The Soviets were now spending more money in Afghanistan and taking significant casualties, affecting the morale of Soviet troops in Afghanistan and families in the Soviet Union. The approval to provide Stinger missiles to the Mujahedin was the decisive upgrade in weaponry that eventually convinced Moscow that victory was not possible, and withdrawal was its only viable option. In November 1986, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made the decision to withdraw all Soviet combat troops by the end of 1988. He said Afghanistan had become ‘a bleeding Wound.’ The Soviets eventually withdrew all soldiers in February 1989, President George H.W. Bush replaced Reagan in January 1989 and met with Gorbachev in Malta in December 1989. Bush encouraged Gorbachev to move forward with Democratic reforms. In 1985, the Soviet Politburo elected Gorbachev as the Communist Party’s general secretary, replacing Konstantin Chernenko, who replaced Yuri Andropov, who replaced Leonid Brezhnev, who died in 1982 after serving 18 years as general secretary. What Gorbachev inherited in 1985 was a Soviet Union under siege in Afghanistan; confused and perplexed with efforts to address the U.S.’ Strategic Defense initiative (missile defense shield); the Solidarity anti-communist labor movement in Poland. He courageously implemented a policy of glasnost ― openness ― and a policy of perestroika ― political reform. He worked with Reagan, who in 1983 said the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” and then, in 1988, after working with Gorbachev, said that the Soviet Union was “no longer an evil empire.” It was Reagan’s policies that defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.

As we debate whether we’re in a new Cold War, a recent movie and book about President Ronald Reagan’s legacy have inspired Americans to become more familiar with our 40th president. From 1981 to 1987, I worked for William Casey, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and manager of Ronald Reagan’s successful 1980 presidential campaign. Casey, who died in 1987, was close to Reagan; both viewed the Soviet Union as an evil empire that had to be defeated. Indeed, this was a time when the Soviet Union was marching to the tune of the Brezhnev Doctrine: Soviet interference in Vietnam, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Yemen, Libya, Czechoslovakia, Nicaragua, Grenada and, in 1979, Afghanistan. Reagan’s instructions to Casey were simple: Defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, halt its meddling abroad, highlight its economic shortcomings and encourage internal liberalization. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 32 of March 1982 said the United States would seek to neutralize Soviet control over Eastern Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet organizations in the region. NSDD-75 of January 1983 said the United States should not just coexist with the Soviet Union but change it fundamentally. Casey was an avid anti-communist and took the lead in the implementation of these national security directives, determined to defeat the Soviet Union in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. NSDD-166 in 1985 spoke of expelling Soviet forces from Afghanistan, where the Kremlin was spending between $4-$5 billion per year. With this new directive, efforts to support the Mujahedin increased exponentially and, working primarily with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China.

The country doesn’t have to surrender to those who shut down debate and ignore fundamental realities about energy and climate policy. For years, extremist environmental groups and some politicians in their sway have accused the oil and natural gas industry of contributing to the destruction of the planet, and demanded the country cease all use of oil, natural gas and coal. Yet ending the very sources of energy that provide over 80% of global energy would have immediate, catastrophic impacts on human health and flourishing. Demonizing the oil industry and shifting moral responsibility to the producers rather than all the people who consume that energy is counterproductive. Increased natural gas electricity generation has done more to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States than wind and solar power combined. Besides giving voice to radical activists and emphasizing the most sensational climate change claims, certain biased journalists actively work to shutter countervailing information, labeling perspectives from the oil and natural gas industry as disinformation. By seeking to shut down voices that support oil and natural gas, they dehumanize those in the industry and cut off debate, often leaving only the most shrill. Supposedly “experienced” journalists go so far as to accuse the oil industry of dirty tricks to spread disinformation. Those “dirty tricks” include such reasonable information as the economic consequences of banning fossil fuels and the impact on humanity. Demonization of the American industry is counterproductive to activists’ own goals and carries the chance of protests turning violent. Now is the time to jettison extreme rhetoric.

FBI Director Christopher Wray warned that Russia’s “covert attempts to sow division and trick Americans into unwittingly consuming foreign propaganda represents an attack on our democracy.” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s formative experiences as a KGB operative and director of Russia’s Federal Security Service help explain why, after coming to power, he eliminated the country’s independent media to restrict the flow of information and shape public dialogue in support of the Kremlin’s Potemkin village narratives. Mr. Putin brazenly targets America’s open media, a foundation of our democracy. First, Mr. Putin sought to throw gasoline on the already deep partisan divide burning hot in our country. Second, with the U.S. presidential election approaching, Mr. Putin’s goal is to reduce voters’ trust in American media. Third, aside from prosecuting ruthless attacks on what scares him the most ? namely, the truth and democratic government ? Mr. Putin wants to demonstrate that Russia can level the playing field with the United States through asymmetrical information warfare. Our intelligence agencies need to detect these Russian threats in the pre-attack phase so they can be preempted before any harm is caused. We need a more comprehensive effort from the federal government to warn American print, television and online media outlets about the threats to their content, particularly from hostile actors such as China and Russia. Just as we did during the Cold War, the U.S. should turn the tables on the Kremlin by finding innovative ways to deliver real news to the Russian people.

Russia apparently was prepared not only to accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state but also to potentially aid North Korea with its nuclear, missile, satellite and conventional programs. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine in 2022 has been a disaster. Russian casualties are nearly 1,200 each day, with estimates of overall Russian casualties exceeding 500,000. These figures far exceed the casualties the Soviet Union suffered in Afghanistan after its invasion in 1979. It was not only the casualties in Afghanistan but also the Soviet public’s disgust with the war that was killing so many of its people and the expense that added to the Soviet Union’s eventual bankruptcy. Mr. Putin will eventually have to answer to the people for this tragic act of aggression against a sovereign, independent Ukraine. The key is for Ukraine to remain resilient and get the support it needs from the U.S. and the European Union. Hopefully, there will be a cease-fire and an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But it should be on terms amenable to Kyiv, not dictated by Moscow. When the war in Ukraine ends, Russia will no longer need North Korean artillery and missiles and will likely be unable to provide North Korea with meaningful energy and food support. That’s when North Korea will again rely on China ― committed to the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula ― in efforts to retain China’s economic lifeline for the energy, food and trade necessary for its survival. It will also be a time for North Korea to normalize relations with the United States and be part of the family of nations, with the eventual lifting of sanctions and economic development assistance from the global community.

The U.S. has known since 2000 that North Korea had a secret program to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. North Korea has repeatedly denied having a secret uranium-enrichment program in the 30 years of negotiations. North Korea thought it could pretend to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for the eventual normalization of relations with the U.S. while retaining a secret nuclear weapons capability. It appears that Mr. Kim has given up on his goal of normalizing relations with the U.S. He now realizes that he must verifiably dismantle all nuclear weapons and programs, including his uranium-enrichment program, if normalization of relations with the U.S. is North Korea’s ultimate objective. Mr. Kim has made a strategic decision: Retaining and producing more nuclear weapons is more important than normal relations with the U.S. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently declared that “denuclearizing North Korea is a closed issue as it understands North Korea’s logic that nuclear weapons are a foundation of its defense.” He went on to say that Russia will stand with North Korea in resisting what he said the U.S. portrays as expanded nuclear deterrence with South Korea and Japan. The irony in these comments from Mr. Lavrov is profound. Russia was part of the Six-Party Talks with North Korea from 2003 to 2009 and with China was a voice calling for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and programs. But now, after Russia invaded Ukraine and is subjected to international sanctions, it needs material support from countries such as China, North Korea and Iran.

In 1949, after Mao’s forces defeated the Nationalist Chinese, approximately 2 million followers of Gen. Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan, where they set up their own government. Indigenous Taiwanese are only a small percentage of the island’s population of 24 million, but they know who they are, maintain their languages and culture, and do not want settler-colonists from China ruling them. The point is this: Taiwan has never been ruled by communists, and very few Taiwanese ? whatever their ancestry ? would choose to be. Instead, they want the right to self-determination, a core principle of international law. Taiwan is hugely important to the economy of America and other nations. More than 90% of the most advanced microchips are made on the island, predominantly by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Should TSMC be taken over intact by Beijing, the consequences for the U.S. would be enormous. Should TSMC be destroyed during a conflict, a global depression could ensue. And don’t believe for a minute that if Mr. Xi swallows Taiwan, his appetite will be sated. Expect instead that he’d move quickly to limit the independence of his other neighbors, e.g., the Philippines, Australia, Singapore, Vietnam and, of course, Japan. His short-term goal: to establish Beijing as the hegemon of Asia. His longer-term ambition: to replace the U.S. as the preeminent global power, and end its leadership of an “international community” we used to call the free world. Should he succeed, our grandchildren will grow up in a new world order ? one very different from that left to us by the Greatest Generation.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Ukraine was invaded by Russian troops. That unlawful and imperialist war continues. Israel was attacked by Hamas (a proxy of Iran) on Oct. 7 of last year, by Hezbollah (Iran’s foreign legion in Lebanon) starting a day later and directly by the mullahcracy this past April 13. The Houthi rebels of Yemen have also been firing missiles and drones at Israel. This multifront war ? whose aim is not to subjugate Israelis but to exterminate them ? is far from over. President Biden has provided Ukrainians with munitions for defensive purposes while warning against their use to attack Russians on Russian soil lest that “provoke” Vladimir Putin, Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling dictator. Mr. Biden has constrained Israel as well. His desire to avoid escalation is understandable. His belief that he can achieve that by appeasing Iran is not. Mr. Xi is watching all this, providing limited but significant support to both Moscow and Tehran and doubtless thinking: Is now a good time to seize Taiwan? The most lethal scenario by which he’d attempt that would be with an amphibious assault and missiles raining from the skies. Other scenarios Mr. Xi might be considering ? as either a substitute for or precursor to kinetic military strikes ? include cyberwarfare to shut down critical infrastructure and impeding shipping to and from Taiwan. Mr. Xi insists his goal is the “reunification” of what he calls a “renegade province.” Taiwan was a Dutch colony in the 17th century until it was annexed by the Qing dynasty in 1683. From 1895 until after World War II, it was a Japanese colony.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” declared Sun Tzu, the legendary Chinese military strategist. Xi Jinping, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, is surely familiar with this sage advice. Yet he decided not to take it. Recall that in 1997, the British lowered the Union Jack over Hong Kong, their colony since 1842. In exchange, China committed to the principle of “one country, two systems” ― the maintenance of Hong Kong as a free and open society for 50 years. Had Mr. Xi kept that promise, he could now tell the Taiwanese people: “You, too, can have such a deal. Become a province of the People’s Republic of China. There’s no reason for bloodshed.” Instead, over recent years, he has brutally stripped the people of Hong Kong of the rights they had been guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, a treaty ― and treaties, of course, are the bedrock of international law. As a result, the Taiwanese now know that the vibrant democracy they’ve constructed will be quashed by the commissars in Beijing. During a weeklong visit to Taiwan last month, I asked senior government officials and think-tank scholars: Why did Mr. Xi choose to suppress Hong Kong and take a hard approach to Taiwan? The best answer I received: “Because he can.” We’re living in perilous times. Four democratic societies are threatened by four aligned tyrannies ― an axis of aggressors. The least imminently endangered is South Korea because thousands of American troops have remained there since 1953, after an armistice signed by the U.S., North Korea and China brought the Korean War to a halt ― not an end.

I’m not sure who determines what the settled science is. But you don’t have to go back to the days of the Flat Earth Society consensus to know that what is settled is often wrong. There’s no better example than the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when the settled science on how to respond was wrong more than right. This brings us to the myth of the population bomb. In the 1960s and 1970s, we were taught that if high birthrates around the world ― which were two to three times as high as today’s ― persisted, we’d be squeezed in elbow to elbow across the globe. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford prophesied that humans were breeding like field mice. All the resources on the planet would be gobbled up, and we would be doomed. As a result of this false scare, hundreds of millions of women were advised that to save the planet, they had to stop at two children ― or better yet, after just one. To stop this alleged crisis of too many babies, the U.N. and the U.S. government, funded with billions of tax dollars, brutish population policies ― forced abortion, sterilization, infanticide and financial penalties for having too many children. But now we learn that the population growth rate has been rapidly falling just over the last decade. As people got richer, contraceptives were more widely available and women had more economic opportunities, birthrates fell naturally. Capitalism turned out to be the best contraceptive. So instead of the estimated population of 12 billion by the century’s end, the number is now expected to be closer to 10 billion. What’s the lesson here? First, scientific consensus is often wrong. Second, forecasting the future is difficult.