​One of the current pastimes of pundits and commentators is to point out historical analogies to Russia’s Ukraine invasion. The one most often cited is Nazi Germany’s unprovoked invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, the event that triggered World War II. A distant second is the beginning of World War I in August, 1914.
 
To the extent that the two situations—1939 and 2022—are analogous, it is in the fact that in both cases, a monster attacked an innocent victim. Germany’s invasion of Poland, however, is not a perfect parallel to Russia’s blatant aggression against Ukraine. It is off the mark because, at the same time that the Nazis struck from the West, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East. This pincering of Poland was the consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact agreed to by both aggressors a week before the joint assault.
 
There was also no NATO alliance around to support the victim. There was, however, a mutual defense treaty among Poland, France and Great Britain that was immediately invoked by the two Western powers, both of whom declared war on Germany, then sat back and did nothing thanks to their feckless Prime Ministers, Edouard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain. Both had signed the 1938 Munich agreement that handed Czechoslovakia’s Sudentenland over to Germany without consulting the Czechs. This shameless surrender to Hitler gave high prominence to the term “appeasement,” rendering it forever after a dirty word. It took almost a year of inaction—a.k.a. the “Phony War”—for the Allies to take any military action at all, and only then when Germany attacked them.
 
The World War I analogy is more far-fetched.  A case can be made that Austria had some justification for attacking Serbia. The invasion came exactly one month after Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian thrones, was assassinated in Bosnia. The perpetrators  were Serbian nationalist students acting as agents of the Serbian “Black Hand,” a secret cabal supported and encouraged by elements of the Serbian government.
 
Because Serbia had close ties with Russia and France, while Austria had been urged on by Germany, this initially regional conflict quickly escalated into a world war.
England joined the side of the Russo-French Entente for complex reasons, one of which was concern that Germany’s rising sea power could endanger the Royal Navy’s oceanic dominance.
 
There is a more apt analogy for a completely unprovoked attack: the United States 2003 invasion of Iraq. Like Putin’s wanton attack on Ukraine, it too was based on false premises: (1) that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to America; and (2) that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had close ties to the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC. The difference here is that the U.S. went after a monster rather than a monster going after the good guys. Saddam, like Putin, was a murderous, thuggish dictator with a history of killing his own people. That, however, was scant consolation to the many innocent people who suffered and died
 
This history is difficult to contemplate. It is important that our memories be accurate.
 
Dick Hermann
March 25, 2022

​Incredibly, not one of the responsible government entities pronouncing an end of Covid concerns has taken account of the millions of Americans who are immuno-compromised.
 
The focus, instead, is on Americans who have had enough of Covid-19 and the safety measures imposed because of it. By March 26, every state will have dispensed with indoor mask mandates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concurs, recommending masks only for the 7 percent of Americans who live in high-risk counties.
 
The number of immuno-compromised  individuals is consistently underestimated at 7 million (not including children). However, when you add up the numbers of people who suffer from specific diseases that compromise the immune system—organ and stem cell transplant recipients, cancer patients, those with primary immunodeficiency, individuals treated with immunosuppressive medications, and those with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease, among others—the number is much higher. The National Institutes of Health says that at least 23.5 million Americans suffer from autoimmune diseases.
 
Immuno-compromised people are at high risk for serious illness and death if they contract COVID-19, even after full vaccination plus a booster, because their immune systems don't produce a strong response to the vaccines. A 2021 study showed only about 56 percent of immuno-compromised people developed an adequate level of protection against COVID-19.
 
Nevertheless, the CDC, state governors and the Biden White House, intimidated by the loud, shrill and hysterical protests of anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and members of the Trump MAGA-verse, have announced that the pandemic is effectively over and that we all can dispense with the safety measures we have been living under for two years. This amounts to nothing less than rampant discrimination directed at and contempt for the immuno-compromised. Our political leaders and the CDC have washed their hands of the people at the highest risk of contracting the virus and of hospitalization and death. In proclaiming its relaxation of safety measures, the CDC lamely suggests that the immuno-compromised “talk to their health care provider(s)” about what to do to stay safe.
 
Thus, the immuno-compromised have no choice but to continue to live under the former Covid-19 restrictions: masking, social distancing, staying outside, avoiding crowds, etc. But that will serve them not at all if the rest of the community runs around free of such common sense restraints and potentially able to transmit the virus to others. Moreover, many immuno-compromised individuals will wrongly believe that they too can dispense with all Covid-19 restrictions.
 
The reality is that the pandemic is not over. A new sub-variant of the Omicron variant, designated BA.2, is sweeping across Asia and Europe and causing skyrocketing Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations. At this writing, 30 percent of new Covid cases in the U.S. are attributed to BA.2. It is only a matter of time—and a very short time at that--that BA.2 will entrench itself in the U.S. and cases will once more begin to rise. And that is only the next new variant to impact us. More will likely follow.
 
Our federal and state governments are failing us once again when it comes to tackling the worst pandemic in a century. While President Trump botched the original battle to contain the virus by his stunning ignorance, monumental incompetence and advocacy of ridiculous and dangerous “cures” such as drinking bleach, we expect more from the Biden administration. Especially since the hacks and buffoons that populated the political and public health communities under Trump have been replaced by seemingly competent professionals with unassailable pedigrees.
 
Sadly, these seemingly capable leaders who should know better have once again allowed politics to prevail over public health. This is unfortunately underscored by a feckless Congress unwilling to enact legislation currently before it to fund public health preparedness for the next pandemic. This head-in-the-sand irresponsibility is reminiscent of the Trump administration’s negligent deep-sixing of the offices and planning documents it inherited that outlined the steps to be taken in the event of a pandemic threat.
 
For millions of vulnerable people, COVID-19 is far from over. Soon that may also be the case for the entire population. When that happens, reimposing safety measures will be extremely difficult if not impossible. The consequences of allowing politics to overpower public health will be dire.
 
Dick Hermann
March 18, 2022

​Both the U.S. and the European Union have taken a huge step toward sanctioning Russia for its Ukraine aggression. They are substantially reducing their Russian oil and gas imports—the U.S. to zero. While an essential sanction, this action will greatly increase the price of gas, contribute to worsening inflation and risk the ire of voters.
 
There are, however, three initiatives that the U.S. could take to temper gas prices and take some of the pressure off hard-pressed consumers: (1) encouraging an increase in domestic oil and gas production; (2) temporarily suspending federal and state gas taxes; and (3) providing means-tested tax credits/rebates to taxpayers.
 
(1)   Oil and gas production companies will hardly require government incentives to rev up production. When the oil price tanked as the planet emerged from the Great Recession and Saudi Arabia substantially increased production in order to reduce competition from America’s exploding shale oil and gas fracking industry, drilling became unprofitable. Many U.S. drillers capped their wells. Now that oil prices are skyrocketing, uncapping those wells and resuming production is a no-brainer. Visions of windfall profits are about to be realized.
 
(2)   Congress should move immediately to suspend the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. Federal gas taxes fund the Highway Trust Fund, which finances road construction and repairs. Since the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocates much more money to highway and bridge building and maintenance than is in the Highway Trust Fund, the temporary suspension of the gas tax will hardly be felt at all.
 
The states should follow suit and also suspend their fuel taxes, which are often even higher than the federal levy, ranging from a low of 14.98 cents per gallon (Alaska) to 66.98 cents per gallon (California).
 
Doing the math, the price at the pump will be reduced by between 33 and 85 cents per gallon depending on the state.
 
(3)   The U.S. has a long history of means-tested tax credits/rebates it has allowed either to encourage certain behaviors or to alleviate pocketbook pressure in a crisis. The most recent such initiatives were prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on family finances. Instituting such a credit based on taxpayer miles traveled or gas expenditures would lessen the added expense burden caused by higher prices.
 
So that taxpayers should not have to wait until the next tax filing season, credits could be distributed quarterly based on a sampling of miles traveled/gas consumed, with adjustments for individual taxpayers based on their annual tax filings.
 
The combination of all three initiatives would insulate the U.S. somewhat from global energy vicissitudes while also easing inflation’s impact on family pocketbooks and the national economy.
 
Dick Hermann
March 11, 2022

The most disquieting news out of Moscow since child-murderer Vladimir Putin launched his criminal war against Ukraine was his announcement that he had put Russia’s nuclear forces “on high alert,” accompanied by a threat that anyone who stands in his way “…must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” To date, the U.S. and NATO do not appear to be taking this threat seriously. That must change.
 
One can interpret Putin’s declaration as a threat of nuclear strikes against any Western country that might militarily intervene against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. What we don’t know is Putin’s definition of “Western military intervention.” It may be merely providing Ukraine with weapons, which a number of NATO countries—as well as non-member states like Sweden—are doing. Moreover, Russia carried out nuclear exercises in late February.
 
Russia expert Fiona Hill, formerly the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council under Trump, warns that Putin really might use nuclear weapons and that he had tried to warn Trump about his willingness to do so, but Trump didn’t understand the warning. Russia’s recent history of going to extreme lengths—poisonings with radioactive polonium and the Novichok nerve agent are indicators, Hill said, that Putin will stop at nothing to get his way. She also believes that Putin will not stop at Ukraine unless the Western response deters him.
 
Similar to the United States’ five Defense Readiness Conditions (DEFCONs), Russia has four levels of nuclear alert: 1. CONSTANT. 2. ELEVATED. 3. MILITARY DANGER. 4. FULL. Putin’s high alert translates to level 2, ELEVATED. The Pentagon announced that there has been no change in our nuclear posture, but it never tells the public which DEFCON level applies. Defense experts surmise that, in response to Putin’s move, the U.S. is now at DEFCON 3 (DEFCON 5 is the lowest state of readiness, while DEFCON 1 means nuclear war). We have only declared DEFCON 2 twice (both during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis).
 
The question before us is what would it take for Putin to use nuclear weapons? Would he go to that extreme if his invasion of Ukraine is not going well? Would nukes be on the table if the West’s squeeze of the Russian economy threatens his rule? And if he did deploy nukes—presumably tactical, not strategic weapons—how, if at all, would the U.S. respond? We have only a small tactical nuclear capability remaining in Europe after we decommissioned and removed 98 percent of our European tactical nukes in 1989-91. We likely only have around 100 air-launched tactical, nuclear bombs at six bases in Europe and Turkey. Russia, in contrast, has almost 2,000 tactical nukes in its arsenal. Russia has also updated many of its tactical nuclear weapons, introduced new ones and is improving its delivery capabilities.
 
In December, Russia’s ally Belarus, allowed Russia to place tactical nuclear weapons within the country. Belarus borders three NATO member nations.
 
The answer depends to a great extent on Putin’s mental state, something the U.S. intelligence community is deeply worried about. Given the recklessness of his Ukraine aggression, it may not be far-fetched to conclude that the increasingly paranoid and isolated Russian president has “lost it” and gone off the deep end mentally. If that is the case, then we might be uncomfortably close to witnessing the first use of nuclear weapons in 77 years.
 
Going nuclear is not limited to the employment of atomic weapons. Putin may already be playing the second nuclear card, a dirty bomb. He has captured Chernobyl, site of the worst nuclear disaster ever, and followed that up with nabbing the Zaporizhzhia power station (after recklessly shelling it and starting a fire), home to six nuclear reactors that provide 25 percent of Ukraine’s electricity. Both sites contain massive amounts of highly radioactive material that, if unleashed, could wreak unimaginable devastation. If the Russians cut off Zaporizhzhia’s power, the reactor cores could melt down and spread radioactive fallout across Ukraine and beyond. Europeans, who are most at risk, are stocking up on potassium iodide pills that offer some small protection from radioactive fallout. Given his appalling rocket attack on Zaporizhzhia, the intelligence community’s concern about Putin’s mental state is well-founded.
 
Russia no longer has a Politburo that, during the Cold War, acted as a counterweight to its supreme leader. In 1953, the Politburo had Secret Police Chief Lavrenty Beria arrested, tried and executed, fearing his ruthlessness and consolidation of power. In 1964, Communist Party Chairman Nikita Khrushchev was ousted by the Politburo for his deviation from the strict Stalinist line, among other things. Today, however, the absence of a Politburo means that there is no potential top-level opposition to Putin. The oligarchs that have supported him likely are not sufficiently organized to stage a coup d’état. Whether the top ranks of the Russian military could or would stage a coup is open to question.
 
Putin has broken many norms in his two decades in power. Breaking the nuclear taboo is not out of the question. The U.S. and NATO should assume the worst case and prepare accordingly. The risk of a miscalculation by either side is too great to ignore. The time for thinking the unthinkable is now.
 
Richard Hermann
March 5, 2022