In international relations, and in politics more widely, perception is often more significant than reality. In many overseas countries, Donald Trump was widely seen as an unsuitable, even dangerous, President – unpredictable and narcissistic, acting on instinct and unnerving friend and foe alike. Yet nearly half of Americans continued to vote for Donald Trump. Foreigners don’t vote and for all the harm Donald Trump was seen to have done to the US image abroad, clearly many Americans had a different view, or at least didn’t like the alternative. The fact is, he shook up the international system, caused rethink of the Iran nuclear agreement, and pressured western allies into spending more on defence. His unblocking of the situation in the Middle East, dangerously frozen for decades, opened the potential for massive and benign change with far-reaching consequences – a succession of Arab states have now recognised the state of Israel. Clearly, these are substantive gains that have to be separated from the rhetoric and built on by the new administration.

We know something of President Biden’s personal attitude to foreign policy issues from his eight years as Vice President from 2009, from his chairmanship before that of the Senate foreign relations committee, and keynote policy statements that he has made over the years. There is a moral thrust to his approach, underpinned by a belief in consensus, in multilateralism and working closely in partnership with allies. He also has a sentimental emphasis on his Irish roots which now add to his enthusiasm for what many Americans imagine the European Union to be. He would err on the side of caution before committing the military to robust action. But he must take care that any efforts to cast himself as the polar opposite of Donald Trump do not compromise his calls for American bipartisanship and unity or indeed, the advances made by his predecessor.

Within 3 weeks of taking office in 2009, Vice President Biden spoke at the Munich Security Conference where he deployed the phrase “the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example”, repeated in his Presidential address 12 years later. He made it clear that Obama and Biden were determined to “reset” America’s relations with a number of hostile or difficult countries.

The consequences of this approach were at best, disappointing. A power vacuum was created which was rapidly filled by others who were less judgemental. And new challenges exist to add to the threats identified in 2009, most of which persist in a worsened state. Iran’s nuclear weapons programme may have been delayed but it remains in being and can rapidly be upgraded. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya are unstable and significantly controlled by forces not aligned with the Western democracies.

Russia continues to be dangerous. She has a declining economy and population but has invested disproportionately in upgrading her military capabilities and does not shrink from using them. She seeks control of European gas supply and has intervened to weaken potential rival sources of supply. Germany in particular is dangerously reliant on Russian energy. Russia’s submarine presence in the North Atlantic has returned to Cold War levels, she has a formidable Arctic capability unmatched by any other country and is extending her reach with bases not just in Syria but also in Sudan. In both Eastern Ukraine and in Libya she has used proxy forces against those aligned with the West. She maintains an intense cyber assault on Western economic, security and political institutions and actively sows disinformation among our citizens through social media – all to create instability and weaken attachment to Western governments.

China has extended her reach and relative power massively over the past ten years. Ironically, as the source of the Covid-19 pandemic, China almost alone has experienced continued GDP growth while western economies have taken a massive hit. China’s defence spending has almost doubled in a decade. It now has the world’s largest navy, passed a carrier strike group for the first time through the Taiwan Strait, has developed effective anti-ship missiles and is putting massive resources into AI and into offensive capabilities in space. There is now a Chinese military base in Djibouti in addition to port facilities in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. Previously the West, led by the United States, has framed the economic and legal institutions accepted internationally. China is now challenging this system through parallel institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It has become a massive, often primary, trading and investment partner in much of Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as making inroads into Europe. These developments create real dilemmas for many friends and allies who may understand the dangers but cannot resist a desire for involvement – a classic poisoned apple.

There has been no halt to the development of weapons of mass destruction and the Covid pandemic can only have excited the dark imaginations of those bent on apocalypse for the West. In spite of setbacks, hydra-headed Islamist fundamentalists such as ISIS and AQ remain a potent threat with tacit support from rogue states. They occupy ungoverned spaces, are not short of volunteers from the angry and hopeless, and can draw on the sympathy of radicalised citizens, often dormant, in our own countries.

While we do not see queues of migrants trying to get into China or Russia, their power is respected. The western model of freedom, liberal democracy and free-market capitalism has lost its automatic appeal in many parts of the world. Outsiders see our countries divided and racked with self-doubt. Our economies have stalled. We no longer monopolise innovation. It is not just Covid that has led to restrictions on freedom and loss of self-confidence but self-inflicted ‘wokeism’, brewing over decades. And the nature of many foreign interventions undermined the West’s moral high-standing as well as its record of inevitable success. The vectors of subversion have been extremist groups and conspiracy theorists in our own societies, feeding fake news from internal and external sources, their influence hugely amplified by social media.

It is not just the potential aggressor states that will present difficulties for the new American administration but troublesome allies as well, bruised over trade and tariff issues and with their public opinion no longer well-disposed towards America. Confidence even in NATO was shaken by doubts raised by President Trump over the automaticity of Article 5 – the vital underpinning of deterrence – and the continued commitment of the US to the defence of Europe. This was in spite of subsequent assurances from President Trump, an enhanced forward presence of US forces and increased investment in the European Deterrence Initiative.

Both the American and British foreign policy establishments have long cherished a romanticised view of the European Union based on its founding motives. Many mistakenly compare the development of the EU with the American national story. The welcome enlargement to the east following the fall of communism also fits the dream of a “Europe whole and free”. But the motives of the past are no longer relevant to the world today. The EU has changed. That’s why Britain left. It will no longer be an automatic partner to US-led endeavours and has already revealed its vindictive and protectionist features through its handling of Brexit and the Covid vaccination issue.

President Biden will have to shake off the habit of equating “Europe” with the EU – great European nations such as Britain, Norway, Switzerland and for that matter Turkey, are not EU members and Poland is treated by the EU as a pariah because its government does not wholly toe the EU line on ‘ever closer union’. He should remember Madeleine Albright’s insistence that EU defence ambitions “must avoid preempting Alliance decision by de-linking from NATO; avoid duplicating existing efforts; and avoid discriminating against non-EU members”, as 20 years later this is exactly where it is heading.

For a long time Britain was a restraining hand on French ambitions to absorb continental European countries into an integrated, protectionist state as a “strategically autonomous” global actor. Britain’s departure from the EU has enabled these ambitions to be fuelled.

In the Far East, the Trump overtures to Kim Jong Un had little impact on North Korea’s nuclear and missile programme but unnerved regional allies. This at least had the effect of encouraging stronger defence commitment by those allies and a readiness for more effective alliances in the Indo-Pacific region but it sowed mistrust.

The most negative overall consequence of American foreign policy during the previous Obama/Biden years was the erosion of American leadership which created a vacuum soon filled by others. Russia re-emerged as a force in the Middle East. China’s economic statecraft has given her a strong foothold, not just across east Asia but in Africa, in south Asia and even in parts of Europe and she now has military capabilities able to challenge automatic American dominance.

What is to be done?

President Biden will have to reassure key allies such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, and continue to broker reconciliation between them. He should acknowledge the advances made by the previous administration in advancing Israel’s security and regional cooperation. His moves to reassure the Palestinians must be conditional on their cooperation in ending and suppressing terrorism and on return to the conference table in a positive spirit. There is great scope then for initiatives such as a ‘Middle East NATO’ and regional “Marshall plan” to include Lebanon and the Palestine Authority areas, to which Arab countries and others would also contribute.

In the Indo-Pacific region there are already moves to expand regional alliances such as the Quad which should be given more substance. Britain, with regional bases, a newly deployable carrier group and long-standing connections in the region can be a key ally in this and also in enhancing the relationship with India, an emerging superpower. We need to do far more to support India’s economic development and demonstrate that a Western alliance is both reliable and consistent so that she does not continue to feel the need to rely on Russian support.

Russia despises weakness and seeks great power recognition. Her strategic aim of separating Europe from America has not changed but it is not in our interests to stoke endless hostility. Any efforts at an accommodation with Russia will have to be carried out from a position of strength and Western unity. The worst development would be separate EU overtures which would only play into Russia’s hands.

Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is becoming an economic as well as a military superpower. Its huge, increasingly prosperous and aspiring, population represents the world’s largest potential market. And it is the world’s largest single contributor to carbon emissions. These three facts mean that policy towards China should be marked by engagement from a position of strength, rather than hostility or indeed, neediness. The West will have to push back against Chinese influence in Africa, which contrary to EU views, is clearly not some uniquely European preserve. It is in the interests of the democracies to assist the security and development of the major African countries and to help them overcome the many obstacles on their path to economic prosperity and stability.

President Biden looks out of the windows of the Oval Office facing enormous challenges beginning with the pandemic and the need for rapid economic recovery. He knows that America’s relative position in the world has weakened but that the intrinsic strengths of individual and national freedom, of free market economies, and the rule of law will continue to give the democracies and their allies overwhelming advantage, provided they work together. Previous remedies haven’t worked particularly well and there is some urgent repair work to be done.

While a “Democracy Summit” may seem a marvellous idea, taking the moral high ground, care needs to be taken. There will be an immediate problem in deciding who among America’s friends and allies qualify for attendance and how to avoid undue influence of NGOs with their own political agendas.

The Biden administration should inject fresh pragmatism into its international relations. In mending fences with the EU it should continue to insist on NATO’s role as the primary Western defence alliance and forum of crisis management. It should discourage initiatives which distract from this core commitment. It should actively develop a global network of other regional alliances. It must encourage and support and listen to its reliable allies, and first amongst these is the United Kingdom – not only the preeminent military power in Europe but with global reach. Significantly, this year the UK will chair both the G7+ and the UN climate change conferences.

The new US administration faces great challenges but enormous opportunity as the world seeks recovery from the disruption of the pandemic. The democracies and their allies are fundamentally strong. Our hopeful expectation is that the US will not just engage, but lead – not by unilateral initiatives but in consultation with those it can most trust.

In a Newsweek essay published Thursday, Matthew Brodsky, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, blasted the left, claiming it seeks to banish all dissent, and specifically criticized recent calls for the canceling of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

The essay, titled “When Everything is Racist There’s No Room for Reason,” begins by describing today’s progressives as demanding a “profound remaking of the country.”
TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

By: Matthew R.J. Brodsky, Senior Fellow

Progressives today demand a profound remaking of the country. In their regressive Orwellian worldview, anti-Americanism is the new patriotism. In their version of American democracy, big tech thought police substitute for the real police now being defunded in communities across America. A free corporate media, presenting multiple sides of an issue and allowing for an open exchange of ideas on opinion pages, has given way to mob- and media-approved narratives and calls to silence and banish all dissent to the outer rim.

One result of these patterns is the Left’s distortion of any discussion about the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voter integrity.

“Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party‘s political ambitions,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson observed during his show on Monday, April 12. “In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.”

The crux of Carlson’s argument, backed up by evidence he cited, is that Democrats want open borders, no caps on immigrations and blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, thereby “importing a brand-new electorate” that they count on to vote Democratic. In the process, these policies dilute the vote of American citizens.

Democrats’ own words have made Carlson’s point obvious for some time. The commentator pointed to articles in The New York Times and quoted Democratic politicians, including Julian Castro and then-candidate Kamala Harris, who managed to say the typically quiet part out loud.

There are other clear examples of Democrats demanding policies that benefit them electorally. Last year in the height of the presidential campaign, many Democrats called for D.C. and Puerto Rico to be recognized as states. Apparently, when they dug a little deeper, they discovered that Puerto Rico might be too competitive as a state in elections, unlike D.C. which would be a solid blue state. While the House recently passed legislation for D.C. statehood, Democratic talk of Puerto Rican statehood has all but vanished.

Nevertheless, Carlson’s comments set off the precise firestorm the Fox News host had anticipated, along with another round of hysterical calls to cancel his show. As is the new norm, the force of these calls can only gain purchase if they cast the issue as one of racism, rather than “a voting rights question,” as Carlson explained.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson discusses ‘Populism and the Right’ during the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel March 29, 2019 in Washington, DC.CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

This is the unfortunate place our country is in today. For the Left, the connective tissue that runs through every issue is the noxious claim of “systemic racism.” It takes on many forms, such as critical race theory, intersectionality and the accusation that everything is a relic of the Jim Crow era. There is no debate or defense because the accusation is designed to skip the trial and move straight to sentencing. If it’s a symbol it is torn down. If it’s a person they are deplatformed, silenced, fired and doxed by the Twitterati. If it’s a business or corporation it will be listed in The New York Times.

It’s no surprise that calls for Carlson’s firing came from the usual woke mob. But even the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that should have a solid handle on what racism is, decided to insert itself in the middle of a legitimate debate about immigration. It forcefully came down in favor of cancel culture by sending a letter of condemnation to Fox News demanding Carlson’s termination.

The letter referred to Carlson’s monologue as a “full-on embrace” and “open-ended endorsement of white supremacist ideology.” Despite writing, “we believe in dialogue and giving people a chance to redeem themselves,” the ADL concluded that “this is not legitimate political discourse.” This letter marks the ADL’s unfortunate transformation into just another arm of the ever-expanding progressive Left. After all, the ADL and the progressive wing it parrots aren’t merely trying to cancel Tucker Carlson. Their goal is to quash the debate on immigration entirely.

Despite these efforts, the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voting integrity is plain for all to see. There is nothing anti-Semitic or racist about pointing out how Democrats have focused on welcoming legal or illegal immigrants from countries that they believe will be ideological allies, and not from countries that tend to be more conservative. And despite the progressive attempt to label all points of disagreement as racist, a much stronger example of racism comes from those who refuse to see people as individuals and instead only as members of racial, ethnic and religious voting blocs.

Anti-Semitism is a real and growing threat. But the elected officials who most consistently attempt to brandish their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism through legislation and as a part of their political platform are Democrats, who are being led by their progressive wing. At the same time, dramatic changes being forced on the American people today by Democratic policies touch all parts of everyday life. Paranoia, instability and fear is the well from which racism springs. In this context, we need more dialogue, not less.

The harnessing of individual grievances and woke ideologies for the Left’s perpetual expansion of political power constitutes a poison pill for the American political body. A real debate over immigration and voting rights is necessary. Panning everything as racist and silencing dissenting voices, at a time when too few politicians demonstrate courage, seems about as far away as one can get from what America’s Founders intended.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, and former Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC.

Less than a month before last year’s presidential election, I wrote in href=”https://spectator.org/mob-revolution-riots/” >an American Spectator article about a “Collapsing Building Rule”:

Moments before a building pancakes due to internal structural failure, it looks to the observer as solid as the day it was completed. And when it starts to pancake, there are but seconds before the falling mass accelerates to unstoppable velocity.
In the summer of 1984 I visited Berlin, then still divided. What had been barbed wire in August 1961 had become, 23 years later, mile upon mile of massive wall. Guard towers were everywhere. But there was no sense of danger; my visit was uneventful. Yet a year later, the East German Volkspolizei— “people’s police” — shot and killed Col. Arthur Nicholson, firing across the dividing line. The Wall looked as if it could stand for a thousand years. It divided the immensely prosperous West Berlin from the shuttered, ramshackle East Berlin. But outwardly, East Germany seemed rock stable.
Then came the summer of annus mirabilus 1989, when a fresh exodus from Eastern Europe began, the largest since 1961. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided not to do what all his predecessors would have done: use force to keep the Evil Empire together. One Soviet spokesman, asked by a Western journalist what has going on, said that the Soviets had adopted the “Frank Sinatra ‘My Way’ doctrine.” Even a change to a harder line German leader, in October, proved to no avail. And on Nov. 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was toppled. Then came three days in August 1991, when the Soviet Old Guard made its last stand, with a coup against Gorbachev. But Boris Yeltsin led citizens to Red Square and successfully got Army units to back his move. The plotters were arrested, Gorbachev retired, and for a decade Russia was a democracy. In two blinks of the eye, 75 years of Soviet tyranny were tossed away. But now Vladimir Putin has ended democracy in favor of kleptocratic oligarchy. Vlad the Bad rules like a 19th-century Tsar, complete with a cult of quasi-royal personality.
The frightening reality is that modern societies, for all their massive wealth, immense infrastructures, and global reach, are endemically fragile to myriad sources of great disruption. A pandemic unleashed by China that shut down Western economies for months; our police getting embroiled in racially charged shootings that sparked massive urban riots; the all-out revolution pushed by hard-left radicals have collectively brought America to its knees. Seemingly solid and secure as a newly erected structure as 2020 began, only eight months later America’s foundation cracks. One decisive shock can initiate the building pancake sequence. And one likely is on the way.
The upcoming presidential vote, unless one ticket decisively wins, could cause our rickety election machinery to collapse, with no final verdict for weeks, perhaps months, and with whoever wins discredited in the eyes of half of America’s voters. Two polls taken last week show that voters are keenly aware of post-vote perils: one poll found 56 percent fearing mass violence; the other found 61 percent fearing a civil war. The republic itself then might rapidly descend into multiple sanctuary regions, de facto secession, or even full-bore civil war.

A scant eight months later, it seems that the societal edifice of America is in pancake-style free fall. Recall, per Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, et al., that the weight of such a mass increases arithmetically, but the descending velocity of a gravitationally falling mass increases exponentially — a square factor.

Driving this wave is a tectonic policy consequence of the 2020 election result: a massive influx of illegal aliens crossing America’s southwestern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). In effect, they collectively represent a veritable mega-tsunami of demographic change, which, if unchecked, will irrevocably transform America into a socialist republic. It has created what now even President Joe Biden calls a “crisis” at America’s southwestern border.

Crisis indeed: March alone saw 172,000 migrants apprehended at the border, a number the president of the National Border Patrol Council called “the biggest surge that we’ve ever seen in the history of the Border Patrol.” A recent Pew poll shows that respondents considering illegal immigration inflow to be “a very big problem” jumped from 28 percent in June 2020 to 48 percent in April 2021. Republicans agreeing with this view rose during this 10-month period from 43 to 72 percent; Democrats agreeing nearly doubled, from 15 to 29 percent.

You’ve Never Found Glasses This Way BeforeAd By EyeBuyDirect See More

Yet Biden caved instantly to his radical-left base on the number of annual refugee admissions. Having promised to raise the Trump administration’s 15,000 ceiling to 125,000, Biden then decided to accept the Trump number. When radicals screamed, he retreated to a midway goal of 62,500, a figure his own press secretary termed optimistic. His reason for caving is clear.

A recent Tucker Carlson segment detailed the 35-year history of alien influx and its impact on American voting. The story began after passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act — known as Simpson-Mazzoli after its co-sponsors, Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Kentucky Democrat Rep. Romano Mazzoli. That law, signed by then-President Ronald Reagan, received widespread bipartisan support; it provided illegal migrants with amnesty and a path to legal citizenship and enabled sanctions on employers who hired illegal migrants. Three million migrants, mostly Hispanic, got to stay; the employers were never hit with meaningful sanctions, even as the floodgates opened. A 2016 Yale study concluded that the real illegal immigration population number is 16 to 30 million, versus the 11 million number generally cited.

The electoral impact of this change was felt almost immediately. California had been a Republican mainstay in elections, but in 1988 George H. W. Bush narrowly carried the state. Since 1988, no Republican presidential candidate has carried California. The Golden State had 47 electoral votes that year. After the 1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial reapportionments, its electoral vote total had risen to 55 — just over 10 percent of the Electoral College. Further, the counties that remain bastions of GOP votes are those with the fewest southwest border immigrants; conversely, those with heavy representation vote Democratic.

National Review’s Rich Lowry recently explained at length how the Trump administration finally got control over the southwestern border. In summary, unable to pass legislation, and often stymied by left-wing judges, Trump officials combed the statutes passed and regulations adopted in the 1990s and early 2000s, often with large bipartisan support. They implemented a series of reforms that by early 2020 had reduced migrant flow from 5,000 per day to 1,000.

Fox Nation host Lara Logan, who has conducted extensive field reporting on the cartels and their operations on both sides of the border, said U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding cartel operations inside the U.S., including sex trafficking. Logan said children brought into the U.S. by traffickers are “trained to say ‘I am coming to go to school’ or ‘for a better life.’ ” Then they are shuttled around the country working for the cartels. A shocking video shows a smuggler dropping a two-year old over an 18-foot barrier at the California–Mexico border.

Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller detailed how Biden–Harris administration policies in the “vast majority of cases” are contrary to those adopted by its four immediate predecessors — Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. Lawsuits aimed at halting the Biden policy of Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) releasing detainees with criminal records will cost thousands of American lives if not restrained by the courts or changed by legislation. Miller added that the new administration seeks not to use democratic debate to win support for policies but rather exploits a temporary razor-thin majority to seek fundamental structural change that will lock in Democratic political — and, hence, future policy — dominance.

Charlie Kirk told Judge Jeanine Pirro that Democrats are moving the “Overton window” — the concept that small moves on the political spectrum can result in large shifts in policy outcomes. Here, the administration is subsidizing illegal migrants with benefits of up to $15,000.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis explained how his state is suing the administration over its refusal to continue ICE detention and deportation policies embraced by prior administrations. Until now, ICE detained illegal migrants and turned them over to law enforcement for prosecution. Upon conviction and sentence completion, ICE deported them back to their home countries. DeSantis added that illegal migrants are getting on airlines sans ID or COVID testing, while blue states support “vaccine passports” for lawful residents — even to enter business premises. Aliens released into the country often gravitate towards “sanctuary cities” that will offer protection and policy favoritism.

Carlson carefully explained the significance of this incoming wave: as foreign migrants swell state voter rolls, the votes of those already there are diluted by the influx. Ironically, not only white voters have seen their votes diluted by the Hispanic wave; black voters have also seen their influence decline. When a state is one-party, those on the short end have zero ability to choose leaders who reflect their views and aspirations.

Foreign migrants being brought in to border states mostly by Democrats substitute for the task of persuading voters on the issues. Simply import millions to change border-state demographics, and soon states are flipped from red to purple, then to blue. California now is reliably Democrat for the foreseeable future.

The consequences for the state considered a veritable paradise during the first 40 or so years after the end of World War II — economically prosperous, culturally rich, and blessed with fabulous weather — have been catastrophic. In 1986, California was the richest state in America and one of the most prosperous garden spots on the planet. By 2020, the Golden State’s fortunes had sunk to the point that it had the highest poverty rate in the country.

Democrats have openly championed this strategy of importing change. Vice President Kamala Harris, when sitting in the Senate, attacked President Trump for deporting illegal migrants. Back in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton had no problem ordering a no-knock pre-dawn raid to snatch Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint. This was done despite the boy’s mother having sacrificed her life crossing the Caribbean in a tiny craft in search of freedom. Elian, then 6 years old, was returned to Cuba at Fidel Castro’s behest. (To cover his tracks, Castro directed the boy’s absentee father to publicly call for Elian’s repatriation.)

This all differs from domestic interstate migration, a constant flow that alters the balance of votes in states. Domestic migration shifts votes from one state to another; freedom of travel is protected by the Constitution.

Thus, on the right coast, Vermont was reliably GOP until 1992; then migration of Democrats from New York to Vermont made it a solid Democratic state. New Hampshire, once rock-ribbed Republican, was shifted to the Democratic column by Democrats migrating from Massachusetts. These, as noted above, are cases of legitimate internal interstate migration. As Carlson noted, were strongly Republican Polish immigrants flooding from Mexico into blue states, the administration instantly would have resumed southwestern border wall construction.

Private groups have joined in the attack on critics of the Biden–Harris illegal migrant policies. Among them, hard to credit, is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization founded to fight discrimination against Jews. The ADL jumped in with both feet. In a letter to Fox News, the ADL accused Carlson of being a “white supremacist” — one of the standard tropes today’s leftists use to attack statements by white conservatives.

The ADL has been not-so-strangely silent when leftist Democrats have discriminated against Jews (such as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s use of COVID lockdown orders to close down gatherings of Orthodox Jews, while ignoring similar religious and secular group gatherings), accused Jews of disloyalty (Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s “It’s all about the ‘Benjamins,’ baby”), and cavorted with known Jew-haters (California Rep. Maxine Waters meeting with Louis Farrakhan, who notoriously has called Judaism a “gutter religion” and praised Adolf Hitler).

Another charge in the ADL letter was that Carlson had attacked billionaire financier George Soros. What makes the ADL’s defense disturbing is that Soros, a Hungarian Jew, admitted in a 1998 CBS 60 Minutes interview that at age 14 he had informed on Jews hiding property from the Nazis. Incredibly, Soros defended his actions on the air, without apology.

The mess at the southwest border has attracted wide public notice, much of it strongly unfavorable. It’s not hard to see why Americans are appalled by the spectacle: children dropped over fences onto the desert; others wandering round alone, hungry, and scared; others drowning in the Rio Grande after their “coyote” shepherds shoved them off rafts so that the smugglers need not set foot on American soil and risk arrest; others crowded like sardines into unsanitary facilities. In one case, 4,100 children were crammed into a facility designed to hold 250. Children — and adults — entered without being screened for COVID or other diseases. And then migrants, after promising to appear for an immigration status hearing, disappeared en masse into the vast American interior.

Some governors, such as Kristi Noem of South Dakota, have pledged that their states will not accept illegal migrants sent into their state in this clandestine fashion. Rising Democratic star Rep. Joaquin Castro, formerly mayor of San Antonio, calls for reinstating such pre-Trump “catch-and-release” policies. These would swamp his home state with illegal migrants, who as noted earlier can be counted on to lean heavily Democratic. In such event, Texas could turn purple and, eventually, blue.

On top of all this, some three weeks after being put in charge, Vice President Harris has yet to visit the border and has no plans to do so.

Whether or not the Democrats will succeed with this latest strategy depends critically on the outcome of the 2022 and 2024 elections. If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022 and also the White House in 2024, they will rue the day they opened the border. If Democrats win in 2022 and 2024, the American societal edifice will pancake, implode, and release destructive forces that will erase America as we have known it.

John Wohlstetter is author of Sleepwalking With the Bomb (Discovery Institute Press, second edition 2014).

The UK’s recent integrated review claims that Russia is expected to be “more active around the wider European neighbourhood”, seeking strategic advantage through exploiting and undermining democratic systems and open economies. The UK sees Russia as “the most acute threat” to its security. NATO sees Russia’s aggressive actions as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security. The US has now gone public about Russian interference in its elections. The EU isn’t sure what it should be doing and sees the EU and Russia as “closely interdependent”.

While Western democracies squabble among themselves over institutional ambitions, and vaccine distribution, Russia fuels confusion and discontent. Its aim has always been to shake the foundations of our democratic systems, but now it seeks to entice and cajole countries, particularly those formerly absorbed into the Soviet Union, out of the western camp and into a form of benign neutrality. The Black Sea and Caspian countries are high on Moscow’s list and Georgia is of pivotal importance in this.

While Russia is single-minded in its objectives, the West is torn. Russia is focused on being treated as a great power and restoring the post-Soviet space, while the democracies seek a world of stability and security to maintain the freedom and prosperity of their citizens.

This year, both Russia and Georgia have been on the EU agenda. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell’s trip to Moscow on 6 February was widely seen as a humiliation. While he was engaged in high-level discussions, Russia was expelling diplomats from EU countries and parading opposition leader Alexi Navalny in a glass cage in a Moscow courtroom.

“While Western democracies squabble among themselves over institutional ambitions, and vaccine distribution, Russia fuels confusion and discontent”

Since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014, the EU, along with other Western countries, imposed sanctions on Russia, now further extended to high-ranking Russian officials for their role in poisoning and detaining Navalny. But the EU, anxious to promote itself as an autonomous strategic actor, also pursues its own twin-track approach, seeking to be tough on the one hand while applying ‘selective engagement’ on the other.

On 1 March, EU Council President Charles Michel was in Georgia to emphasise the EU’s “fundamental interest” in the region and its commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia while avoiding direct reference to Russia’s aggressive role. The EU-Georgia Association Council met on 16 March, with Prime Minister Garibashvili leading the Georgian delegation, against the backdrop of the political crisis in Georgia. It lamely reiterated the obligation for Russia “to fulfil its international obligations” while noting Georgia’s strategic role in energy, transport, and connectivity and as a logistics hub in the region.

With its commodity-dependent economy, nominally smaller than Italy’s, Russia is highly sensitive to outside commercial intervention in its region. Using all the tools in its hybrid warfare box – political subversion, disinformation and beyond – it will go to great lengths to try and prevent foreign influence over countries which it sees within its economic and security sphere.

But South Caucasus connectivity is vitally important in guaranteeing links to Europe and enabling economic and political choices for the region. This needs to be properly followed through. But strange things are happening. The Georgian government’s expropriation of the Georgian internet provider, Caucasus Online, seems curiously out of step with ambitions for western engagement and economic freedom. Its action will effectively prevent the introduction of a new fibre optic pipeline for the region, which would have reduced reliance on Russian infrastructure.

Just last month, the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Director General for Human Rights and Rule of Law condemned the move, arguing that Georgia’s actions against the provider were an attack on property rights, freedom of the press, and the right to a fair trial, calling on the government to carry out a full re-examination of the move. The Georgian government has seemingly disregarded the opinion, refusing to engage with its recommendations, and just this week the ‘special manager’ was reappointed to the company by a Tbilisi court.

“The South Caucasus countries are in a bind. They need investment and outside support which the West has given. But the Russian bear is a close and powerful reality”

The South Caucasus countries are in a bind. They need investment and outside support which the West has given. But the Russian bear is a close and powerful reality. Many leading figures, including in Georgia, have deep connections with Moscow. But, based on fear, this is not an appealing model, particularly for a younger generation, attracted by the West and its freedoms and prosperity.

We need to be sensitive to the concerns and interests of friends such as Georgia and Azerbaijan and indeed Turkey. At the same time, they have to be open and straightforward with us. Above all, we need to get serious about Russia. We can do business with Russia, but not while she is engaged in constant sub-critical attacks and underhand manoeuvring, seeking to keep on leash countries that want to make their own way.

The Western democracies – the US, UK, EU Member States and their allies and friends – need to get their act together and become more coherent, consistent, active, and reliable in their approach.