The group’s name pays homage to Richard Wagner, the 19th-century German composer beloved by Hitler. Wagner fighters were among the Russian soldiers wearing uniforms without insignia who invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014, sparking a chronic insurgency. In 2015, Wagner was deployed to help Bashar Assad slaughter Syrians dissatisfied with living under a dynastic dictatorship. In exchange, Mr. Putin has been able to utilize naval bases in Syria to make Russia a Mediterranean power, as it was in Soviet times. In 2017, Wagner began showing up in African countries, providing security for dictators in exchange for a fat cut of those countries’ gold, diamonds, and other natural resources. In 2018, several hundred Wagnerians attacked a military outpost in Syria, a base for Americans fighting the Islamic State. The Americans eliminated the attackers with dispatch. Mr. Putin never said a word about it. That same year, Mr. Prigozhin was indicted by an American federal grand jury because another of his businesses, the Internet Research Agency, had used social media to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Only last year did Mr. Prigozhin publicly acknowledge that he heads Wagner, which he registered as a “management consultancy.” Wagner has given Mr. Putin plausible deniability - at least to the credulous ? for a multitude of crimes. And Mr. Putin doubtless thought he could play his military honchos and henchmen off one another, thereby complicating any plot to dethrone him. The flaw in that strategy became apparent recently.

Vladimir Putin could have lived out his life in luxury, committing serial murders with impunity and spending his country’s wealth. But when he looked in the mirror, he saw a 21st-century czar. That meant he had a mission: to restore the Russian empire, not leave it as “a gas station masquerading as a country,” in the immortal words of Sen. John McCain. Imperialism requires warfighters. They must be loyal to the emperor, though not necessarily to one another. Which brings us to Yevgeny Prigozhin. His career path has been unconventional. In 1981, at the age of 20, he was sentenced to prison for theft and other crimes. Nine years later, back out on the street he sold hot dogs in an open-air market in Leningrad. From there, he moved into the grocery business, then opened a casino, then restaurants, and then a catering service that, around 2001, won lucrative contracts to supply meals to public schools. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Putin took a shine to him, or at least saw him as a useful vassal and factotum. He arranged for Mr. Prigozhin to feed the Russian military. Mr. Prigozhin soon became one of the richest men in Russia, an oligarch. But, like Mr. Putin, he was not satisfied with that. So he became a warlord. Officially, the Wagner Group is a “private military company,” which doesn’t tell you much. The U.S. government has called Wagner a “transnational criminal organization.” In the media, it’s often labeled a mercenary group, but that doesn’t really fit. And he didn’t need Wagner to make money.

Now, however, Russia’s renewed aggression against Ukraine has significantly shifted regional public opinion because the thin justification for the land grab, and the magnitude of violence are fertile grounds for concern, particularly in countries with their own ethnic divisions. Third, the concept of a “Russian world” championed by the Kremlin is declining in appeal. In recent years, Mr. Putin and company have made a point of extensively courting the “compatriots” - Russian speakers and ethnic Russians who they believe should contribute to the country’s greatness. But precisely those constituencies are increasingly rejecting Russia’s vision. In fact, fewer people residing in countries with large Russian diasporas (such as Kazakhstan, Latvia and Estonia) are today “identifying as Russian.” The implications of these changes are potentially profound. As Gallup notes, Russia’s receding influence in the “post-Soviet space” may create an opening for other superpowers (like China) to gain ground in the region. The United States, too, potentially stands to gain from Russia’s ideological retreat - provided it seizes the moment to embrace a more robust policy of engagement in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The biggest change, however, is taking place in Russia itself. Russia’s misadventure in Ukraine, Gallup concludes, has “seriously eroded its status and prestige,” leading to a “seismic shift in public opinion [that] may signal the twilight of Europe’s last empire.” In other words, in his efforts to revive a Russian empire, Mr. Putin may have decisively doomed his country’s chances of ever being one again. For that, Russia’s president has no one but himself to blame.

Buoyed by visions of a revived “greater Russia” and egged on by ideological fellow travelers, President Vladimir Putin has championed an increasingly aggressive foreign policy designed to reassert his country’s primacy in its traditional geopolitical sphere of influence ― and beyond. Mr. Putin’s fateful decision to launch a “special military operation” in February 2022 with the goal of fomenting regime change in Kyiv was the logical consequence of this revived impulse. Yet today, Russia’s actual imperial potential is declining, and the war in Ukraine is a big reason why. Across Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Baltic states, Russia’s reputation has taken a massive hit as more and more countries question the prudence of aligning too closely with Moscow. This shift is neatly captured in a new Gallup survey highlighting a number of key regional changes the Kremlin’s ill-fated war of choice has wrought. The first is that, over the past year, approval of Russia’s leadership declined dramatically among nearly all of its neighbors. And while in places such as Ukraine and the Baltics, which already had extensive experience with Moscow’s predations, trust was already low, it has dipped significantly over the past year in countries like Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which have historically been more or less “sympathetic to Russian leadership.” Second, Russia’s current offensive against Ukraine has had a much more marked impact on regional perceptions than its earlier 2014 invasion ever did. Back then, thinking about Russia experienced a marked negative shift in the Baltics and Ukraine but far less so in other post-Soviet states.

China is aligned with a revisionist Russian Federation that invaded Ukraine. How China can justify an alignment with Russia is incredulous. It wasn’t too long ago that we were hearing from many in China that the U.S. was a superpower in decline. Citing the Thucydides Trap, when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, resulting in a violent confrontation, many in China were convinced that China was destined to overtake the U.S. Well, they were wrong. Responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it was U.S. leadership that united allies and partners in Europe to also come to the aid of Ukraine. It’s that aid and support to the courageous Ukrainian people that helped halt the Russian onslaught and has Putin facing a humiliating defeat in Ukraine. This is the Russia that China is aligned with. China’s earlier 12-point proposal to end the war in Ukraine called for a ceasefire and peace talks, and the lifting of sanctions on Russia while stating the need to respect the sovereignty of all countries. Clearly, Russia is the aggressor and in violation of the United Nations Charter; this, all responsible countries agree. Now is the time for China to use its leverage with Russia to get Putin to end the war in Ukraine and return the occupied territories they invaded. China is projecting an image of a great power interested in good relations with all countries, and committed to global stability. For China, that translates into maintaining a robust economic relationship with the United States and the European Union while maintaining close economic and geopolitical ties with all countries.

Though initially launched in 2007, various disputes kept the partnership from gaining momentum and realizing its potential. This changed in 2017 when Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, saw the potential. Rightly regarded as the father of the Quad, he stood alongside the Trump Administration and reinvigorated the Quad as an important new tool for facing down Xi Jinping and the CCP. The formation of the Quad was a concrete step towards building a partnership between free nations who shared a positive vision for the Indo-Pacific. This is a lasting legacy of Abe, whose death one year ago was a tragedy. Quad nations are well-positioned to collectively lead the way in confronting China’s military expansionism and economic aggression throughout the region. This is especially important in light of Xi’s open threat toward the nations of northeast Asia through its aggression toward Taiwan. And the Quad’s large economies can help fellow Indo-Pacific partners de-risk their supply chains with respect to China, an issue many nations finally woke up to in the early days of the COVID pandemic when reliance on China for personal protective equipment put them in an extremely vulnerable position. The foreign relations law recently enacted by the CCP signals Xi’s intent to retaliate economically whenever another nation dares cross him. We should respond by de-risking our own supply chains and helping others do the same. To that end, members of the Quad should continue to seek common cause with nations dedicated to freedom, such as South Korea or Taiwan, and build even stronger partnerships to oppose the CCP’s tyranny.

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) recent passage of its new foreign relations law underscores the threat to free nations dedicated to preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific. The new law will strengthen CCP Chairman Xi Jinping’s ability to impose “countermeasures” on actions he deems threatening to his interests, furthering Xi’s goal of establishing a CCP-centric, CCP-led order in opposition to nations who wish to preserve peace, stability and freedom. For four years, the Trump Administration kept the Chinese communist threat at bay, principally by working with our partners in Japan, India, and Australia to revitalize the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad). At this time in history, embracing the Quad‘s model is even more important as we seek to oppose the CCP’s ambitions and maintain a truly free and open Indo-Pacific. Multilateral entities initially founded to safeguard shared interests and secure common objectives - like the World Health Organization (WHO) or the UN Security Council - have become corrupted by nations whose goals are hostile to those of free nations. China used its power within the WHO to cover up its responsibility for unleashing the COVID pandemic on the world. Russia occupies the UN Security Council’s presidency, despite it currently waging a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. When nations do not share our values and oppose our interests, we cannot expect them to be restrained by multilateral agreements or institutions. We knew that partnerships were vital, but we also knew they only worked if we joined nations that truly shared America’s common interests and values. Thus, the new Quad was born.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the World Health Organization has lost the plot about health and common sense. In a move that most people would find puzzling, at the 76th World Health Assembly at the end of May, North Korea was elected to the WHO’s executive board. It is difficult to fathom why Kim Jong Un’s global pariah has been welcomed with open arms by an executive body that decides approaches to health care and public health policies worldwide. In another tone-deaf diplomatic move by the WHO, its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, met with Russian Deputy Health Minister Oleg Salagay on May 29 to discuss “Russia’s work to advance maternal and child health.” Considering Russia has been bombing hospitals and maternity units in Ukraine while stealing children from their parents there, the head of the WHO praising Russia for its child-friendly health policies is beyond parody. Mr. Tedros was elected unopposed in May last year for a second five-year term despite a string of errors under his watch. The global health agency drew widespread ridicule when has more recently been heavily criticized for kowtowing to the Chinese government. It is widely recognized that the WHO failed miserably to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak. Despite reports of the virus escaping from China, it was not until mid-March 2020 that the WHO finally conceded that widespread community transmission was occurring and declared a pandemic. It is surprising that the WHO appears to have no political antenna and supports some of the worst governments in the world while peddling policies contrary to public health.

The pandemic was a great excuse for many in government to accumulate more power - e.g., the ability to order certain businesses, schools, churches, etc., to shut down and for people to wear masks. All but essential workers were ordered to stay home. Most everyone agreed that medical personnel, police, fire and other first responders were essential. But after that, who was determined to be essential often was more of a political decision than one based on some sort of objective reality. Bars could remain open, but not churches - much of the Washington political establishment tends to be a hard-drinking but not a church-attending crowd. The hypocrisy of those in government was never-ending. The enviros hate and demonize the fossil fuel industry, but suddenly those who drill for oil, mine coal, work in refineries, or operate local gas stations were essential. The good people who operate our supermarkets were also expected to risk their lives. We learned that all of those non-military and non-first responders’ government workers are, in fact, not essential. Many of them still have not returned to work. What was particularly shameful was that much of the media was in cahoots with government officials in trying to demonize any voices of dissent, no matter how credible, resulting in many unnecessary deaths, economic hardship and loss of liberty. As mankind is hit in the future with various pandemics, the lesson should be to err on the side of liberty, allowing people to make individual choices on how to protect themselves.

Sensible leaders like those in Sweden used a light-touch approach, leaving most schools and businesses open and relying on the good sense of the Swedish people to decide how much risk they wished to take based on their health. The result was that mortality rates were, on average, no higher in Sweden than in most European countries, but the damage to the economy, education and individual liberties was relatively minor. In the U.S., individual states differed widely in the degree of lockdown required, with places like Florida remaining largely open and places like New York being very restrictive. The result was that age-adjusted mortality rates in Florida were actually lower than in New York, and school-aged children did not suffer the loss of learning that occurred in closed school systems like Chicago’s. The health authorities in most countries and particularly in the U.S. lost a great deal of credibility because of what turned out to be so many erroneous statements about such things as how effective lockdowns, masks and vaccines would be. Had the people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration been more modest about what they did and did not know, everyone would have been better off. There is a field of economics called “public choice,” most thoroughly developed by the late Nobel laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. In essence, they argued, as have many others, that elected government leaders and bureaucrats are no less self-interested than the population at large. Many of them refer to themselves as “public servants” when in fact they are as greedy and power-seeking as any in business.