Palestinian Authority's Support for Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Continues the Trend of Palestinian Arab Support for Tyranny

It is not surprising that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas supports Russia's invasion of Ukraine, because Abbas' connection to Russia/the former Soviet Union extends back for several decades:

Abbas has a close personal relationship with Russia that mirrors the historically warm ties between Moscow and the PLO.

In the early 1980s, Abbas studied in the Soviet Union, where he was awarded a doctorate for a dissertation falsely alleging that the Zionist movement was just as culpable as the Nazi regime for the Holocaust during World War II.

In 2016, Israeli researchers at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem discovered a Soviet-era document that listed Abbas as an agent for the KGB spy agency--an allegation the Palestinian leader dismissed as an Israeli fabrication.

The document, confirmed as authentic by the Churchill Archives Centre at the University of Cambridge in the UK, identified Abbas as "Krotov"--the Russian word for "mole." The entry for Abbas described him as "born 1935, origin Palestine, member of the executive committee of Fatah, PLO, Damascus, agent of the KGB."

Abba Eban, Israel's Foreign Minister from 1966-1974, once declared--in exasperation at the Arab refusal to make peace with Israel no matter the terms--"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." That is a very charitable way of describing the behavior of many Arab/Islamic governments; it would be more accurate to say that the Arab/Islamic nations rarely miss an opportunity to ally themselves with tyrants and terrorists of all stripes. 

Here are just a few illustrative examples:

PLO leader Yasser Arafat was a KGB sponsored-terrorist according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as the chief of Romanian intelligence in the 1970s and thus has firsthand knowledge of the PLO's intimate--and profitable--connections with the Soviet Union, Romania, and other Eastern Bloc nations.

Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat, mythologized as a man of peace, wrote an adulatory letter to Adolf Hitler: 

Dear Hitler: I salute you from the depths of my heart. Though you have apparently lost your war, you are the real winner, for you succeeded in breaking the lines between Churchill and his accomplices. True, you have made a few mistakes by fighting on too many fronts, but you have become an eternal leader of Germany and no one ought to be surprised if you will rise to power again or if the world will see another great Hitler.

Sadat's admiration of Hitler should not surprise anyone, because Egypt provided "a place in the sun for the Nazi elite," and Egypt and Syria have long been pro-Nazi countries that sheltered Nazi war criminals: 

In fact, the list of some habitués of Cairo in the 1950s and the 1960s reads like a who's who of Nazi Germany, featuring as it did the rescuer of Mussolini, Otto Skorzeny; the ace Stuka pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel; the leader of a notorious SS penal unit, Oskar Dirlewanger; and the particularly odious and violently anti-Semitic stooge of Goebbels, Johannes von Leers.

What made the relationship between these former Nazis and the Egyptians and Syrians so successful was that it was a genuinely two-way deal. The Arabs offered the Nazis a haven, as well as a market for all their nefarious dealings in arms and black market currency. The Nazis, meanwhile, were able to provide technical and military experts, as well as the knowhow of establishing the instruments of repression.

However, below the back scratching lay a deep and dark underpinning to the relationship between the crescent and the swastika. That was, of course, a hatred of the Jews, and in particular, a desire to see the eradication of Israel.

That shared exterminationist desire had been born during the war itself, when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, had made his home in the luxurious Hotel Adlon in Berlin in 1941, and had impressed Hitler with his hatred of the Jews. The Mufti lobbied the Nazis hard to kick the British out of the Middle East, and he was instrumental in raising recruits for a largely Muslim unit of the SS called the 13^th Armed Mountain Division of the SS Handschar.

In addition, throughout the war in North Africa, German intelligence had worked closely with the Egyptians, and the Mufti is thought to have been a key intermediary between King Farouk and Hitler himself. If further evidence were needed that the roots of the Nazi-Arab affair were required, then it is worth considering the fact that both Nasser and his successor, Anwar Sadat, had been wartime agents for the Germans.

Widespread Palestinian Arab support for Saddam Hussein is well-documented, as is the unfettered public joy expressed by Palestinian Arabs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the early 2000s, Arafat received $2.5 million from Moammar Khadafy's Libya in support of Arab terrorism against Israel. Around that time, Arafat and Abbas played a perverse version of "good cop, bad cop," with Abbas pretending that he wanted peace but was powerless to stop "extremists," when the reality was that Abbas did nothing substantive to stop Arafat from continuing to finance terrorist attacks. 

No, the Palestinian Authority's support for Russian tyranny and Russian war crimes is not at all surprising, nor is it surprising that media outlets and self-proclaimed "progressives" continue to vilify Israel while giving aid and comfort to Arab/Islamic terrorists.

Hypocritical Antisemites Crawl Out of the Woodwork in the Wake of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine, But Are Silent About Arab Terrorism Against Jews

Israel is a tiny country located over 1000 miles away from Russia and Ukraine. According to various politicians and media outlets, Israel also should be blamed for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a word for such malignant foolishness: antisemitism. 

Antisemitic charlatans, fools, and hypocrites are making their voices heard loud and clear: whatever happens or does not happen in Ukraine must be blamed on Israel:

Despite Israel delivering 230 tons of humanitarian aid, including bulletproof ambulances, setting up a field hospital and taking in thousands of refugees, the pressure campaign insists that it isn't doing enough. And that the war not only involves Israel, but that the outcome depends on it.

There's notably much less interest in India, a country of 1.3 billion, which buys Russian oil, has close ties to Russia and refused to condemn the invasion, than in Israel, a country of 6.5 million, which doesn't buy Russian oil and did vote to condemn the invasion at the United Nations.

No matter what the position on the war is, the consensus is that Israel is doing the wrong thing.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Soros-Koch project that attacks America for being too tough on China, Iran and Russia, demanded to know, "Why is Israel MIA on Ukraine-Russia crisis?" The outrage at Israel for not being involved enough in the Ukraine crisis is being directed by the same leftist-libertarian group that is warning against America getting involved with articles like, "Washington Should Think Twice Before Launching a New Cold War."

The Catch 22 hypocrisy is as obvious as the hate. If Israel is involved in a war, it's evil, but if it's not involved in a war, it's also evil. Whatever Israel does or doesn't do is an outrage.

The hatred of Israel never had anything to do with the so-called "Palestinians," the Arabs, Muslims, or anyone in the Middle East. That's why the same political interests are capable of taking a war in Ukraine thousands of miles away and making it all about the Jewish state.

The Ukraine war has trotted out the familiar toolbox of tropes, with the insistence that Israel somehow has the ability to resolve a war it didn't start, even as Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett scrambles around on the impossible mission of bringing peace to people who don't want it...

"Ukraine War Ignites Israeli Debate Over Purpose of a Jewish State," the New York Times argued, complaining that Israel hadn't taken in enough refugees after it took in 15,000.

Compare that to France, which took in 26,000 Ukrainian refugees despite being 10 times the size of Israel. But France, like India, isn't full of Jews. And so there's no contention that France, which proportionally took in far fewer refugees than Israel, should just stop existing.

(The number of Ukrainian refugees taken in by the New York Times is estimated at zero.)

The magical ability to make any war anywhere about Israel with the same set of familiar anti-Zionist tropes shows that these arguments were never contextual responses to regional conflicts, but a general opposition to the existence of Israel regardless of anything else.

Whatever war is going on wherever, it's Israel’s fault and evidence that it shouldn't exist.

The media's attempts to link Israel to the war in Ukraine are often so tenuous as to take on their own form of surreal absurdity.

NPR found it vitally important to write an entire story based around the fact that there was a bar named the Putin Pub in Jerusalem (it's since been renamed). When a media outlet is this desperate to negatively connect Israel to the Ukraine war, the agenda is clear...

This exciting new hatred of Israel is not about Ukraine, any more than the old variety was about the "Palestinians." Hating Israel is in the end always about one thing and one thing alone.

Hating Jews.

Meanwhile, the allegedly peace-loving Palestinian Arabs who are so beloved by Amnesty International and self-proclaimed "progressives" publicly celebrate terrorists who kill Jews, and pledge to burn down Tel Aviv (click on this link to see a disgusting video that is reminiscent of how the Palestinian Arabs cheered after the 9/11 attacks, and of how they cheered Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, useful reminders that Palestinian Arabs have a long history of supporting evil while also claiming to be innocent victims). It is baffling that any American citizen--let alone any American political leader charged with the responsibility of protecting our interests and keeping us safe--would in any way support Palestinian Arabs, let alone support sending money to Palestinian Arab organizations.

If Israel disappeared from the face of the Earth, the Palestinian Arabs would still be living under the oppression of the Palestinian Authority, the Middle East would still be plagued by war, civil war, backward economies, racism, and sexism, China would still be oppressing its citizens while planning to conquer neighboring countries, and Russia would still be trying to conquer and/or destroy Ukraine. Remember this every time a self-proclaimed "progressive" starts bleating about BDS and every time a right wing antisemite bleats "They will not replace us" while blaming Jews and Israel for every real and imagined problem under the sun.

Words Alone Will not Stop Vladimir Putin

Harsh words do not stop autocratic nationalists from killing their neighbors--harsh actions--specifically, military actions--are necessary. We must confront Vladimir Putin with sufficient force to stop him from conquering Ukraine; every day that we fail to do this increases the risks and the costs, without providing any benefit to us or Ukraine. People like Putin are not deterred by words or by economic sanctions; the lessons of history are clear regarding this. The whole world is watching not just Putin, but us. The United States not only symbolizes democracy, but the United States is the most powerful democracy in the world. Are we willing to fight for freedom, as our brave Founding Fathers did, or will we speak loudly while carrying a hollow stick that we are afraid to swing? 

If U.S. intervention in Ukraine will lead to World War III, then that means that World War III is inevitable, and the only question is whether we prefer to fight that war while Ukraine is independent or after Ukraine has been conquered (or destroyed). If Putin is willing to fight World War III over Ukraine, then nothing we say to him is going to change his mind, which means we can either let him conquer every country he decides to conquer or we can stop him in his tracks right now. Appeasing Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany did not prevent World War II, but appeasement made that war more costly and deadly. It is fair to say if Hitler had been stopped in 1936 then atomic bombs would probably not have been dropped in 1945: the West's fear of a World War will not prevent a dictator from starting a World War, particularly if that dictator believes that his only choice is to conquer or be deposed/killed.

So far, there is no reason to believe that our leaders are capable of rising to this challenge. The defining moment of President Biden's administration is the triumph of the Taliban in the wake of his poorly planned and ill-conceived retreat of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The Biden administration has yet to find its voice or footing on the most important foreign policy issues ranging from Ukraine to China to Iran to Afghanistan. The world is watching us. Other countries could do more, too, but we have the responsibility to lead the charge.

In Sympathy Isn't Enough for Ukraine, Victor Pinchuk declares:

We thank you for the food, the money, the sympathy and the painted blue-and-yellow flags. But if you want to save us, Ukraine needs planes, antiaircraft and antitank missiles, armed drones and other weapons of war. So I beg our friends in the West: Please give Ukraine the planes and other weapons it needs—now. Stop buying coal and oil from Russia. Don't think about it; don't evaluate options; don't consider. Just do it. Time is life. I ask the European Union to make Ukraine a candidate for membership. An independent Ukraine belongs in the EU.

I know these actions entail risks. But in a deadly fight, you can't help without taking risks. And there are even greater risks to inaction. What will happen if you let Russia tear up the international system, destroy a sovereign nation, commit mass murder? The aggressor can be stopped only with force. We have to match Russia's brutality with our speed, decisiveness and determination. We can't keep worrying that the aggressor will escalate. We must make him worry that we can also escalate.

I hope that President Biden and Congress rise to the challenge, but I am not optimistic; there is nothing about Biden's life and career suggesting that he has what it takes to lead the the Free World during these momentous times, while the loudest voices in Congress speak more about their perceived self-interests than about our national duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Pinchuk concludes, "You have a chance to stand up to evil. Take a risk. Trust your conscience. Save the values and ideals of the West. In this moment of crisis, Ukrainians don’t say SOS, 'save our souls.' Ukrainians' lives are in danger, but their souls are safe. We say to you: Save your souls."

What Will Amnesty International and Misguided Media Members Learn From Russia's Ukraine Invasion?

My previous article discussed the origins, likely outcome, and consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine while imploring the West to confront autocratic nationalist Vladimir Putin before it is too late. The top priority now must be to stop Russia and restore Ukraine's freedom, but it is not surprising that many people are focused more on the "blame game" than solving the crisis; it is easier--and less risky--to blame others for what is going wrong than to figure out how to solve the problem, let alone muster the courage to take the difficult but necessary steps to deter and repel Russian aggression. We should not focus on the "blame game" to the extent that we fail to take needed actions now, but understanding how we reached such a disastrous state of affairs could help us avoid similar problems in the future.

In America, regardless of the issue or problem, Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats, and socialists seek to dismantle capitalism. Partisan rhetoric fires up the "true believers" but does not solve anything. For a long time, Garry Kasparov has provided insightful commentary on a wide range of issues. He laments the American Left's embrace of socialism while also noting that America used to stand for striving for excellence, but now our Presidential elections have devolved into a choice between the lesser of two evils; one consequence is that, as Kasparov has repeatedly emphasized, every U.S. President since Ronald Reagan has fallen short in terms of long-term strategic planning regarding the Soviet Union and Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine happened in the wake of a long, pathetic line of Presidents whose failures to confront Putin emboldened him to invade Ukraine. That being said, it is not a coincidence that Putin started the first major ground war in Europe since World War II just a few months after President Biden orchestrated a chaotic, disastrous, and humiliating American retreat from Afghanistan. Autocrats respect power and they have contempt for weakness. This problem began long before President Biden took office, but it is fair to say--to put it mildly--he has not yet done enough to solve the problem.

In addition to the poorly conceived strategies of multiple Presidents, we are also seeing the tragic results of the lack of responsible media coverage of world events. Objective truth matters. The rule of law matters. Arguing otherwise is not only a threat to our education system, but a threat to our freedom and way of life. The sad reality is that many mainstream media outlets no longer believe in or try to investigate objective truth, preferring to tell their personal "truth" as they believe it and feel it to be.

I have written many articles about biased media coverage, particularly pertaining to Israel and antisemitism. One might wonder why I focus on that issue in general and those topics in particular, and the answer is that biased media coverage has a major impact not only on the targets of the bias, but also on the people and issues that are swept under the rug while the media attacks its chosen targets.

When media outlets indulge their bizarre obsession with berating Israel with false accusations of apartheid and genocide this is not just an attack against Israel: it is an assault on objective truth, and it shows contempt for the rule of law. When media outlets pretend that terrorists are "freedom fighters" and that a democratic government lawfully fighting terrorists is committing war crimes this causes lasting harm; all of that energy misdirected toward delegitimizing Israel could have instead been focused on the depredations committed by Vladimir Putin during his reign of terror for years prior to his invasion of Ukraine.

Mideast history is often described in a biased, one-sided way, and it is often portrayed as complex, but the facts are not hard to research, and the facts contradict the narratives that are told by many media outlets. For example, it is easy to prove that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was not founded by or for Palestinian Arabs. Egyptian President Gamal Nasser, aided by the Soviet Union, created the PLO in Cairo, Egypt in 1964 not because he cared about Palestinian Arabs, but rather as a means to aggrandize and consolidate his power within the Arab world. Note that when the PLO was founded, Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan controlled Judea/Samaria (widely referred to as the "West Bank," a neologism intended to replace the ancient, Jewish names for these areas with a clumsy geographic term that does not accurately describe a river bank). What "Palestine" was the PLO created to "liberate" in 1964? Since Arab countries controlled Gaza, Judea, and Samaria when the PLO was founded, it is obvious that the PLO was created not to "liberate" "Palestine" but to destroy Israel. The PLO was financed by the Soviet Union, and worked closely with other terrorist organizations, including the IRA. The PLO has consistently partnered with the world's worst, most depraved tyrants; for example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Palestinian Arabs cheered and the PLO allied itself with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 

Fast forward to today. Who supports the PLO now, and who does the PLO support? Many of the same bad actors are still connected decades after the PLO's founding: Russia (the successor state to the Soviet Union) supports Iran and Syria, and also provides funding to Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, including the PLO. President George W. Bush has been mocked for speaking of an "axis of evil," but he spoke the truth: there are evil governments and evil organizations that pose a critical threat to freedom and democracy.

When Amnesty International and self-proclaimed progressives falsely term Israel an apartheid state, media members have a responsibility to research and then report about the legal definition of apartheid, and then clarify why it is incorrect to hurl that accusation against Israel. Media members have a responsibility to research the true history of the PLO, and the PLO's connections to autocratic regimes and other terrorist organizations.

When the media attacks Israel it not only weakens the Mideast's lone bastion of freedom and democracy, but it cheapens the meaning of words like apartheid and genocide, and it takes the focus away from the evil governments and evil organizations that are fomenting terror and war. 

When you see the horrifying reports of Russian attacks and atrocities in Ukraine, never forget that far too many of the politicians and media members who could have stopped this tragedy from happening were instead focused on promulgating a vile antisemitic/anti-Zionist agenda. How much better off would everyone, including Ukrainians, be if the U.N., Amnesty International, and media organizations had not spent so much time, energy, and money targeting Israel with false allegations that are unsupported by any evidence?

We should not only cry for Ukraine and fight against Russia's invasion, but we must insist that our politicians, self-proclaimed human rights organizations, and media members focus their energies and efforts in more productive directions. I am not naive enough to believe that the answer to this article's title question is that Amnesty International and misguided media members will voluntarily mend their ways; we all must demand that organizations and individuals place the highest value on objective truth and the rule of law, and reject the notion that each person and group has an equally valid "personal" truth. Good and evil exist, and woe to us as a species if we are unwilling or unable to recognize the difference between the two.

History Demonstrates That Military Action, Not Words, is the Only Way to Stop Tyrants From Conquering and Killing Their Neighbors

"As always when it comes to stopping dictators, with every delay the price goes up. Western leaders have protested over the potential costs of action [in] Ukraine at every turn only to be faced with the well-established historical fact that the real costs of inaction are always higher. Now the only options left are risky and difficult, and yet they must be tried. The best reason for acting to stop Putin today is brutally simple: it will only get harder tomorrow."--Garry Kasparov, 2014

The reality about Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that the West can use military means to stop Vladimir Putin now--which will not be easy, but is necessary--or the West can use military means to stop Vladimir Putin later. That is not a message that anyone wants to read, hear, or think about, but it is the sad, grim truth. Autocratic nationalists do not voluntarily stop conquering and killing their neighbors; they stop conquering and killing their neighbors when a superior military force stops them from conquering and killing their neighbors. Think of Napoleon, Hitler, or any other autocratic nationalist: as Khan Noonien Singh aptly put it in the original Star Trek episode "Space Seed": "Such men dare take what they want."

The West underestimated Hitler's ambitions and Nazi Germany's military might; the West thought that Hitler could be appeased with small bites of territorial "apple," not understanding that Hitler intended to consume the whole apple, and then take the orange grove as well.  

Putin received his training and indoctrination in the Soviet Union, but he is not trying to resurrect the Soviet Union per se; he is an autocratic Russian nationalist who has a grandiose belief about Russia's history and a grandiose plan for Russia's future. If he is not stopped militarily, he will conquer by force every region, territory, and/or country that used to be under Soviet control so that he can create (or, from his perspective, restore) a Russian empire--and, like previous autocratic nationalists, he will not stop there, because he cannot stop there: autocratic nationalists live not to rule, but to conquer, and their empires inevitably grow or collapse, but such empires typically are not capable of prolonged stability. 

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov opposed the Soviet Union's oppression, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union he has been warning about the dangers of Putin's autocratic Russian nationalism. In 2015, Kasparov prophetically declared:

We have been facing this problem for quite a while. And so many mistakes have been made. These mistakes created an impression for Putin and his cronies and also his clients like Assad and others in the world. Iranian Ayatollahs. The West is weak. The West is not willing to get engaged. So the West will give them anything they want. Before we talk about the right strategy, what the leaders of the free world must do, let's talk about what they must not do. You cannot project weakness. Yes, I know that America will never consider seriously boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why are you talking about it? Why do you say publicly that you will not do that?

...Many talk about Clinton's presidency as a great success. I wouldn't doubt certain achievements in economy. But geopolitically, it was the greatest disaster among all because it's not about the final position. The game is still on. In 1992, America was all powerful. It could design the world map the way it wanted. In 2000, al-Qaeda was ready to strike. So what happened in these eight years?

Eight years of complacency, of doing nothing. Nobody formulated policies for Russia, for Soviet Union, for Islamic terrorism. It requires a global vision. The same way as Winston Churchill, Harry Truman had these policies designed in 1946, in 1947. The Marshall plan. There were plans. Plans they learned from World War II and they knew that to oppose Stalin and to oppose Communism, they needed to come up with a grand strategy and also leadership.

When I hear about potential dangers of confronting Putin today, my first question is, "Is he more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948?" For 11 months, American and British planes had been supplying West Berlin besieged by Stalin's troops. And Joseph Stalin didn't shoot a single American plane. Why? Because Harry Truman already used nuclear weapons. And Stalin, as every good dictator, had an animal instinct. He knew where he could be repulsed. So he knew that Harry Truman could not play a game. It happened in 1962, when Khrushchev recognized that he pushed JFK to the ropes. And Ronald Reagan. And don't tell me that the Soviet Union in 1981, 82, 83, was less powerful than Putin's Russia today.

Here is what Kasparov says now: "Putin's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 ended any reasonable doubts as to his nature and threat. Any attempts to negotiate with Putin since then were corruption, cowardice, and cynicism. He should have been isolated instantly. Instead, here we are."

The West did not stop Putin in 2014, and Putin took advantage by annexing Crimea; that was Putin's first bite out of Ukraine, and now--emboldened by the West's timidity--Putin has decided to eat the rest of the meal. Russia's invasion of Ukraine will likely end with a "cease fire" that results in Putin having outright control of significant portions of Ukraine, and exercising indirect control (via a puppet government) over the rest of Ukraine. Putin will declare victory but also say that the battle to restore Russian glory is not over. The West will foolishly breathe a sigh of relief after direct, open combat in Ukraine ends--and, in the not too distant future, Putin will set his sights on his next "meal." America did not confront Hitler until he already controlled most of Europe. Let's hope that America and the West do not make the same mistake with Putin.

Garry Kasparov Implores the West to Stop Vladimir Putin Before it is Too Late

Since retiring from competition, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov has focused his formidable intellect on international politics. Earlier this year, Kasparov offered a very blunt evaluation of Vladimir Putin: "Evil, pure evil." While many world leaders are either unable or unwilling to face the danger that Putin represents, Kasparov understands that language is important and that Putin's conduct regarding the Ukraine is a war, not an "incursion." Kasparov declares, "As Russian troops and armored columns advance in eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian government begs for aid from the free world it hoped would receive it and protect it as one of its own. The leaders of the free world, meanwhile, are struggling to find the right terminology to free themselves from the moral responsibility to provide that protection."

Kasparov then cuts through all of the rhetoric emanating from so-called leaders who are in fact afraid to take a meaningful stand:

This vocabulary of cowardice emanating from Berlin and Washington today is as disgraceful as the black-is-white propaganda produced by Putin's regime, and even more dangerous. Moscow's smoke screens are hardly necessary in the face of so much willful blindness. Putin's lies are obvious and expected. European leaders and the White House are even more eager than the Kremlin to pretend this conflict is local and so requires nothing more than vague promises from a very safe distance. As George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay on language right before starting work on his novel 1984 (surely not a coincidence): "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." The Western rhetoric of appeasement creates a self-reinforcing loop of mental and moral corruption. Speaking the truth now would mean confessing to many months of lies, just as it took years for Western leaders to finally admit Putin didn't belong in the G-7 club of industrialized democracies...

The U.S., Canada and even Europe have responded to Putin's aggression, it is true, but always a few moves behind, always after the deterrent potential of each action had passed. Strong sanctions and a clear demonstration of support for Ukrainian territorial integrity (as I recommended at the time) would have had real impact when Putin moved on Crimea in February and March. A sign that there would be real consequences would have split his elites as they pondered the loss of their coveted assets in New York City and London...

As one of the pioneers of the analogy I feel the irony in how it has quickly gone from scandal to cliché to compare Putin to Hitler, for better and for worse. Certainly Putin's arrogance and language remind us more and more of Hitler's, as does how well he has been rewarded for them. For this he can thank the overabundance of Chamberlains in the halls of power today--and there is no Churchill in sight."

Kasparov's ominous conclusion foreshadows what will happen next if President Obama and other Western heads of state do not display much more resolve in the face of Putin's aggression:

As always when it comes to stopping dictators, with every delay the price goes up. Western leaders have protested over the potential costs of action [in] Ukraine at every turn only to be faced with the well-established historical fact that the real costs of inaction are always higher. Now the only options left are risky and difficult, and yet they must be tried. The best reason for acting to stop Putin today is brutally simple: it will only get harder tomorrow.