I remember, what we might call the good old days, prior to Feb. 24, when Russian President Vladimir Putin rather recklessly sent his shambolic army into Ukraine. Before Feb. 24 many of us thought of the Russian Army as being powerful. It was an army that all Russians could be proud of. It was not known as it is today, an army that commits atrocities, blasts hospitals with missiles, sends tanks out to roll over civilian vehicles with civilians still in them. A dark and gloomy shadow has come over Mr. Putin. His army is suffering 500 casualties a day, counting the dead and the wounded according to American intelligence sources. Surely the average Russian is becoming impatient with the daily casualty count. Yet Mr. Putin persists. “The Russian Army is seriously depleted,” Seth G. Jones, the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said recently. “That has implications on their ability to fight an effective ground campaign in Ukraine.” Things are getting worse. Mr. Jones speculates that “the Russians probably don’t have enough effective combat forces to fully take Donetsk,” their next critical target. Their problems are a loss of armored vehicles and a loss of manpower. “The Russian military has lost so many troops that in some cases,” the Times reports, “units have tried to force captured Ukrainians to fight.” What I am wondering now is how long the Russians are going to tolerate Mr. Putin sacrificing 500 Russians a day. We hear that the Russian people are beginning to ask questions. Why are their boys disappearing into Ukraine? When are they coming home?

The successful counterterrorism strike that killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri removed from the battlefield a dangerous terrorist who declared war on the U.S. decades ago. But serious questions remain about the extent to which al Qaeda enjoys the same sort of safe haven in Afghanistan that it used to plot and plan attacks against the U.S. during the previous Taliban regime. We don’t know who will replace al-Zawahiri or whether his death preempted any imminent threats to U.S. national security. The more likely scenario is that the growing number of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan will carry on with their attack planning despite their leader’s demise. As expected, the Taliban never adhered to the February 2020 Doha agreement with the Trump administration, which called for them to sever all ties to al Qaeda and not to allow terror groups to use the country again as a staging ground for attacks abroad. In spite of this successful strike, we are still in the crosshairs of al Qaeda, which homestead in Afghanistan’s ungoverned space. Al Qaeda continues to benefit from a close historical relationship and tactical support from the notorious Haqqani Network, whose leader Sirajuddin Haqqani is the Taliban’s acting minister of interior. We can be sure the U.S. intelligence community and its Department of Defense partners were already focused on the next counterterrorism mission. That’s the nature of the seemingly never-ending mission to find and finish off the terrorists who seek to do us harm. It will continue as long as Afghanistan remains a failed state and a petri dish for nurturing threats to the region and beyond.

Two missiles from a Hellfire drone targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, the 71-year-old emir of al Qaeda, who was taking his morning tea on the balcony of a well-appointed home in an exclusive Kabul neighborhood. Al-Zawahiri had been hiding out in remote locations since 2011 when SEAL Team Six killed Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda’s founder and first leader. Despite the isolation, he achieved goals: Al-Qaeda today controls more territory than ever, with branches in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East and Africa. After last August’s shambolic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s subsequent takeover, he had evidently come to believe he could return to the capital to work in comfort and safety. It was a fatal mistake. Taliban negotiators promised not to cooperate with al Qaeda or other groups “threatening the security of the United States and its allies.” Former President Donald Trump and Mr. Biden apparently believed them. That, too, was a fatal mistake. Eliminating terrorist leaders is useful. But those waging what they regard as a 1,400-year-old jihad against infidels, heretics and apostates tend to be tenacious. The phrase “forever war” doesn’t daunt them. It inspires them. The rulers of China and Russia also are waging a kind of war against the West. Neo-isolationists ― they prefer to be called “restrainers” ― will argue that we can’t deal with all these threats simultaneously. But to survive in the jungle, you must defend yourself, not just against lions. The crocodiles can eat you, too. Al Qaeda will soon have a new emir. The front-runner appears to be Saif al-Adel, a 62-year-old former Egyptian special forces colonel.

An economical and/or hot war between China and Taiwan will be a global economic and political disaster. The economic ties between China and Taiwan are great, with China accounting for 28% of Taiwan’s exports last year, while the U.S. share was 15%. Taiwan runs a very large trade surplus with China, offset by heavy Taiwanese investments in China. The Chinese also have major investments in Taiwan. It is not so much the volume of trade that is important, but how much of it cannot be readily substituted from other countries in a crisis. There is much talk about global supply chains, as illustrated by Apple, which sources parts for the iPhone from 43 countries. Apple probably has sufficient redundancy in its supply chain to be able to quickly switch from one supplier to another. The problem with Taiwan is that it is a very high-tech center, producing certain products like high-end semi-conductors that no other country does, including the U.S. and China. It would seem improbable that China would bomb Taiwan back to the stone age, which it could, but that would destroy its value. More likely, China will blockade Taiwan, destroying its economy and ability to obtain adequate food. The Biden administration is likely to try to avoid a hot war with China over a blockade of Taiwan. A hot war or even a blockade would be economic and probably military suicide for both China and the U.S. It would so disrupt the world supply chain that global chaos would reign for many months - leading to many unforeseen consequences, including even nuclear war. It is worth remembering that WWI - a war no one wanted - was caused by a series of miscalculations by weak leaders.

Therefore, the American capacity for serving as the arsenal of democracy is limited to what reduced industrial output can be maintained. Until recently, this was not a concern; Washington was able to have its proverbial cake and eat it. This was partly because the U.S. was not fighting a near-peer competitor, such as Russia or China. It was also because, until the last decade, the U.S. was the undisputed global superpower whose only real challenges came from terrorist organizations and rogue states. Ukraine has changed this reality. As has COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdowns that occurred in response to the pandemic. In Ukraine today, the limits of America’s arsenal of democracy are being tested. Critical weapons systems ― such as the High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System ― that have proven decisive for Ukraine in its defense and devastating to Russia’s invasion are being depleted at a faster rate than what America’s ailing industrial capacity can replace. Many of the U.S. weapon systems that are being used in Ukraine are systems that Taiwan will need to defend against any Chinese attack. Beijing is aware of these facts. China has been watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine closely. Beijing’s war planners are aware of mistakes Moscow has made in Ukraine and they are learning from those mistakes. And it’s not as if Mr. Xi is sitting pretty. For Mr. Xi to have a chance, though, he must prove that he is still capable of leading the country. With the economy failing, military adventurism may be his next best bet. As it appears that Mr. Biden will be replaced by a much stronger successor in 2024, Mr. Xi may believe 2022 is his best ― only ― chance to restore Chinese rule over Taiwan.

Earlier this year, a Russian intelligence analyst leaked a classified conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping wherein Mr. Xi told Mr. Putin that China had been planning to invade Taiwan in the fall of 2022. The Russian intelligence analyst leaked this information to the private Western intelligence firm known as Bellingcat, which then disseminated that intelligence to the Western press. About a month after that supposed conversation, Mr. Putin ordered the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has torn Europe apart and has kept the world on the brink of nuclear war. Many observers believe that the shambolic Russian invasion of Ukraine has dissuaded Mr. Xi’s regime from launching the planned invasion of Taiwan. I disagree. I am concerned the Chinese leadership under Mr. Xi is looking for an excuse to launch an attack of some kind against Taiwan, whether it be a naval blockade or an invasion, by the fall of this year. Far from convincing Mr. Xi an attack or blockade of Taiwan is off-the-table due to how poorly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gone, the protracted Russo-Ukraine War may be just what Mr. Xi needs to reaffirm his loosening grip on power. American presidents of both political parties acted in accordance with the “arsenal of democracy” model that Roosevelt created more than 80 years ago. Yet, what so few have clearly realized is that the arsenal of democracy is predicated upon America possessing a robust industrial capability within its borders. Since the 1970s, American manufacturing has been on the decline whereas the manufacturing capabilities of rival countries, notably China, have been on the rise.

If you don’t think that is important, imagine if your child’s or grandchild’s favorite movie or singer was from China. One obvious result of this dominance is that the English language is now the planet’s reserve language. The U.S expanded and completed the linguistic colonization of the world. About 1.35 billion people speak English, most of them (about 1 billion) as a second language. By comparison, about 1.1 billion people speak Mandarin, almost all of them as a first language. We also dominate education. According to the Center for World University Rankings, 29 of the top 50 universities globally are found in the United States. The highest-rated Chinese university is #58. How about national security? The United States enjoys two of the longest peaceful borders on the planet and leads multiple networks of alliances. In comparison, the Chinese have few friends, are surrounded by hostile neighbors, including India, Vietnam, Australia, the Philippines, Japan and, most importantly, Taiwan, and use half of their military resources to ensure their border security. Given all of this, it is obvious that the best way to approach the threat posed by communist China is to build on our strengths. We did not become the world’s dominant economic, educational, linguistic, cultural and military force by worrying about every new contender. We achieved that dominance by emphasizing personal liberty and resisting collectivism, keeping government involvement in our lives to a minimum, valuing creativity and innovation in all their forms, recognizing and defending private property, and respecting the rule of law.

We also have an enormous economic advantage because the dollar is the reserve currency for the world. This is primarily because of the American commitment to private property, the rule of law, and a relative lack of corruption. If you invest in the United States, there is little chance that the government will nationalize or otherwise materially degrade the investment. By 2031, the population of China will peak and then start a slow and steady drop for the remainder of the century. China’s population will also age; by 2040, they will have 317 million people over the age of 65 (compared to 81 million in the U.S.). By 2040, there will be 50 million more men than women in China. This imbalance, created primarily by the one-child policy (and Chinese families’ preference for male children), ensures delayed and suboptimal family formation and attendant social unrest. The size and composition of the population in the U.S., on the other hand, are limited only by our willingness to accept and assimilate immigrants. If necessary, we could accept millions of immigrants in a short period of time. The desire to become American and the struggles that people endure to get and stay here are the best evidence that the communist Chinese model is in no way superior or ascendant. Each year, more than a million people immigrate into the United States legally, and probably another million make it into the country illegally. More than a half-million people escape from China each year. We also dominate the culture. For 100 years, since screens (TVs, computers or cell phones) became ubiquitous, we have been the largest and most significant provider of cultural content provider to the globe.

Sometimes Americans’ competitive nature requires that we think of our current rivals as much more impressive than they actually are. As difficult as it is to imagine now, in the 1950s and 1960s, many thought that Soviet Russia would overtake us. They turned out to be wrong. In the 1970s, the Arabs were going to run the world because of their perceived hegemony in oil. Didn’t happen. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, the United States was fixated on the idea that Japan, Inc. was the new, better model. Now, we face communist China, whose impressive and bloody 50-year run has transformed them from a mostly poor and rural farm economy to the world’s factory floor. Many, including some in the United States, believe that the communist model emphasizing conformity, the collective, and the unquestioned authority of the state is superior to our own. Let’s take a look at our new rival and how we compare. First, the economy. Depending on how you count, China is either the largest or the second-largest economy in the world. Yet, Americans make between four and six times more than the Chinese per capita. As always, aggregated numbers hide important information. America is already much wealthier than China, mostly because of the efficiency of the American economy and American businesses - U.S. GDP per worker is 6 times greater than China’s. In the last 20 years, the American economy has generated $12 trillion more in wealth for American consumers than the Chinese economy has created for Chinese consumers. Since 2019, 257,000 more people in China have become millionaires, while an additional 1.75 million Americans have become millionaires.

For the current generation, sometimes referred to as millennials, it appears one thing is more seductive than sex and that’s socialism. Their platforms, it appears, hinge on the concept of shared wealth in other words, handing out free stuff to just about everyone. How far we’ve come from JFK’s admonition not to ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Today, for many, it’s all about what you should expect from your country with little or no reciprocity. It is undeniable that capitalism has raised more boats than socialism has sunk. Yet, socialism’s appeal continues, despite historical and contemporary evidence that it delivers a bad deal for those who embrace it. It’s likely most of those who favor socialism have never lived in a country where it is practiced. A few months in Venezuela might be the perfect cure. People who claim to prefer socialism to capitalism are probably reaping capitalism’s benefits. This group of misinformed comrades includes parents who gave their pampered millennials a lifestyle they likely would never have enjoyed under a socialist regime. People seduced by socialism have likely not had to sacrifice much for their country. Socialism stifles incentive and makes people dependent on government, not themselves, which appears to be the liberal ideal. Some would rather get a check than earn one. Socialism is little more than mutually shared poverty, a version of “spreading the wealth around” with government taking from the productive and giving to the nonproductive. It is an economic philosophy closely associated with communism.