Beijing’s broken promise to coexist with democracy in Hong Kong and Moscow’s violation of security assurances bare indisputable evidence that China and Russia can’t be trusted. Russia and China possess hypersonic missiles and antisatellite and cyber weapons that we don’t have. Those could take out the Golden Gate Bridge, disable the navigation systems of the U.S. fleet and wreak havoc on U.S. infrastructure. The United States simply can’t champion democracy and free markets while pandering to Organized Labor’s protectionism. We must rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership to provide Asian nations with the opportunity to build an economic community and prosperity less dependent on China. We need to ask how our military became so ill-prepared for a conflict in the Pacific and why it can’t fight a two-front war. Radical reform, not more money will supply the answers. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sold the president the idea that we could negotiate with Mr. Putin even after the Afghanistan debacle because at the department he heads, diplomacy is the answer to everything. Appeasing Russia caused Ukraine to have neither adequate weapons to defend itself nor some U.S. and British combat troops present with the clear understanding we would sink Russia’s fleet if Russia’s army engaged with those troops. We simply can’t permit Russia or China to freeze American conventional military aid and forces by threatening nuclear weapons. We need to address the world as we find it, not as we think it should be.

Former President Donald Trump was right to mock the NATO nations for their failure to invest in their own defense in support of their commitments to NATO. After Russia commenced its invasion of Ukraine, Alfons Mais, commander of Germany’s army, said, “The German Army is more or less bare. The options we can offer the politicians to support the [NATO] alliance are extremely limited.” The armed forces of France, Italy and too many other NATO nations are in the same condition. Soft power, they fail to understand, is bound to fail unless it is supported by the threat of military power. Though many American businesses have ended their operations in Russia, France’s government-supported carmaker, Renault, reportedly resumed production at its Moscow plant on March 21 after a brief shutdown. France, Germany and Italy reportedly sold Russia arms ranging from firearms to tanks and rockets between 2015 and 2020 despite the sanctions against doing so. Those nations are thinking like shopkeepers, not like nations seeking to deter their ― and our ― enemies. In words attributed to Lenin, they were selling Russia the rope with which it can hang them. We cannot lead any new world order while Russia makes war in Europe or while China threatens Taiwan and our Pacific allies. We could, with better strategic thinking and significant investment in modern weapon systems, restore the credibility of our deterrent. Mr. Biden should realize that in order to lead any new world order NATO has to be reunified and our deterrent reinforced, to deny Mr. Putin’s and Mr. Xi’s abilities to threaten it.

Mr. Biden is correct in stating that a new world order is emerging, but it has nothing to do with that which he envisions. With his assistance, the “new world order” is going to be dominated by Russia and China. Early in his presidency, Mr. Biden forecast “extreme competition” with China, saying that America would stick to the “international rules of the road” to do it. The “international rules of the road” Mr. Biden referred to are key to the liberal idea of a “rules-based” international order. Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi are writing their own rules. The “international rules of the road” Mr. Biden referred to are key to the liberal idea of a “rules-based” international order. Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi are writing their own rules. America has been engaged in the diplomacy of self-doubt. America ― like our NATO allies ― has been overcome by the idea that diplomacy ― “soft power” ― is always preferable to the “hard power” of military action. Former President Barack Obama shrugged off Russia’s conquest and annexation of Crimea. Sanctions were imposed that had little or no effect on Russia. When Mr. Biden threatened sanctions against a Russian invasion of Ukraine, he failed to deter it with predictable results. Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was the death knell of the so-called “rules-based order.” Mr. Putin has managed to split NATO into two factions: one which seeks to sanction Russia as a penalty for the Ukraine invasion and another, led by Germany and France, which seeks to appease Mr. Putin. That desire goes far deeper than those nations’ lack of support for sanctions. NATO’s Article 5, which imposes on its members the duty of mutual defense, is now far less of a threat to Russia and China than it had been for the past 73 years. Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania may be next on Mr. Putin’s list for conquest, but many of NATO’s members are unable to act as Article 5 requires them to do.

America’s independence, which is vital to our economy, workforce and national interests, has dangerously eroded. Case in point, our leadership and independence in overall U.S. production. As U.S. production erodes, so does global security. The adverse effects of overreliance on foreign supply chains have led to inflation, economic instability, and a challenge to America’s stature as a global supplier and the global market’s stability. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the latest example of challenges to the current global market and supply chain infrastructure as well as a major challenge to the very models of independence ― modeled after the U.S. It is also a jarring reminder of the risks associated with depending on foreign adversaries for critical resources and energy. Dependence on Russian energy has put our major NATO allies like Germany at huge risk since upwards of 75% of their oil comes from Russia. Our energy dependence does not stop at oil, it’s tied to our clean energy supply as well. Specific to U.S. nuclear energy, the public is mostly unaware of how dependent our supply chain is on Russia and other foreign suppliers. Virtually 100% of U.S. annual nuclear fuel is provided by foreign suppliers, with about 20% of that coming from Russia! Dependence on geostrategic adversaries is unfortunately not unique to our nuclear sector. The U.S. also has an unacceptably high level of reliance on our geostrategic adversaries, including China, for our wind and solar sectors. As we seek to scale up our Nation’s clean and renewable electricity production, it is vital that we concurrently build domestic supply chains for these sectors - less we become even more dangerously dependent on our geostrategic adversaries.

In U.S., with falling real wages, fewer people are at work than two years ago. That reduces people’s ability to spend and save and therefore means slower economic growth, which most likely will soon be negative ― i.e., recession. The war makes all of the above worse. Russia supplies 17% of the world’s gas (upon which the Europeans are highly dependent) and 12% of the world’s oil. Russia also supplies 38% of the world’s palladium (used in cell phones and other electronics). Russia is the world’s biggest wheat producer and exporter, and Ukraine is the fifth largest, and between them, they account for a quarter of all wheat exports. Ukraine also exports about 15% of all corn, behind the U.S. at 30%. Petroleum is the feedstock for many fertilizers, and Russia again is the biggest exporter of fertilizer, and Ukraine is also a major fertilizer producer and exporter. It is unlikely Ukraine will be able to plant much of its wheat and grain crops this year. Less and higher-priced fertilizer means lower crop yields throughout the world. The poor in the Middle East and Africa depend on cheap wheat and corn from Russia and Ukraine ― so expect political turmoil in those parts of the world. Russia will sell some of the oil it formerly sold to the west to the Chinese ― but the major Russian oil fields are a long way from the Chinese population centers ― without adequate pipeline or rail infrastructure. Much of the Russian economy ― such as the airline industry ― will grind to a halt because of the lack of spare parts and business support services. How will the Russian people react to having their disposable incomes cut in half?

The war in Ukraine has turned a probable recession into a near certainty. A series of policy mistakes by U.S. and European leaders had put the world economy into a precarious position before the war ― and now the tipping point has been reached. It was obvious to anyone who had a basic understanding of monetary history that having a record rise in the money supply ― far in excess of the supply of new goods and services ― over the last two years was almost certain to cause a great rise in inflation. Many of us had sounded the alarm bell, but the obvious seemed to have eluded the leadership at the Fed and U.S. Treasury. Biden administration officials first told us that the inflation was temporary. Now they say it is all Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fault and will be over in a year or two. They conveniently ignore the fact that the excessive money supply began well before Mr. Putin’s war and is continuing. The Biden administration and the Fed are too timid about cutting spending and raising interest rates as much as would be required to stop inflation. The Europeans are in a similar pickle, and many of the countries have engaged in an even dumber set of energy policies than the Biden administration. Despite record gasoline and other fossil fuel energy prices, the Biden administration still refuses to remove all the destructive restrictions on oil and gas production and transport ― causing great economic hardship for no good reason. For a decade, it has been known that the Russians were feeding monies to lobby against fracking and other oil and gas production. The payoffs appear to be working.

These new weapons also expand Russian nuclear first- and second-strike options, strengthening Moscow’s strategic deterrent. They also provide Moscow with greater freedom of action internationally - which means only one thing: more trouble. Of course, not only do these weapons diversify and deepen Russia’s military threats, they also signal Russia’s continuing commitment to the centrality of its nuclear forces in defense policy and its ongoing drive for military superiority. Lastly, these novel strategic systems also enhance Russian President Vladimir Putin’s domestic political power by proving his continuing commitment to defending against (Kremlin-generated perceptions of) threats from the United States and NATO. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reminds us that Russia retains large numbers of nonstrategic (i.e., “low-yield”) nuclear weapons, adopting military strategies that “rely on nuclear escalation for their success.” The potential use of these battlefield nuclear weapons for regional war fighting is very troubling. It’s unclear whether all or just some of these new Russian strategic weapons will ultimately be fielded - or be deployed in militarily significant numbers. For the moment, the new, nontraditional weapons mark a significant emphasis on nuclear weapons systems as central to Russia’s defense plans, doctrine, and policy. These weapons also send unmistakable messages to Moscow’s competitors and potential foes. Message 1: Russia is - and will continue to be - a dynamic, advanced, and global military superpower. Message 2: Mr. Putin’s Russia - with its bulging nuclear arsenal - isn’t in the mood to be messed with any time soon.

In the new great power competition, Russia is ready to rumble. Indeed, in recent years, Russia has unveiled the hypersonic vehicle-carrying Sarmat ICBM, the Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicle, the Tsirkon sea-launched hypersonic cruise missile, and the Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic ballistic missile. It also has revealed the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater drone-all posing new security challenges for the United States and its NATO allies. These nontraditional, novel weapons are especially troubling considering Moscow‘s bad behavior, from its actions in Ukraine to its use of chemical weapons in assassination attempts at home and abroad. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation’s 2021 Index of U.S. Military Strength concludes that “Russia remains the primary threat to American interests in Europe and is the most pressing threat to the United States.” An especially strong component of the growing Russian threat is Moscow’s increasing -and increasingly varied-nuclear capability. In addition to the six new systems noted above, Russia is reportedly modernizing the entirety of its nuclear arsenal. Indeed, reports out of Russia suggest that the Kremlin may have updated more than 80% of its nuclear arsenal. The six nontraditional nuclear weapons systems play an interesting role in that modernization. These novel strategic systems reflect a clear and determined effort to enhance Russia’s status as a great power and increase its ability to exert political-military power over competitors, particularly the U.S. and NATO.

What good is the U.N. if it is powerless to stop its own leadership from breaking international law, committing war crimes and murdering innocent civilians as Russian President Vladimir Putin is right now? The Security Council is the most powerful arm of the international organization. Unlike the General Assembly, in which all 193 countries vote on nonbinding resolutions, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the action that international system idealists have always feared. A permanent member has committed an Article 2.4 violation in which a permanent Security Council member violates the territorial integrity of another while committing brutal war crimes in broad daylight. To deflect this horrific reality, member states made a Hail Mary pass by voting to hold a General Assembly emergency special session. The appearance of this Hail Mary pass led many to believe the U.N. had actually stripped Russia of its veto power, enabling the other 192 members to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The reality is that all the move accomplished was shifting the vote from the Security Council where Russia has veto power - to the General Assembly, where such veto power does not exist. The downside to this move is that, unlike the Security Council, the General Assembly lacks the power to do little more than make declaratory statements. Simply put, this decades long cycle has kept most nations captive of an institution and process that empowers China and Russia to do whatever they want. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven that the present structure of the U.N. Charter is problematic in today’s international system.

President Biden’s rejection of reliable fossil fuels is triggering unintentional fallout. In the name of climate change, the president’s policies contribute to Russia’s devastating war on Ukraine and heightening nuclear fears. It’s the dark consequence of energy fantasy. Russia’s tanks rolling into its neighbor’s homeland are powered by a windfall of oil revenues that have filled Moscow’s coffers beyond President Vladimir Putin’s fondest hopes. Following 2020’s COVID-19-caused recession, rising global energy prices are partially responsible for the bounty, but Mr. Biden’s war on domestic fossil fuels has also lifted Mr. Putin’s ambitions. Under Mr. Biden, America has regressed from energy independence to a nation forced to import more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day ― at nearly $100 per barrel ― from Russia. In a Conservative Political Action Conference speech, former President Donald Trump lamented the role U.S. purchases of Russian oil play in funding Mr. Putin’s war on Ukraine. Moreover, by foolishly endorsing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ― built to transport natural gas from Russia ― Mr. Biden has encouraged Europe’s energy dependence. Even as global outcry over his attack on Ukraine causes Mr. Putin to put his nuclear forces on high alert, the Islamic extremists of Iran close in on their own nuclear capability. Mr. Biden is also seeking to resume buying Iranian oil, which would provide the regime with the means to stoke state-sponsored terrorism. Energy policies that reward warmongering nations prioritize climate change over peace.