ethnorama because of the article they had published by John Ryan on the Ukraine-Russia issue.

There is some confusion about why the federal NDP took such a course of action. Initially, it appears that Ethnorama was informed by Leah Gazan that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress had disapproved of my article and reported this to some federal NDP caucus members. As a result, these two Winnipeg NDP MPs were instructed to withdraw their advertisements in Ethnorama because Ethnorama had the audacity to publish my article.

Confusion then sets in because Leah Gazan now apparently says that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress wasn’t involved in this matter. If that’s the case, who was it that was instrumental in getting these two MPs to withdraw their advertisements from Ethnorama? Was it pro-NATO federal NDP members? If so, based in Ottawa, how did they discover my article in Ethnorama?

As the current Ethnorama editorial states:

The concern of Ethnorama is not merely the loss of support in ads from these two MPs but rather the fact that the federal NDP would capitulate and succumb to such censorship and infringement on journalistic freedom, and commitment to finding the truth in this military conflict.”

I would like to note that my article had been originally published by Global Research on April 27, then reposted the same day by The Unz Review, and later reposted in two parts in August and September by Ethnorama. In the Unz Review there were 149 comments devoted to my article, with very few who added more to what I had to say.

As with all my publications, this article is fully and properly documented. Despite this, it appears that in my article I revealed information that challenged the views of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It seems highly likely that this was made known to the federal NDP who then instructed the two Winnipeg MPs to withdraw their advertisements from Ethnorama. The federal NDP did not cite any specific objections to my article, except for where I had it published. For some bizarre reason they wanted to punish Ethnorama for simply re-publishing my article.

In present day Ukraine, all political parties, aside from the party now in power, have been banished and nowhere is there a publication that challenges the party in power. And nowhere is this reported in our media. I pointed this out in my article, and this is probably one of the reasons why this is verboten in the “freedom loving West.”

As for the federal NDP, to its further discredit, it appears highly likely that on the basis of pressure from a politically biased organization, they would “capitulate and succumb to such censorship and infringement on journalistic freedom,” as so eloquently stated in the Ethnorama editorial.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg.

Featured image is from


Don’t Believe Beijing’s ‘Peace Plan’ As It Builds Up Its Military

Don’t Believe Beijing’s ‘Peace Plan’ As It Builds Up Its Military

At the opening of its annual People’s Congress last Sunday, the Chinese government announced a 7.2 percent increase in its military budget, bringing China’s total military spending this year to $224 billion. China’s actual military expenditures will undoubtedly be much higher. Still, the timing of Beijing’s announcement is interesting because only a week ago, at the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing cast itself as a peacemaker by issuing a 12-point “peace plan.”

But China’s accelerated military buildup is the latest evidence that anyone who counts on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to bring peace to Ukraine is delusional. Beijing’s actions always speak louder than its words. 

We shouldn’t take Beijing’s “peace plan” too seriously for three reasons. First, it lacks details and actionable items. For example, it calls for resolving the humanitarian crisis and protecting the supply chains but offers neither concrete steps nor a timetable. China does not commit to taking any specific actions to foster peace in its plan. 

Second, Beijing repeated the same talking points. It called for “abandoning the Cold War mentality,” which sounds nice on paper, but it has been Beijing’s go-to criticism of Washington on almost everything the U.S. does, from the investigation of the origin of Covid-19 to establishing a security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom.

Additionally, it seems China has already embraced a Cold War mentality. Last February, China’s leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement, claiming their “relationship has no limit” and opposing the U.S.-led world order and value system. At the CCP’s 20th Congress, Xi warned his comrades that “external attempts to suppress and contain China may escalate at any time.” Last Sunday, when China’s Premier Li Keqiang announced the military budget increase, he called on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to “carry out military operations, boost combat preparedness and enhance military capabilities to accomplish the tasks entrusted to them by the Party and the people.” It sounds like a nation that is ready for war.

Third, Beijing has a credibility issue since it often doesn’t live up to its own rhetoric. For instance, its peace plan calls for respecting the sovereignty of all countries because “all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community.” It sounds good, except Beijing often does the opposite. Ask China’s neighbors in Southeast Asia. 

Actions in the South China Sea

Multiple countries, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and China, have overlapping historical claims over the South China Sea. These international waters are one of the busiest trading routes in the world and are rich in natural resources. In 2010, at a conference hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China’s foreign minister declared that “China is a big country, and you are all small countries,” meaning Beijing gets to decide what’s happening in the South China Sea because of China’s size and power. Other smaller countries should get in line and bend to China’s wishes.

Since then, China has claimed more than 90 percent of the South China Sea as its territory, a claim no other country accepts. Yet, Beijing has used this claim to justify building artificial islands, interrupting other countries’ normal commercial activities in their own waters. The Chinese coast guard’s aggressive patrols in the region were responsible for several serious accidents that endangered the lives and properties of citizens of other nations. Given this history, Beijing’s call for respecting other nations’ sovereignty sounds duplicitous. 

Ukraine War

Besides these contradictory talking points, Beijing’s behaviors have discredited it from being a neutral peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

Since Russia invaded Ukraine last February, China has refused to criticize Putin. Domestically, China’s state and social media embraced and spread misinformation from Moscow, claiming Russia’s war was justified and a fascist faction ran Ukraine. On the international stage, China has abstained from U.N. votes on Ukraine-related resolutions that called on Russia to cease hostilities, according to The Wall Street Journal. Beijing also voted against removing Russia from the U.N.’s Human Rights Council over its Ukraine invasion. Even in its “peace plan,” Beijing never used “invasion” to describe Putin’s military aggression and instead called it the “Ukraine Crisis.”

After the United States and its Western allies imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia, China quickly offered support to Putin’s aggression through financial means by increasing agricultural and energy imports from Russia. Voice of America reported that “China’s overall imports from Russia spiked 80 percent in May [2022] compared with a year ago, to $10.3 billion… Beijing’s purchases of Russian liquefied natural gas surged 54 percent from a year ago to 397,000 tons, even as overall imports of the fuel fell.”

Even before the U.S. imposed sanctions on Russia’s central bank and several large Russian financial institutions and restricted some Russian state-owned enterprises from raising money in international markets, China offered its currency and the China International Payment System as alternatives. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund, a war chest to support government spending burdened by battlefield costs in Ukraine, is using the Chinese currency to store its oil riches. Russian companies have borrowed in yuan, also known as the renminbi, and households are stashing savings in it.” As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s economic support to Russia has helped Putin blunt the effects of sanctions by the West and sustained Russia’s war in Ukraine. 

Right before China released its “peace plan,” the Biden administration announced it might release intelligence showing that Beijing is considering whether to supply weapons to Russia. Some suspected that by sending Moscow weapons, Beijing probably hoped to “increase the costs of the conflict for the West and give China a measure of leverage in proposing options to end it.” Rather than denying Washington’s accusation, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman blamed the U.S. “as the biggest source of weaponry for the battle in Ukraine” instead. 

Xi has reportedly spoken to Putin multiple times since last February but hasn’t talked with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. After making public its “peace plan,” Beijing announced that Xi plans to visit Russia sometime in April or May but with no visit to Ukraine. Recently, Chinese leader Xi welcomed Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to Beijing. Lukashenko endorsed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and he praised Xi for China’s support to Russia throughout last year. 

It is obvious which side of the Russia-Ukraine war Beijing is on. Thus, China’s actions render its so-called “peace plan” meaningless. So don’t count on China to bring peace to Ukraine. 


‘Not Acceptable’: DeSantis Slams Biden For Handing Ukraine A ‘Blank Check’ 

‘Not Acceptable’: DeSantis Slams Biden For Handing Ukraine A ‘Blank Check’ 

In an interview on Fox and Friends Monday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis blasted President Joe Biden for handing Ukraine a “blank check,” gallivanting around Ukraine while the U.S. border is in shambles and involving the United States in an alarming proxy war with China.  

On Monday, President Biden announced the U.S. would be providing half a billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine (that’s in addition to the $113 billion we’ve already given). According to DeSantis, Biden’s “blank check” policy with Ukraine is not only irresponsible but dangerous. “They have effectively a blank check policy with no clear, strategic objective identified, and these things can escalate, and I don’t think it’s in our interests to be getting into a proxy war with China, getting involved over things like the borderlands or over Crimea,” DeSantis said. 

“So I think it would behoove them to identify what is the strategic objective that they’re trying to achieve,” he continued, “but just saying it’s an open-ended blank check, that is not acceptable.” 

DeSantis also heavily criticized Biden’s “surprise visit” to Ukraine — a trip that’s awarded the president melodramatic praise from the corporate press, Even though it is pretty transparently a publicity stunt to cover for the president’s disastrous handling of the Chinese spy balloon and the East Palestine chemical leak.

“He’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world. He’s not done anything to secure our own border here at home,” said DeSantis. “We’ve had millions and millions of people pour in, tens of thousands of Americans dead because of fentanyl, and then, of course, we just suffered a national humiliation of having China fly a spy balloon clear across the continental United States.”

Indeed, upon taking office, Biden dismantled former President Donald Trump’s border security provisions and reinstated the Obama-era catch-and-release system, causing a massive spike in illegal immigration and, consequently, human and drug trafficking. 

DeSantis also noted that the war in Ukraine may never have started had Biden not shown so much weakness in office, particularly in his embarrassing and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan. “I don’t think any of this would have happened but for the weakness that the president showed during his first year in office, culminating, of course, in the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan,” DeSantis said.

According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, there are growing concerns that China is sending aid to Russia via a form of “lethal assistance,” and it could further impact the United States’ increasingly antagonistic relationship with China. 

DeSantis notes that Russia has proven it is not a serious threat to America. The real threat is China, and putting America in a proxy war with China is a dangerous game to play. “The fear of Russia going into NATO countries and all of that and steamrolling … that is not even come close to happening,” DeSantis said. “I think they’ve shown themselves to be a third-rate military power. I think they’ve suffered tremendous, tremendous losses.”

“I got to think that the people in Russia are probably disapproving of what’s going on,” DeSantis continued. “I don’t think they can speak up about it for obvious reasons, so I think Russia has been really, really wounded here. And I don’t think that they are the same threat to our country, even though they’re hostile. I don’t think they’re on the same level as China.”

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at


Joe Biden Fiddles With World War In Ukraine As U.S. Border, Railways Burn

Joe Biden Fiddles With World War In Ukraine As U.S. Border, Railways Burn

Americans received a pristine view of Democrats’ disastrous America-Last policies this morning as Joe Biden paid a surprise visit to Ukraine while his own country literally burns with manmade disasters he continues to inflame.

Biden’s Federal Emergency Management Agency denied any money to help clean up a burning chemical disaster zone in the Republican state of Ohio, but Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear that Biden will get a blank check to slosh around hundreds of billions from U.S. taxpayers to prolong the carnage of war in Ukraine — and the profits from it from insane deficit spending that also threatens U.S. national security.

Not only is key U.S. infrastructure on fire stateside, but Biden, in violation of his oath of office, also set the U.S. border figuratively on fire immediately upon assuming the presidency by lifting former President Trump’s effective enforcement of U.S. national security laws. Cities and towns across the United States are overwhelmed with mass human trafficking and the outsourcing of U.S. border control to international drug cartels allied with the top U.S. foreign adversary, Red China.

It’s no surprise that American support for expanding the U.S. proxy war with Russia is declining. They can see that their neighbors have to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for health insurance even if they never see a doctor because they’re really paying off the health expenses of illegal migrants, and that their neighbors are dying from the fentanyl trafficked with the human flood of misery across the border.

And where is Biden as his country is in flames? Hiding from his crimes against Americans, our laws, and our Constitution by urging continued atrocities while doing a dog and pony show in Ukraine.

While forcing his own people — and those whose migration keeps the cartels supplied with the billions to buy military-grade weaponry — to suffer murder, rape, and other heinous crimes, Biden is abroad encouraging ongoing violence in Ukraine.

War is hell, especially for the vulnerable — women, children, and the elderly. But Democrats and their military-industrial complex believe death, rape, starvation, and continued demolishing of Ukranian homes and towns are a worthy trade for a shiny new excuse to open U.S. coffers wide to high-dollar campaign donors with no oversight. It’s no coincidence, surely, the dollar spigots are also flooding toward the very same country that supplied millions to politically influence Biden’s family — and, according to his family, to influence Biden himself.

This is Joe Biden’s “mission accomplished” moment. Or, it would be, if the hapless and embarrassing George W. Bush were as patently evil as the Democrats running Biden.

Remember, six weeks after he invaded Iraq, Bush stood in front of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.” U.S. troops remained in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 more years, spending precious soldiers’ lives and trillions in American treasure to weaken our national security by distracting us from higher foreign policy priorities, such as China. Right after Bush gave the “Mission Accomplished” speech, Iraqi insurgents redoubled their efforts.

U.S. Navy Photo by Photographer’s Mate Third Class Juan E. Diaz. Public domain / Wikimedia

Democrats’ media mouthpieces may have controlled U.S. discourse so much that only the brave like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis can point out the foolhardiness of tempting another world war by refusing to seek peace for Ukraine. But the rest of the world is not fooled. They’re aware that Democrats are weak, that they hate America, and that they are willing to sell the labor, security, and peace of their American brethren to the highest bidder.

Biden may be trying to look tough by visiting Ukraine weeks after allowing Chinese spy balloons to traverse the United States and then shooting down $6 hobby balloons with $400,000 missiles. But the only person he’s fooling is himself.

Biden’s weakness is the Democratic Party’s weakness is the U.S. foreign policy cabal’s weakness. And weakness invites aggression. Photo ops are not going to reduce the threat of a world war. Patently weak appearances by Biden in fact escalate the threat of world war.

Seeking to de-escalate is the only prudent choice. We all had better pray someone with power figures that out before China and Russia continue to align against us. History tells what happens when leaders fiddle after setting their cities ablaze.


Hawley Slams Uniparty’s ‘Blank Check’ Foreign Policy And Ukraine ‘Proxy War,’ Urges Focus On No. 1 Threat Red China

Sen. Josh Hawley wants GOP warmongers and leftist globalists to know that funneling American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine instead of addressing the rising threat that is communist China is a huge mistake.

Contrary to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s on-the-record declaration that “Defeating the Russians in Ukraine is the single most important event going on in the world right now,” Hawley is urging U.S. leaders to advance a nationalist foreign policy that “would put America’s interests first” and prioritize addressing the threat China poses to the U.S. and the world.

“Deterring China from seizing Taiwan should be America’s top foreign policy priority,” the Republican from Missouri said during a speech at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday.

The Uniparty

For too long, Hawley said U.S. foreign policy was dictated by an out-of-touch “uniparty” that sees “writing blank checks to other countries” as a solution.

“The truth is, we are over-committed,” Hawley said. “Our elites aren’t deluded by the dream of a liberal empire. The uniparty tells us that we’re on the right side of history and tough trade-offs don’t exist. That’s just not true.”

This uniparty, Hawley said, wants Americans to believe that “we can fight an endless proxy war in Ukraine” and that will keep China at bay.

“We have leaders on both parties, former NATO brass telling us that defending Ukraine is basically the same thing as deterring China,” Hawley said.

The truth, the senator continued, is that the uniparty’s impossible dreams of democratizing China and enriching the U.S. economy by allowing the communist nation into the World Trade Organization in 2001 already exposed the weakness of the foreign policy that dominates the D.C. hivemind.

“The uniparty’s way is not sustainable. It is a path to failure,” Hawley said.

Those same motivations, Hawley said, prolonged American involvement in the Middle East and had disastrous results.

“We invested billions of dollars there and lost hundreds of thousands of American lives all while China rose unimpeded. And the people who are responsible for those misjudgments are still members of the D.C. establishment in good standing and nobody has ever been held accountable. Now we’re hearing the same siren song again. This time, it’s about Ukraine,” Hawley said.

It’s clear, he added, that “our current foreign policy is not working.”

“It has not worked for decades,” he said. “It’s not working for our security. It’s not working for our economy. And above all, it is not working for the American people. It has cost many of them their jobs, their towns, and their communities.”

The Need for a Nationalist Foreign Policy

Hawley said he believes the U.S. does have a role to play on the global scale but that it needs to happen through the lens of a nationalist foreign policy.

“That begins with being strong here at home and protecting our folks,” Hawley said.

It also means addressing the nation’s top enemy. “The core problem is our actions in Ukraine are directly affecting our ability to deter our most pressing adversary, that is, China in the Pacific,” Hawley said.

The senator acknowledged that at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he voted to send money to the afflicted country because “I had no idea that we were going to fight an endless proxy war and do nation-building there because that’s not what we said we’re going to do in the beginning.”

“The truth is we cannot defend Ukraine and stop China in Taiwan, and see to our own military requirements at the same time; we simply cannot do it all. And frankly, we shouldn’t have to,” Hawley said.

Sending billions more to Ukraine to promote a “stable rules-based international order” that appeases the “D.C. establishment that transcends all changing administrations” and is designed to force regime change in Russia, Hawley said, is “nonsense.” Especially because “China is on the march.”

“We are not at this moment prepared to stop them. We didn’t stop them cheating on trade. We didn’t stop them from stealing our industry. We didn’t stop them in Hong Kong. And now, if China invades Taiwan, they would prevail,” Hawley said.

He noted that stopping China from expanding its global influence starts with ending blank checks to Ukraine, reducing the number of U.S. troops in Europe, and arming Taiwan.

“I’m not in favor of blank checks to anybody,” Hawley said. “So I’m not here to tell you that I don’t favor blank checks to Ukraine, but I do favor them to Taiwan. No, quite the contrary. My view is we have got to help the Taiwanese defend themselves. We should be arming and supporting the Taiwanese but on the condition that they spend on their own defense, that they embrace an asymmetric defense strategy, and that they go all in on the defense of their island and prepare to defend it from any potential Chinese invasion.”

Hawley knows his proposal will not be popular among his neo-con colleagues in Congress.

“It’s hard to challenge the uniparty,” Hawley admitted. “They’ve gotten pretty good at telling their favorite story which is why anybody who questions them these days gets labeled as anti-American or Putin’s puppet.”

Hawley may get pushback on Capitol Hill but that won’t stop him from embracing a new foreign policy that he believes better reflects and protects American interests.

“This country is the strongest country on the face of the Earth. We’re the best country in the history of the world. We can prevail. I have every confidence that in this conflict with China, for the future of the world, we will prevail. And above all, for our own way of life, we will prevail. But we must make the choices now to make sure that that possibility becomes reality,” Hawley said.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)