The following is from an article by Professor Yoichi Shimada of Fukui Prefectural University in today’s issue of the monthly magazine, Hanada.
It is a must-read not only for the people of Japan but also for people around the world.
The emphasis in the text other than the headline is mine.
Weakest Biden’s decarbonization fundamentalism triggers Putin
Shock to the White House
On February 25, a poll released by Harvard University’s Center for the Study of American Politics, the intellectual stronghold of U.S. liberals, made headlines.
In fact, 62% of U.S. voters said that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president.
Looking at the breakdown by party affiliation, 85% of Republicans said yes, which is understandable, but even among Democrats, 38% said no. In other words, nearly 40% said yes.
Another 59% said that Putin moved because he saw Biden as weak.
Conservative media outlets such as FOX News, but the Harvard survey, which supports the Biden administration in terms of personnel and policy, cannot be faulted for the reliability of the numbers, even in the left-liberal camp.
No wonder the White House is reportedly shocked.
Why, then, can we assume that if Trump were president, Putin would not have been able to engage in such blatant aggression?
Let’s hear Trump’s explanation first.
On March 10, Trump appeared on a FOX News interview program and said the following. “I don’t think this is the same Putin I was dealing with. If I had kept dealing with him, he wouldn’t have changed. What is happening now is a crime.” “I’ve done well with Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, etc. It’s not because they are good people. I knew them, and more than that, they knew me. They knew that if they acted foolishly, they would suffer great retribution from me.”
They are 100% always looking out only for their self-interest. Putin only looks out for Russia. This whole situation happened because they don’t respect our leader.”
In short, like the majority opinion in the earlier poll, Trump concludes that Putin moved because he saw Biden as weak.
In addition, Trump said in a rally speech in South Carolina on March 12, citing inflation under the Biden administration, the influx of illegal immigrants, and the blunder of the Afghanistan withdrawal operation, “the five worst presidents in U.S. history. Together, it would be less than the calamity Joe Biden had brought to the country in just 13 months.”
Republicans, and to a lesser extent Democrats, would agree.
Political Correctness & the Greta Line
As the late President Ronald Reagan once described him as a “pure demagogue,” Biden has no firm views of his own and is basically a man who waits for the congressional Democrats to establish their majority and then follows them in a determined tone, but only in posture.
Therefore, in contrast to Trump, who deliberately uses “unpredictability” as a weapon, his words and actions are very easy to read.
He will not take any action before a consensus is fostered among congressional Democrats, and when he sees that the majority is set, he will finally make his move a few steps late.
Moreover, unlike Trump, who is not bound by traditional Republican boundaries, he leans toward the Democratic Party as a whole. As the left gains momentum, he tends to lean toward a self-defeating “Political Correctness & the Greta Line” that undermines national power.
The term “Poli Corre,” a Japanese abbreviation of “political correctness” with slight contempt, is nothing more than the imposition of a leftist ideology with “anti-discrimination” as its banner.
Greta is named after Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmental activist internationally feted as a heroine of the anti-carbon movement.
For some time now, “decarbonization” has been the watchword of the left-wing circle, from the far left to progressives.
Biden has been riding the wave uncritically and naturally.
Biden’s weakness means the weakening of the core of the American nation through the “Poli Corre-Greta line.”
In this sense, the difference between Trump and Biden is not merely a dimension of personal impressions, such as “Trump is unpredictable and scary.”
There is a more substantial difference concerning the resilience of the American nation.
G7 Energy Policy Confusion
Of all the possible scenarios against Ukraine, why did Putin choose the most adventurist invasion corridor?
One of the most significant factors may be the confused G7 (seven major liberal democratic powers) energy policy led by the Biden administration.
In the Trump era, the U.S. became the world’s largest oil producer by promoting drilling for shale gas and oil in the U.S. and has almost achieved energy independence and turned into an exporting country.
Naturally, there was no need to import fossil fuels from Russia. Instead, it could afford to pass its surpluses on to other countries.
In addition, the Trump administration (and the ruling Republican Party, which has a majority in the Senate), the idea that the efficient use of energy through technological development is the international contribution of a developed country is deeply rooted. Moreover, they did not force domestic industries to reduce their carbon footprint unreasonably by emphasizing market principles.
It, combined with deregulation in general, led to a booming economy.
With the fiscal leeway created by this, defense spending doubled during the four years of the Trump era. Incidentally, the U.S. carbon emissions have decreased during the Trump era, mainly due to the shift from coal to natural gas. As a result, the U.S. now ranks first in the world regarding annual emission reductions (according to a report by the International Energy Agency).
The “Trump has increased carbon emissions by burning more oil and coal” is nothing more than an invented image.
However, the Biden administration has turned around and imposed various environmentalist regulations on domestic fossil fuel companies and, at the same time, has actively waved the anti-carbon banner internationally.
Naturally, U.S. domestic oil and natural gas production declined, and investment in developing new oil fields internationally also fell sharply.
The natural consequence of this was a sharp rise in gasoline prices due to shortages and higher transportation costs, which led to an overall increase in prices.
When asked about the political impact of inflation, Biden immediately became morose and aggressive, revealing a character flaw by calling the questioner “a stupid son of a bitch.”
Incidentally, this comment was made on January 24, when a FOX News reporter asked him a very common-sense question, “Do you think inflation is a political negative going into the November midterm elections?” and he spat it out in a whisper. However, it was also an indication of Biden’s small size and a reminder of the leaning structure between the mainstream media and Biden.
If Trump had said this, the mainstream media would have made a fuss about it as if it were the scandal of the century and even called for his impeachment.
However, it was treated as a trivial episode and hardly an issue with Biden.
It must say that such mainstream media as “Biden spoiling” contributes to diplomacy that lacks tension.
I will touch on the actual situation later, but first, let me summarize the relationship between the energy issue and the Ukraine crisis.
This article continues.