Putin's War: A Sober Lesson For U.S. and Its Allies

Kremlin thug Vladimir Putin strutted on the world stage for weeks, daring any country to intervene with his plan to invade Ukraine. The West, including the U.S., bloviated and did little else.  Sensing weakness, the former KGB agent unleashed his military on Europe's second largest country.

While Putin issued chilling warnings about Western inference, President Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken threatened sanctions, but appeared helpless in the face of the Russian pariah's threats. Their tone was defeatist. It was a striking juxtaposition on the projection of strength. 

Russia's mafioso-president was relying on U.S. vacillation.  After all, Putin had invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, intervened in Syria's civil war, interfered with American elections and waged cyber warfare. In response, the U.S. inflicted sanctions, which proved inept and short-lived.  

It wasn't until Russian troops stormed into Ukraine that the U.S. and Europe levied sanctions targeting Kremlin banks, imports and rich oligarchs.  Even as sanctions were unfurled, Mr. Biden admitted the restrictions would not deter Putin.  The West played defense while Russia was on the offensive.

The ruthless dictator's ambitions are to reclaim territories of the old Soviet Union and to defang the NATO military alliance.  Ukraine had been lobbying NATO for membership. Putin loathed  the idea of NATO forces and weapons camped on his border.

Europe is economically handcuffed by its reliance on Russian natural gas.  The European continent gets nearly 40% of its natural gas from Putin, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).  In addition, Russia ships 48% of its crude oil production to European nations.

Germany depends on Russia for 65% of its natural gas. Poland gets 50% of its supply from Russia.  Italy receives 43% of its natural gas from Russia, while France imports 16% of its needs.  Smaller countries, such as Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia, are nearly totally dependent on Russian gas.  

Those figures explain why Europe balked at diplomatic suggestions to embargo Russian oil and natural gas, the so-called nuclear option. Today, if Russia turns off the spigot, European homes and factories go cold and dark. Natural gas prices would skyrocket, crippling the entire continent's economy.

The United States, despite its title as the world's largest oil producer, also is ensnared in the Russian bear trap.  

Until the invasion, few Americans knew the U.S. is also dependent on Russian crude.  Beginning in 2021, our nation began importing between 12 and 26 million barrels of crude oil from Russia every month.  In November, the latest data available, Russia shipped 17.8 million barrels to this country.  

For context, the U.S. uses about 18.9 million barrels of crude oil every day, according to the EIA.  President Biden pleaded last year for Russia and OPEC to ramp up oil production to ease U.S. gasoline prices.  OPEC ignored Biden's overture, while Russia willingly acceded.

Biden surrendered American oil independence when he became president.  One of his first acts was to cancel permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,200 mile project from the Canadian province of Albert stretching down to Nebraska to join an existing pipeline. 

The pipeline was designed to carry 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude to the U.S. every day. Through executive orders and regulatory maneuvers, the Biden Administration has made its mission to decrease American oil and natural gas production, leading to higher prices at the gasoline pump.

Europe made a deal with the devil in the Kremlin because it had few crude oil and natural gas reserves. Decades ago, Putin schemed to exploit Russia's rich natural resources to make Europe a vassal of Russia. 

Russia received an unexpected assist from environmentalists. Germany, in particular,  embarked on a Green Energy diet, turning to wind and solar power.  Nuclear facilities were unplugged.  Coal burning plants shuttered.  However, the unreliability of alternative energy created power gaps.

To meet energy needs, Europe turned to Russia, which had laid the groundwork to seize the opportunity.  Putin bulked up Gazprom, a Kremlin controlled company, into a natural gas powerhouse. Over two decades, Russia constructed natural gas pipelines into Europe to supply the continent. 

In 2011, Russia turned on the spigot on the first pipeline, called Nord Stream 1.  A second line was added a year later.  The 759-mile pipeline runs through Ukraine and Poland, which creates a potential problem for Putin.  Germany is the largest customer for Russian natural gas on the continent.

With an eye to expanding its European footprint, Gazprom began constructing a 764-mile long natural gas pipeline, dubbed Nord Stream 2, in 2016.  The pipeline traverses under the Baltic Sea from Russia straight to Germany's Baltic coast.  The undersea line will double current natural gas capacity.

Although Gazprom owns the entire pipeline, it only paid half of the $11 billion in costs.  The remaining costs were shared by Shell and European natural gas and energy companies: Austria's OMCV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall DEA.  Europe is heavily invested in the pipeline.

In the wake of the Ukraine invasion, Germany's new chancellor Olaf Scholz called off certification of the pipeline.  The largely symbolic move will have little immediate impact on Russia since Nord Stream 2, completed last year, was already on hold, awaiting European Commission and German approval.

Germany had green lighted the new pipeline after the Biden Administration last year lifted sanctions on the project.  Those sanctions had been ordered by President Trump.  Only after Russian troops entered Ukraine did Mr. Biden reverse course and reimpose the sanctions. 

Those sanctions will not stop Russian natural gas from flowing through Nord Stream 1 pipelines to supply Europe with natural gas.  In fact, Putin has virtually guaranteed he will continue to pump natural gas without interruption because it enriches Russia. Gazprom even raised prices before the invasion.

With unrest in Ukraine, the U.S. and Europe will soon begin feeling the pain of sky-high gasoline prices at the pump. Any disruption of oil production by Russia will ignite a gold rush for a crude oil.  In January, the global benchmark for a barrel of oil passed $90.  

Oil traders are predicting a barrel of crude oil will touch the $100 milestone soon.   That compares to $41.96 in 2020 and $54.25 in 2017.  A rise of $10 a barrel for crude oil correlates to approximately a 25-cent per gallon rise in gasoline prices.  Experts are forecasting $5 to $6 gallon prices in the U.S.  

Putin wins no matter what Germany or the West does.  Rising prices for crude oil make Russian oil and natural gas more valuable on the open market.  And Putin just inked a $117.5 billion deal with China, to keep Russian exports of oil and natural gas flowing despite any delays in Nord Stream 2.

There are two lessons for the U.S. and Europe. First, they can no longer kowtow to the unhinged Putin. His threats have to be met with strength and an immediate response.  Also, the allies should work together to support a regime change in Russia. As long as Putin is in power, the world is not safe  

Secondly, dependence on Russia for a strategic resource, such as energy, gives Putin the bargaining chip he needs to discourage interference with his expansion plans and his effort to weaken NATO's resolve to come to the aid of other countries in future confrontations. 

Energy independence would help insulate Americans from spiraling prices for crude oil, triggered by the Russian invasion. In addition, the U.S. could assist Europe by shipping crude oil and liquified natural gas to ease the continent's dependence on Russia.  

However, the Biden Administration has made it clear it will not unshackle energy production, a decision that leaves the U.S. at the mercy of OPEC and Russia for crude oil to satisfy our nation's energy requirements. 

Russia's incursion into Ukraine is a pivotal point for the world.  These are dangerous times. How the U.S. and its allies react will determine how other rogue nations, including China, Iran and North Korea, view the West's willingness to discourage future military aggression.  

The Frenzied Global Race For White Oil

Not since the early days of the oil boom, has the world witnessed such a feverish pace of energy exploration.  From Argentina to Chile to Bolivia the hunt for lithium, dubbed "white oil", is fueling a surge in mining. Global demand for the silvery-white metal is expected to more than double by 2024.

Lithium is a key component in batteries that power electric vehicles (EV) designed to replace gasoline burning cars.  Lithium is a lightweight, alkali metal that stores energy efficiently and can be repeatedly recharged. A 1,200-pound battery in a Tesla Model S requires about 138-pounds of lithium.

Burgeoning global sales of electric cars, which increased 80% in 2021, are at the heart of the frenzied search for lithium reserves. By 2050, up to one billion electric vehicles are forecast on the roads worldwide, about 72 times more than the  EV's operating in 2020. 

Another contributor to the spiraling lithium demand is batteries for tablets, laptop computers and smart phones. Increasingly, lithium is also being deployed in electric grids to store energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.  Demand sent lithium prices skyrocketing 240% in 2021. 

In the global race to replace fossil fuels with with clean energy, the environmental impact of extracting lithium is surfacing as a major ecological issue. Most lithium is derived from traditional mine drilling or brine extraction, processes which scar the land or pollute water sources.

In Argentina and Chile massive amounts of water are used to loosen underground brine deposits, leading to contentious squabbles over the water supply. About 500,000 gallons of water are used per ton of lithium.  For some desolate areas, that could represent more than half of the available water supply.

Regions with rich lithium deposits are in poor, remote places, far removed from the nearest EV. The largest reserves of lithium--8.6 billion tons--are located in Chile, Australia and Argentina.  Nearly half of the world's known reserves reside in Chile.  These countries are also the top producers of the metal.

The United States has an estimated 630,000 tons of lithium reserves, the majority located in Thacker Pass in Nevada.  Area residents, Native American tribes and ranchers are opposing the building of a mine in the area.  To date, the opponents have stalled exploration and development.

Silver Peak Lithium Mine in Nevada represents the lone lithium operation in America.  It produces about 5,000 tons of lithium carbonate a year with capacity for 6,000 tons. That is less than 2% of the world's supply.  The operator extracts brine from an old lake bed that contains shallow ponds of lithium.

Estimates are the U.S. will need 500,000 metric tons per year of raw or unrefined lithium by 2034 just to power electric vehicles, according to California-based battery supplier OneCharge.  For comparisons sake, the entire global production of lithium in 2020 was 440,000 metric tons. 

China is the dominate player in lithium batteries.  Over the past decade, the government has spent $60 bullion to shore up its lithium industry. Additionally, China has the world's most robust lithium supply chain.

It is the largest importer of lithium-ion battery cells in the world and has the most ambitious electric car manufacturing schedule, planning to reach 52% of sales by 2040. China's lithium imports in 2019 were worth $46.9 billion,  China also exported 48% of the world's supply of lithium-ion cells and packs.

In recent years, China has been snapping up stakes in mining operations in South America and Australia.  China has invested $4.2 billion in lithium deals in South America during the last two years. The regime has also been tightening its grip on the supply of cobalt, a lithium-ion battery component. 

The threat is China will dominate the global supply of lithium just as OPEC once controlled the world's petroleum production, setting production limits and the price.  If China cuts off the U.S., American automobile and electronic industries will be left to scramble for lithium and lithium-ion batteries. 

Currently, the U.S. imports 90% of its lithium metal from two countries: Argentina and Chile.  Europe imports nearly every ounce of battery-grade lithium it uses,.  More than half (55%) originates in Australia.  Other principal suppliers include Chile (23%), China (10%) and Argentina (8%).

China is plotting to monopolize the supply and production of lithium batteries. The country already account for more than 60% of global lithium-ion battery production. In recognition of the threat, the Biden Administration has signaled it intends to provide $2.91 billion to boost U.S. battery production.

But public-private-regulatory partnerships are also needed to support lithium mining and production at home, to boost battery cell and pack manufacturing facilities and for recycling plants for battery disposal. Unless the U.S. acts soon, the nation will fall further behind China in this strategic area. 

Lessons From Pandemic: Public Trust Easily Lost

Since the beginning of the pandemic, disciples of Dr. Anthony Fauci demanded adherence to science.    Anyone who challenged the octogenarian medical advisor was labeled a science denier. That shielded Dr. Fauci and his partners at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from legitimate professional criticism.

With the protection of the legacy media, Dr. Fauci and the CDC pushed for isolating an entire country and in the process shut down the world's biggest economy.  They issued calls for mask and vaccination mandates.  They lectured Americans on how many family members could attend a Christmas gathering.

In the beginning,  Americans generally heeded the health warnings. They were frightened by dire news reporting, often lacking context, about the virus.  The New York Times and other newspapers carried updated COVID death and case counts on the front pages. Fear was a weapon for compliance.

When miracle vaccines were introduced at the end of 2020, there appeared a light at the end of pandemic tunnel. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris evolved from suggesting the vaccines were rushed into production to becoming its biggest cheerleaders. Vaccines would halt the pandemic.

Administration officials, including the president, donned masks on every occasion, even wearing one as they walked  to the podium in a nearly empty room.  They were following the science.  Masks work to protect the wearer from spreading or contracting the contagious virus. No one questioned the science.

Just when there appeared to be a rising optimism for a return to normal, President Biden unleashed executive orders to require vaccinations for Americans in businesses, government, the military and health care workers.  The federal government usurped responsibility for Americans' health decisions,.

This appeared to many legal scholars to be unConstitutional, a breach of freedom.  Court cases were filed by a growing number of states. Americans were divided into two camps: those who believed it was necessary to force Americans to get the jab versus those who wanted to make their own choice.

By mid-year in 2021, more Americans were wearying of the never ending mandates.  They wanted to exercise their right of freedom from authoritarian rules.  States began lifting mask mandates, opening schools, liberating citizens from Washington's vaccination obsession and resuming normal life.

Clearly,  politics not science is carrying the day. Never was it more clear when Democrat states New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and California announced last week they are revising or dropping mask mandates.  Mandates are deeply unpopular with voters.

Ironically, these moves come at a time when the spread of COVID remains rampant.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans are getting infected every day.  More than 3,000 are dying. In January, COVID killed more Americans than the flu has in three years.  There were 55,000 deaths, reports the CDC.

The seven-day fatality average in January was the highest point it has been since last winter before vaccines were widely available. Omicron is expected to push the U.S. total deaths past the one million mark, according to Andrew Noymer, a public health professor at University of California-Irvine.

So has the science of masks and vaccinations changed?  Mask policies are the victim of an admission by the CDC that a cloth mask is virtually useless against the spread of COVID.  And there have been thousands and thousands of so-called breakthrough cases of the fully vaccinated.

This month the CDC released a report showing that the effectiveness of the booster shot for fully vaccinated individuals begins to wane just four months after the jab, adding to public skepticism.  In another surprising move, the FDA postponed its decision on a Pfizer vaccine for children four and under.  

These are signs of a broad concession that vaccines are not the Holy Grail scientists once thought they were.  The are better than no protection against COVID, especially for high risk Americans, but the vaccines do not last as long as the CDC and Dr. Fauci claimed at one time.

As a result, there has been a near total collapse of faith in the government, the CDC and Dr. Fauci in particular, when it comes to the pandemic.  A NewsNationaPoll, conducted by Decision Desk HQ, found that a meager 15.5% trust the president and only 31% trust Dr. Fauci.

Other polls may show higher trust levels, but the research confirms Americans are losing faith in public health officials, particularly those in Washington.  An ABC News survey found that 43% of Americans do not trust the CDC.  Faith in Mr. Biden on the Coronavirus skidded to 37% in January.

The new media fared even worse.  One poll found that only one-in-ten Americans trust the information churned out by the news media on the pandemic.  At the same time, fully two-thirds of Americans trust the advice of their primary care provider on COVID.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll reflects the growing resentment of Americans with continuing restrictions.  In the survey, 75% of Americans expressed frustration and fatigue over the current state of the COVID pandemic. Fully 77% believe it is inevitable most people will be infected.

Some Democrat and Republican governors, eyeing upcoming midterms, are feeling the heat. That explains the about face on mask mandates and the softening of vaccine mandates.  Despite the administration mandates, 63.6% of Americans are fully vaccinated as of January. 

Politics is trumping science.  As the pandemic has stretched through the months, the line between science and politics has been blurred. That partly explains the erosion of public trust.  However, in a pandemic, trust in government and in one's fellow citizens is key to successful communications.

Dr. Fauci and the CDC were cast in the dominant role of the disseminating information on the virus.  It was incumbent on those speaking for the administration to be accurate, transparent, and truthful. When decisions are communicated, Americans expect facts to support the health directive. 

Unfortunately, the keepers of the information fell into a pattern of vacillating between contradictory positions, often igniting the flames of disinformation.  Worst of all, instead of admitting mistakes or just acknowledging the answers were elusive, Washington's health officials were unrepentant. 

Meanwhile, scientists, epidemiologists and health experts who disagreed with the prevailing advice from Dr. Fauci and the CDC were censored.  They were booted off social media.  Their studies were scrubbed from scientific websites  Despite their credentials, they were not allowed to have a dissenting opinion.

The censorship was conducted with the full-throated backing of Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the administration.  The move backfired.  When you end debate on a novel virus and insist on only one version of science, public mistrust deepens.  Americans are smarter than government officials believe.  

Now even Dr. Fauci has joined the billowing chorus of health officials in predicting the "full blown" pandemic could be ending soon.  He admitted that more health decisions will "increasingly be made at the local level rather than centrally" mandated.  

Then the face of the pandemic did the unthinkable by adding: "There will also be more people making their own decision on how they want to deal with the virus." Hate to burst his self-inflated ego but many Americans have been doing this since the winter of 2020 passed.

The inimitable doctor and the CDC should take stock of their communications missteps.  The lesson is trust is easily lost if Americans believe they are not getting the entire story.  Every contradictory directive, unexplained advisory and inflexible restriction chips away at public trust.

Communications also should be tailored to specific audiences.  At the start of the pandemic, more information should have been directed at the most vulnerable: the elderly, immune compromised and those with comorbidities.  Instead, the government aimed its information at the general public.

Defenders of Dr. Fauci and the CDC will retort: the COVID virus was an epidemiological mystery that required more than a year to unravel. Fair enough.  But it behoved officials to admit they didn't have all the answers. Temper advice with a caution that it is subject to change as more facts are known.

In a free society, health officials will fail or succeed in dealing with a pandemic by mobilizing public trust in the government and among its citizens.  A thorough airing of the contrarian views from health experts is healthy. Showing trust in citizens to do the right thing is crucial. 

Those are valuable lessons for health authorities to remember during the next pandemic.

SCOTUS Nominations Stir Political Histrionics

The circus is coming to Washington.  Feats of political daring and contrived theatrics will unfold under the Capitol dome instead of a big tent.  It will be entertaining for the political class inside the Beltway. But for most Americans, the Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is unwatchable absurdity.

Once upon a time, presidential appointments of Supreme Court justices was a civil process.  From 1789 until 1965, every nomination by a sitting U.S. president was ratified by a voice vote.  The last justice to receive this cordial treatment was President Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Abe Fortas 57 years ago.

Since the nomination of Clarence Thomas by George H.W. Bush in 1991, the Senate has turned what once was a dignified process into a farce. Justice Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 were blindsided in the hearings by dubious sexual allegations.  Justice Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump.

Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, was hectored by Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein over her Catholic faith.  Senate Democrats successfully filibustered the Trump nomination of Neil Gorsuch, hoping to sink the Supreme Court candidate.  What happened next, flabbergasted Democrats. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called nuclear option to pave the way for approval of the nominee on a simple majority vote.  McConnell reminded critics it was former Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid who broke tradition and pushed the nuclear button in 2013.

Those nominations cited above were approved by razor-thin margins along party lines. Compare their treatment to recent nominees by Presidents Obama and Clinton. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton nominees, were approved by bipartisan votes of 87-9 and 96-3, respectively.

Obama nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor breezed through confirmation on 63-37 and 68-31 bipartisan majorities.  Can you detect a pattern?  Democrats employ the politics of character assassination to scuttle GOP nominees, while Republicans concede a president's right to appoint a qualified person.

Now the nation is being treated to a new phenomenon.  President Biden pledged during the campaign to name an African-American female to the highest court.  There were no other qualifications mentioned.  He has since justified his injection of race, saying the high court "should look like America." 

That is a sudden about face for Mr. Biden.  Then Senator Joe Biden voted against Clarence Thomas, who was nominated to succeed the lone African-American on the court, Justice Thurgood Marshall.  If Thomas had not been confirmed over Biden's objections, the Supreme Court justices would have been all white.

When President George W. Bush nominated  African-American Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Biden opposed the choice.  After Justice Brown won confirmation, her name was later listed as a possible replacement for retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor. 

Senator Biden signaled he would filibuster the nomination before President Bush even announced his final pick.  This was Senator Biden's opportunity to make Supreme Court "look like America."  How can anyone take him seriously now?  His nominee is political payback and nothing more.

Mr. Biden's commitment to racial preference stems from the primary campaign when his flagging fortunes depended on a win in South Carolina.  Influential South Carolina Democrat Jim Clyburn pledged to deliver a primary victory, in exchange for a black female court appointee.  

That's why Mr. Biden announced he would replace Justice Stephen Breyer with an African-American female.  There was nothing altruistic about his choice.  This was a political calculus by the president to pay the debt he owed to Rep. Clyburn.

Mr. Biden's clumsy announcement, narrowing his field of candidates to black women, has not played well with voters. An ABC News/Ipsos poll this month found 76% of Americans believe the president should consider all possible nominees, rather than limiting the field to a single race.  

If you're wondering whom Mr. Biden will select for the judicial vacancy, put away your Ouija board. Rep. Clyburn has already endorsed South Carolina Federal District Judge J. Michelle Childs. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has seconded the Clyburn choice.  Case closed.

The hearings may seem like a formality with Democrats holding the majority, however, this will be a matinee worthy of Ringling Brothers. The media has already shown its hand, casting Republican opposition as racist.  Any serious questioning of the nominee will be interpreted as white patriarchy.  

There have been 115 justices who have served on the Supreme Court since it was created in 1789--two black men and five women.  An African-American female on the court would indeed be historic. However, imposing racial, gender or ethnic quotas denigrates the dignity of the nation's highest court.