I agree with many things on the bulwark but the opinions re the migs and the No fly zone are ones I strongly disagree with. I've been unable to truly articulate why but an interview with a Royal United Services Institute Research Fellow nailed my concerns. I think you might really want to watch his arguments re the migs and the NFZ: here is a link to the interview (starting at 34.29) https://youtu.be/iBARgW_vHVE?t=2069 if you want to search for it it's called "Military Aviation Expert on Why a No Fly Zone Would Solve Putin’s Problem"
Some General said “war is hell”. Now we see it on screen. If 60% support not just strong words but mo fly over and MIGs to Ukraine, it means forty per cent dont. Not a great margin to declare war. When Zelensky speaks to Congress what will support be. Declaring battle with Russia over Ukraine needs their support. Of the forty percent some are pacifists, some Purtin admirers . The middle may switch, but many are concerned more with the price of gasoline. Biden is keeping the Europeans together and will speak with more force if the people and Congress rise up.
One thing that I was surprised to not hear mentioned on the podcast today, amid talk of possible escalations like chemical weapons, was the possibility of using tactical nukes. David French's latest article in the Atlantic discusses this terrifying possibility:
I have to admit, this was eye opening for me. I tend to lump all nuclear attacks into the same bucket; what would technically be referred to as *strategic* nukes (i.e. large-scale, long-range rocket attacks that transcend the current theatre of war and could potentially ignite a global conflict). In which case it's easy to say, "there's no way Putin launches nukes; call his bluff".
But French focuses on *tactical* nukes - low-yield, short-range weapons that could potentially compensate for Russia's conventional disadvantage against the West (because Russia has about 20 times the tactical nukes the U.S. has in Europe). French maintains that such weapons are likely part of Russia's regular military planning, and that they could conceivably resort to using them without worrying about nuclear escalation from the West. After all, there's simply no way we would ignite a global nuclear war in response to tactical nukes, and everyone knows it - we'd be signing the death warrants of millions of Americans.
It's hard to say exactly what we'd do in such a scenario; we might retaliate with judicious use of our own limited supply of tactical nukes, but it's hard to say how effective that would be. At that point, flying into Ukraine to defend it might be woefully inadequate and far more dangerous than anyone currently calling for military intervention imagines. And flying straight into Russia to topple Putin would run the serious risk of triggering a nuclear backlash.
All I can say is, prior to reading this article, I was heavily leaning toward military intervention, but this was kind of a record-scratch moment for me. Now I just don't know. Staying the current course might be our only realistic option.
It seems like everyone thinks that the US just gave away Crimea. My memory is that one of Obama's biggest mandates he was elected upon...was to get us out of endless overseas wars....since he inherited 2 major ones from W. Remember also that he won the Nobel Peace Prize....there was very little incentive for Obama to go to war...and I think a large part of our country was ok with that...at the time. He could have done more with his support of Ukraine but I think he was erring on the side of caution.
Too often we look at history with our current circumstances in mind. Obama had a fully different set of circumstances...
I didn't vote for Obama by the way...but my respect for him has increased a lot in the past 5 years....and I never hated him like so many of the MAGAs do.
This is not fair to Biden. He is not channeling Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not send a flood of weapons to Czechoslovakia. The U.S. and NATO are doing a tremendous amount to help Ukraine. We are providing huge numbers of effective weapons. Ukraine would have been overrun a week ago without them. What we will not do is commit direct acts of war by having our soldiers kill Russian soldiers. The distinction between providing weapons and having your own soldiers use these weapons may be artificial. It may even be silly. But this is how international laws and the so-called laws of war work. Putin has nuclear weapons. If he is backed into a corner and attacked by NATO forces, he may use them. This is not a risk we should take to save Ukraine. The people of Ukraine may have to suffer from a Russian occupation for years, until Putin dies or is removed from office. That is tragic, but not a tragedy that we should risk nuclear annihilation to prevent. Saying we should risk that is like saying we should invade North Korea because it is the most brutal regime on earth and it subjects its own people to unspeakable cruelty. Yes, it does, but that is not a problem we can fix without risking nuclear attacks on S. Korea, Japan and the U.S. There are limits to U.S. military power.
I think too many people, including Mr. Sykes, are not taking into account the mental instability of Vladimir Putin. When you are dealing with someone who is paranoid and on the defensive, you have to speak slowly and clearly about setting boundaries. That is, you shouldn't be engaging in the same game of "maybe I will, maybe I won't" threats and implications. Biden's message that Nato is NOT putting ground forces into Ukraine and Russia is NOT facing an existential threat is being heard by the Russian military - and I'll bet they are slowly being drawn into relying more on this consistent message than the increasingly bizarre threats and hysteria from Putin and his coterie. I don't think Putin is totally rational at this point, and that calls for a firm, consistent, public message.
Besides, although I think this is too much subtlety, it's possible the emphasis on airplanes over Ukraine serves as a valuable cover for what is really going on - the transfer of more significant and effective fighting technology to Ukraine. By keeping the "no-fly-zone" as the red line we WON'T cross and talking a lot about it, we can cross plenty of other lines quietly. "Oh, no, no, no, see, we AREN'T enforcing a no-fly-zone. Just look at what we're NOT doing." (oh, and another 100 javelins just crossed the border into Ukraine).
I trust Biden's experience and instincts on foreign policy. But neither he nor Dems in general know dipsh&t about good messaging! It is way past time to stop telling Putin he can take anything but NATO. Perhaps he could say something like "We're with our NATO allies and when they go in, we go in." We don't always need to "lead" in every sense of the word; that's just hubris. Europe is much more at risk than we are, still. But we DO need to lead. And not be cowards in the face of another murderous ruthless Russian thug (or an American one for that matter). I assume much is going on behind the scenes. But the messaging is still not a good one and doesn't pacify anyone.
BTW, the idea that we are not yet in World War III is ludicrous! Putin declared WWIII before he entered Ukraine and has declared it daily ever since! We may not be at war with HIM but HE is at war with US, and the EU and NATO and everyone living in anything like a democratic country!!!!
BTW Part II, he will cross NATO boundaries with abandon as soon as Ukraine ceases to exist, because he still has seen no consequences, no guardrails, no willingness to stop him. (Sound familiar? Tyrants are tyrants.)
BTW Part III, in any other sane country, Tucker Carlson would be Off the Air until the war is over! Including in Russia, as Putin has just shown the world!
I get tired of statements like this, "Unfortunately, this continues a pattern of signaling to Putin the things we will not do. And it draws a seemingly bright red line that excludes several countries (including Moldova) for which Putin might have an appetite."
Does anyone remember that before the invasion started that a significant minority of Americans favored Putin and questioned our interests in Ukraine?
And when Biden began to raise the alarm, most experts did not think that Russia would invade. Nor were the Europeans on board.
It is still not clear that we can risk entering the fight directly. Nor is it clear that Nato members want to enter the fight. After all, it is Poland, Germany et al who will have to assemble the weaponry if we really want to do a lot more. And it would take little for Russia to aim cruise missiles at Nato assets. They would not need accuracy either.
The best we can do is to do what we are doing. Take time and bleed Russia. It will not be good for Ukraine, but Ukraine was lost before we started.
Center for Strategic Analysis, University of Northeast Southern Hawaii, (June, 2023) :
Abstract
Finland and Sweden's 2022 NATO admission doomed the wet dreams of would be emperor of Eurasia's eastern rump. Although Eastasia remained neutral in the Ukranian War, the Disputed Territories finally aligned with Oceania and pummeled the bejesus out of Eurasia [rump]. Military and economic offenses by Oceania obliterated Eurasia rump's military force and cast her citizens into likely permanent impoverishment. When last seen, the emperor wannabe was seen running naked through Red Square trying to evade a PL-15 bullet in the forehead.
In 2008 Putin made an excuse to invade Georgia. Six years later in 2014 Putin made an excuse to invade Crimea. Eight years later in 2022 he lied to invade Ukraine. Putin is a murderous thug dictator that helped Syria's Assad use chemical weapons on civilians despite the fact Obama had declared that a line in the sand. The line was crossed. We did nothing and Putin was emboldened. The people who know Putin best like Garry Kasparov and Fiona Hill say Putin will never stop. Both also say, along with others, we have been in WW3 for some time. Putin interfered in our 2016 election. His goal of dividing Americans has been wildly successful. Plus he has Fox News and Tucker Carlson among others spewing his propaganda 24/7. Presidents from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Obama have appeased Putin. Worse, Trump embraced, supported and enabled Putin. When Trump tried to extort Ukraine and hold back military equipment, Putin was having an orgasm. So now Putin is committing genocide in Ukraine. And although Biden has done a masterful job, he made a mistake in declaring only NATO nations would be defended. As Kasparov pointed out Putin now knows he can go after other non-NATO countries because Biden "once again let fear control him". Right now Russians in occupied parts of Ukraine are executing citizens. Mayors have been removed and no one knows where they are. Russian state television is promoting hanging Ukranians. It reeks of Hitler. So give Zelensky whatever he wants. But at some point we will have to have the courage to become more involved. History has shown that to be true.
I think Biden is pretty much getting things right so far. As to this messaging thing, maybe or maybe not. I know enough to know what I don't know. And that is what's going on behind the scenes out of the range of the public's eyes and ears. Wouldn't be the first time a president or his administration took a public position on something knowing full well they may have to abandon it. And whatever message Biden may be sending to Russia in public, there may be a very different one being sent in other ways behind the scenes. Or there may not. But the public didn't know what was done behind closed doors to resolve the Cuban missile crisis until long after the fact. Of course, this is not that in some very significant ways, but still...
What I would like to hear Biden talking about in public is the fact that there will be a cost for all of this that we, as a country, must bear whether we like it or not. We can argue all we want about whose fault it is that we find ourselves in the position that we do. There's plenty of blame to go around. But that won't accomplish anything other than making some egos feel better. We are where we are at the moment, and we must pay the price, whatever it turns out to be. Or the price to be paid later will be much steeper.
At the risk of sounding like an endless echo...Freedom isn't free. And another payment on the account is now due. Actually, it is past due. And as the leader of this country, Biden should be making that clear to all of those here - myself included - who have taken the possession of this precious and invaluable treasure for granted for far too long. As the tag line from a very old advertising campaign said..."You can pay me now, or you can pay me later", the inference being that paying later would be much more expensive.
We need to be prepared to pay up. And Biden should be making that point at every opportunity.
In the statement "Had NATO signals been ambiguous (even if their true intention was NOT to defend Ukraine), that would have raised Putin’s expected costs of war-he doesn't want to fight NATO. Even a small risk of NATO involvement would have forced him to tread lightly, and maybe, prevented the war.", the key word is MAYBE. But Putin has been chipping away at Ukraine (and Georgia and Moldova) for years and seems clearly to be intent on reconstituting some version of the Russian Empire, or at the very least a "greater Russia" that includes Belarus and Ukraine. So even with ambiguity from the West, there is a good likelihood of continued aggression from Russia against Ukraine, and then what? It seems like a certainty that if NATO countries did not intervene in Ukraine that (a) Ukrainians would have a massive sense of betrayal despite the absence of any promises from us (since people tend to hear what they want to hear rather than what was said unless it's made crystal clear), and (b) Russia would move the needle from "Maybe" to "Almost certainly not" in terms of us intervening in Moldova and elsewhere. And then what would we have gained from that ambiguity?
I just wanted to comment to give Amanda Carpenter some love. Her article about disinformation is as comprehensive yet easy to follow as we’ve come to expect from her.
I keep hearing if Ukraine falls to Putin "the Baltics will be next". If Putin had pulled off a Blitzkrieg like Hitler did in Poland and France that idea might be a realistic worry. But even IF Putin wins this war the cost will be great enough that he isn't going to whip around and go into direct conflict with NATO. Even after a substantial pause to reconstitute his depleted material and human resources.
I don't think anyone in the West is really expecting a definitive Ukrainian victory. Everyone knows that barring a total rout of one side or the other there will be a negotiated settlement of some sort and the West wants to give Ukraine the strongest possible hand in those eventual negotiations. But, no, Ukraine is not worth a wider armed conflict in Europe... so threatening to have one isn't really helpful.
American enthusiasm for Ukraine, like American enthusiasm for everything that captures their attention, is a mile wide and an inch deep. Anything that would require Americans to suffer any involuntary sacrifice, however slight, will be used as a cudgel by Republicans to defeat Biden. Just look at the demagoguery around gas prices.
I agree with many things on the bulwark but the opinions re the migs and the No fly zone are ones I strongly disagree with. I've been unable to truly articulate why but an interview with a Royal United Services Institute Research Fellow nailed my concerns. I think you might really want to watch his arguments re the migs and the NFZ: here is a link to the interview (starting at 34.29) https://youtu.be/iBARgW_vHVE?t=2069 if you want to search for it it's called "Military Aviation Expert on Why a No Fly Zone Would Solve Putin’s Problem"
Some General said “war is hell”. Now we see it on screen. If 60% support not just strong words but mo fly over and MIGs to Ukraine, it means forty per cent dont. Not a great margin to declare war. When Zelensky speaks to Congress what will support be. Declaring battle with Russia over Ukraine needs their support. Of the forty percent some are pacifists, some Purtin admirers . The middle may switch, but many are concerned more with the price of gasoline. Biden is keeping the Europeans together and will speak with more force if the people and Congress rise up.

One thing that I was surprised to not hear mentioned on the podcast today, amid talk of possible escalations like chemical weapons, was the possibility of using tactical nukes. David French's latest article in the Atlantic discusses this terrifying possibility:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/a-uniquely-perilous-moment/627040/
I have to admit, this was eye opening for me. I tend to lump all nuclear attacks into the same bucket; what would technically be referred to as *strategic* nukes (i.e. large-scale, long-range rocket attacks that transcend the current theatre of war and could potentially ignite a global conflict). In which case it's easy to say, "there's no way Putin launches nukes; call his bluff".
But French focuses on *tactical* nukes - low-yield, short-range weapons that could potentially compensate for Russia's conventional disadvantage against the West (because Russia has about 20 times the tactical nukes the U.S. has in Europe). French maintains that such weapons are likely part of Russia's regular military planning, and that they could conceivably resort to using them without worrying about nuclear escalation from the West. After all, there's simply no way we would ignite a global nuclear war in response to tactical nukes, and everyone knows it - we'd be signing the death warrants of millions of Americans.
It's hard to say exactly what we'd do in such a scenario; we might retaliate with judicious use of our own limited supply of tactical nukes, but it's hard to say how effective that would be. At that point, flying into Ukraine to defend it might be woefully inadequate and far more dangerous than anyone currently calling for military intervention imagines. And flying straight into Russia to topple Putin would run the serious risk of triggering a nuclear backlash.
All I can say is, prior to reading this article, I was heavily leaning toward military intervention, but this was kind of a record-scratch moment for me. Now I just don't know. Staying the current course might be our only realistic option.
In Obama's defense...
It seems like everyone thinks that the US just gave away Crimea. My memory is that one of Obama's biggest mandates he was elected upon...was to get us out of endless overseas wars....since he inherited 2 major ones from W. Remember also that he won the Nobel Peace Prize....there was very little incentive for Obama to go to war...and I think a large part of our country was ok with that...at the time. He could have done more with his support of Ukraine but I think he was erring on the side of caution.
Too often we look at history with our current circumstances in mind. Obama had a fully different set of circumstances...
I didn't vote for Obama by the way...but my respect for him has increased a lot in the past 5 years....and I never hated him like so many of the MAGAs do.
This is not fair to Biden. He is not channeling Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not send a flood of weapons to Czechoslovakia. The U.S. and NATO are doing a tremendous amount to help Ukraine. We are providing huge numbers of effective weapons. Ukraine would have been overrun a week ago without them. What we will not do is commit direct acts of war by having our soldiers kill Russian soldiers. The distinction between providing weapons and having your own soldiers use these weapons may be artificial. It may even be silly. But this is how international laws and the so-called laws of war work. Putin has nuclear weapons. If he is backed into a corner and attacked by NATO forces, he may use them. This is not a risk we should take to save Ukraine. The people of Ukraine may have to suffer from a Russian occupation for years, until Putin dies or is removed from office. That is tragic, but not a tragedy that we should risk nuclear annihilation to prevent. Saying we should risk that is like saying we should invade North Korea because it is the most brutal regime on earth and it subjects its own people to unspeakable cruelty. Yes, it does, but that is not a problem we can fix without risking nuclear attacks on S. Korea, Japan and the U.S. There are limits to U.S. military power.
I think too many people, including Mr. Sykes, are not taking into account the mental instability of Vladimir Putin. When you are dealing with someone who is paranoid and on the defensive, you have to speak slowly and clearly about setting boundaries. That is, you shouldn't be engaging in the same game of "maybe I will, maybe I won't" threats and implications. Biden's message that Nato is NOT putting ground forces into Ukraine and Russia is NOT facing an existential threat is being heard by the Russian military - and I'll bet they are slowly being drawn into relying more on this consistent message than the increasingly bizarre threats and hysteria from Putin and his coterie. I don't think Putin is totally rational at this point, and that calls for a firm, consistent, public message.
Besides, although I think this is too much subtlety, it's possible the emphasis on airplanes over Ukraine serves as a valuable cover for what is really going on - the transfer of more significant and effective fighting technology to Ukraine. By keeping the "no-fly-zone" as the red line we WON'T cross and talking a lot about it, we can cross plenty of other lines quietly. "Oh, no, no, no, see, we AREN'T enforcing a no-fly-zone. Just look at what we're NOT doing." (oh, and another 100 javelins just crossed the border into Ukraine).
I trust Biden's experience and instincts on foreign policy. But neither he nor Dems in general know dipsh&t about good messaging! It is way past time to stop telling Putin he can take anything but NATO. Perhaps he could say something like "We're with our NATO allies and when they go in, we go in." We don't always need to "lead" in every sense of the word; that's just hubris. Europe is much more at risk than we are, still. But we DO need to lead. And not be cowards in the face of another murderous ruthless Russian thug (or an American one for that matter). I assume much is going on behind the scenes. But the messaging is still not a good one and doesn't pacify anyone.
BTW, the idea that we are not yet in World War III is ludicrous! Putin declared WWIII before he entered Ukraine and has declared it daily ever since! We may not be at war with HIM but HE is at war with US, and the EU and NATO and everyone living in anything like a democratic country!!!!
BTW Part II, he will cross NATO boundaries with abandon as soon as Ukraine ceases to exist, because he still has seen no consequences, no guardrails, no willingness to stop him. (Sound familiar? Tyrants are tyrants.)
BTW Part III, in any other sane country, Tucker Carlson would be Off the Air until the war is over! Including in Russia, as Putin has just shown the world!
I get tired of statements like this, "Unfortunately, this continues a pattern of signaling to Putin the things we will not do. And it draws a seemingly bright red line that excludes several countries (including Moldova) for which Putin might have an appetite."
Does anyone remember that before the invasion started that a significant minority of Americans favored Putin and questioned our interests in Ukraine?
And when Biden began to raise the alarm, most experts did not think that Russia would invade. Nor were the Europeans on board.
It is still not clear that we can risk entering the fight directly. Nor is it clear that Nato members want to enter the fight. After all, it is Poland, Germany et al who will have to assemble the weaponry if we really want to do a lot more. And it would take little for Russia to aim cruise missiles at Nato assets. They would not need accuracy either.
The best we can do is to do what we are doing. Take time and bleed Russia. It will not be good for Ukraine, but Ukraine was lost before we started.
"Will Sweden Join NATO?"
Center for Strategic Analysis, University of Northeast Southern Hawaii, (June, 2023) :
Abstract
Finland and Sweden's 2022 NATO admission doomed the wet dreams of would be emperor of Eurasia's eastern rump. Although Eastasia remained neutral in the Ukranian War, the Disputed Territories finally aligned with Oceania and pummeled the bejesus out of Eurasia [rump]. Military and economic offenses by Oceania obliterated Eurasia rump's military force and cast her citizens into likely permanent impoverishment. When last seen, the emperor wannabe was seen running naked through Red Square trying to evade a PL-15 bullet in the forehead.
In 2008 Putin made an excuse to invade Georgia. Six years later in 2014 Putin made an excuse to invade Crimea. Eight years later in 2022 he lied to invade Ukraine. Putin is a murderous thug dictator that helped Syria's Assad use chemical weapons on civilians despite the fact Obama had declared that a line in the sand. The line was crossed. We did nothing and Putin was emboldened. The people who know Putin best like Garry Kasparov and Fiona Hill say Putin will never stop. Both also say, along with others, we have been in WW3 for some time. Putin interfered in our 2016 election. His goal of dividing Americans has been wildly successful. Plus he has Fox News and Tucker Carlson among others spewing his propaganda 24/7. Presidents from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Obama have appeased Putin. Worse, Trump embraced, supported and enabled Putin. When Trump tried to extort Ukraine and hold back military equipment, Putin was having an orgasm. So now Putin is committing genocide in Ukraine. And although Biden has done a masterful job, he made a mistake in declaring only NATO nations would be defended. As Kasparov pointed out Putin now knows he can go after other non-NATO countries because Biden "once again let fear control him". Right now Russians in occupied parts of Ukraine are executing citizens. Mayors have been removed and no one knows where they are. Russian state television is promoting hanging Ukranians. It reeks of Hitler. So give Zelensky whatever he wants. But at some point we will have to have the courage to become more involved. History has shown that to be true.
I think Biden is pretty much getting things right so far. As to this messaging thing, maybe or maybe not. I know enough to know what I don't know. And that is what's going on behind the scenes out of the range of the public's eyes and ears. Wouldn't be the first time a president or his administration took a public position on something knowing full well they may have to abandon it. And whatever message Biden may be sending to Russia in public, there may be a very different one being sent in other ways behind the scenes. Or there may not. But the public didn't know what was done behind closed doors to resolve the Cuban missile crisis until long after the fact. Of course, this is not that in some very significant ways, but still...
What I would like to hear Biden talking about in public is the fact that there will be a cost for all of this that we, as a country, must bear whether we like it or not. We can argue all we want about whose fault it is that we find ourselves in the position that we do. There's plenty of blame to go around. But that won't accomplish anything other than making some egos feel better. We are where we are at the moment, and we must pay the price, whatever it turns out to be. Or the price to be paid later will be much steeper.
At the risk of sounding like an endless echo...Freedom isn't free. And another payment on the account is now due. Actually, it is past due. And as the leader of this country, Biden should be making that clear to all of those here - myself included - who have taken the possession of this precious and invaluable treasure for granted for far too long. As the tag line from a very old advertising campaign said..."You can pay me now, or you can pay me later", the inference being that paying later would be much more expensive.
We need to be prepared to pay up. And Biden should be making that point at every opportunity.
I totally agree and they are creating a problem because they think they know it all!
In the statement "Had NATO signals been ambiguous (even if their true intention was NOT to defend Ukraine), that would have raised Putin’s expected costs of war-he doesn't want to fight NATO. Even a small risk of NATO involvement would have forced him to tread lightly, and maybe, prevented the war.", the key word is MAYBE. But Putin has been chipping away at Ukraine (and Georgia and Moldova) for years and seems clearly to be intent on reconstituting some version of the Russian Empire, or at the very least a "greater Russia" that includes Belarus and Ukraine. So even with ambiguity from the West, there is a good likelihood of continued aggression from Russia against Ukraine, and then what? It seems like a certainty that if NATO countries did not intervene in Ukraine that (a) Ukrainians would have a massive sense of betrayal despite the absence of any promises from us (since people tend to hear what they want to hear rather than what was said unless it's made crystal clear), and (b) Russia would move the needle from "Maybe" to "Almost certainly not" in terms of us intervening in Moldova and elsewhere. And then what would we have gained from that ambiguity?
I just wanted to comment to give Amanda Carpenter some love. Her article about disinformation is as comprehensive yet easy to follow as we’ve come to expect from her.
I keep hearing if Ukraine falls to Putin "the Baltics will be next". If Putin had pulled off a Blitzkrieg like Hitler did in Poland and France that idea might be a realistic worry. But even IF Putin wins this war the cost will be great enough that he isn't going to whip around and go into direct conflict with NATO. Even after a substantial pause to reconstitute his depleted material and human resources.
I don't think anyone in the West is really expecting a definitive Ukrainian victory. Everyone knows that barring a total rout of one side or the other there will be a negotiated settlement of some sort and the West wants to give Ukraine the strongest possible hand in those eventual negotiations. But, no, Ukraine is not worth a wider armed conflict in Europe... so threatening to have one isn't really helpful.
American enthusiasm for Ukraine, like American enthusiasm for everything that captures their attention, is a mile wide and an inch deep. Anything that would require Americans to suffer any involuntary sacrifice, however slight, will be used as a cudgel by Republicans to defeat Biden. Just look at the demagoguery around gas prices.
Since at least The 1920s, American conservatives have been enamored with right wing authoritarians. Look at the Pinochet worship for but one example