No More Boundaries: Ukraine Should Be Unleashed on Russia’s Military Targets

 

If the West is afraid of escalation, then it’s already lost—let Ukraine unleash its full military potential and show Russia the real consequences of war.

The Ukraine-Russia war has turned into a long-running chess match, and America, it seems, has forgotten that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. The hesitancy from the West, particularly from President Joe Biden, about authorizing Ukraine to strike deep inside Russian territory has baffled many observers. It raises a simple but poignant question: why is this idea so difficult for America and its allies to understand? Ukraine’s strikes could be the game-changer, yet the West remains stuck in a cautious mindset, refusing to give Ukraine the green light to hit back harder at Russia.

President Biden’s foreign policy decisions have come under increasing scrutiny, especially given the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, which left a bitter taste in many mouths. That failure still haunts his presidency and the memory of it might be what’s keeping him on his toes when dealing with the Ukraine crisis. But does he really want this Ukraine business to be another chapter of unfinished work when he leaves office? His reluctance to support Ukraine’s more aggressive moves risks adding this crisis to his legacy of half-measures. A legacy that may remember him as the president who couldn’t pull the plug on Russia’s dominance, just like he couldn’t effectively close the Afghanistan chapter.

It’s important to remember that wars aren’t won by timidity. History has shown us that decisive action often spells victory. During World War II, the Allies didn’t hesitate to hit Germany hard on its own turf. That’s what led to the eventual crumbling of the Nazi regime. Ukraine faces a similar tyrant in President Vladimir Putin, a man whose ambition seems to have no limits. Yet, for some reason, the West is uncomfortable with allowing Ukraine to go after military targets within Russia, as though the rules of warfare suddenly require more courtesy when dealing with Moscow.

This reluctance from the West gives Putin a strange advantage. While Russian missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities, military infrastructure, and civilians, Ukraine is largely held back from responding in kind. It's almost as if the world expects Ukraine to fight this war with one hand tied behind its back. The West’s support has been generous with weaponry, yes, but the strict limits on where those weapons can be used make it harder for Ukraine to break the Russian offensive.

One must wonder if President Biden and his European counterparts are aware of how this imbalance makes them look weak. Did they forget that Putin has never played by the rules? He’s made a career out of exploiting weakness, whether it's in Georgia, Crimea, or Syria. His pattern is clear: the moment he senses hesitancy, he pounces. And now, Ukraine finds itself facing the full brunt of Russian aggression, while the West debates whether it's "appropriate" to strike inside Russia.

What’s especially bizarre is that international law doesn’t even prohibit Ukraine from hitting military targets inside Russia. The principle of self-defense, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, gives Ukraine every right to target Russian military assets that are being used to attack them. Yet, there is a curious reluctance in the West to acknowledge this reality. America and its allies act as though expanding the battlefield into Russia itself is a moral or strategic line that should not be crossed. But history is full of instances where wars were won by taking the fight to the enemy's doorstep. Why should this war be any different?

The West seems to be living in a fantasy where containing the war within Ukraine’s borders will somehow bring about a peaceful resolution. But that notion ignores how wars work. Limiting Ukraine’s capacity to strike Russia simply prolongs the war, giving Putin time to regroup, re-strategize, and continue his brutal campaign. This isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty anymore—this is about global security. Putin has repeatedly shown that he will not stop at Ukraine. He’s testing the waters to see how far the West will bend before it breaks.

If there’s any lesson that can be drawn from the last few years, it’s that half-measures don’t work. Look at the U.S. in Afghanistan. After 20 years of fighting, the hasty and chaotic withdrawal allowed the Taliban to swoop back into power in mere weeks. Biden’s decision to pull out prematurely left the U.S. scrambling to explain how things went so wrong so quickly. That mistake is now a stain on his presidency, and if he doesn’t take decisive action on Ukraine, he may very well be remembered for another failure. Did he really want to go down in history as the president who left two wars unfinished?

Authorizing Ukraine to strike military targets deep inside Russia isn’t just a tactical move—it’s a message. It tells Putin that his aggression will have real consequences, and it tells the world that the West is no longer willing to be pushed around by autocrats. It would remind the Kremlin that there are limits to what they can get away with, and that the consequences of their actions will be felt at home, not just in Ukraine. The West’s reluctance to authorize these strikes sends the opposite message—that Putin’s threats of escalation still hold weight, that the West is still afraid.

Of course, critics will argue that authorizing Ukraine to strike inside Russia risks escalating the conflict further. But isn’t the war already an escalation of Russian aggression? Let’s not forget that Putin himself was the one who started this war, just as he has started every other conflict in the last two decades. Pretending that Ukraine striking back at Russian military targets would suddenly "escalate" things is delusional. The war is already raging, and the only way to end it is by letting Ukraine defend itself fully, without these arbitrary restrictions imposed by the West.

In plain English, President Biden must realize that the world is watching. His decisions on Ukraine will shape how he is remembered, not just in America but across the globe. This isn’t just another geopolitical conflict—it’s a test of leadership, of courage, and of the West’s willingness to stand up for democratic values. Will Biden rise to the occasion, or will he sleepwalk through this crisis like he did with Afghanistan? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: if he doesn’t act soon, this war will be yet another unfinished chapter in his legacy.

It’s time to wake up, Mr. President. After all, history waits for no one—except maybe for Vladimir Putin, who seems to have all the time in the world.

Biden’s Caution: A Cowardly Gift to Putin’s War Machine

 

Biden's caution is nothing more than a gift-wrapped invitation for Putin to escalate violence with no fear of consequences. Simply put, denying Ukraine the tools to strike inside Russia makes the U.S. not a defender of democracy, but a passive enabler of tyranny.

Joe Biden’s missile policy is like a cat playing with a mouse—it allows the mouse just enough freedom to scamper, but not enough to escape. In this deadly game between Russia and Ukraine, President Biden’s caution rewards Vladimir Putin’s recklessness. By limiting Ukraine to survive without giving them the power to strike deep into Russia, Biden is offering the Kremlin a lifeline, ensuring Putin can keep pushing his aggressive war strategy. The West needs to stop pretending this is a chess match; Putin has flipped the board over and is playing by his own set of rules.

For nearly two years now, Putin has rained bombs and missiles on Ukraine, striking civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. His forces seem committed to breaking the Ukrainian spirit. But Ukraine, led by its resilient president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has stood strong, thanks in large part to the more than $200 billion in Western military aid and cash. Despite these resources, Ukraine’s front-line commanders remain frustrated. They receive just enough weapons to survive Putin’s assaults but not enough to decisively end the war. “They give us enough to survive, but not enough to win,” a Ukrainian commander remarked earlier this year.

This "just enough to survive" approach has become a dangerous mantra for the West, especially for the United States. It's a strategy that seems more focused on containing the war within Ukrainian borders than winning it. Every time Zelensky asks for more advanced weapons—first tanks, then missiles, then anti-missile batteries, and now fighter jets—he faces resistance from the West, particularly from the United States. The most recent example of this hesitation is President Biden's refusal to give Ukraine long-range ATACMS missiles that could strike military targets deep within Russia. Britain and France, in contrast, have already allowed Ukraine to use their Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles for such purposes, but these are still subject to an American veto because they rely on U.S. technology.

Biden’s reluctance stems from a fear of escalating the conflict into something much larger. Putin has cleverly manipulated this fear by warning that if American missiles hit Russian soil, it would be like NATO directly joining the war. He’s even threatened severe consequences, perhaps targeting Western interests elsewhere, such as arming Iran or the Houthis. But let’s be real—Russia is already doing its worst in Ukraine. It has pulled out every possible tactic except for nuclear strikes. Giving in to Putin’s threats would only encourage him to push further, testing the limits of the West’s patience and resolve. It’s like giving a bully your lunch money every day while hoping he’ll stop asking. Spoiler alert: He won’t.

Ukraine has requested American ATACMS missiles, which have a range of up to 300 kilometers, longer than the European-supplied Storm Shadow missiles. These missiles could hit key Russian military targets, such as arms depots and fuel centers, which are currently out of reach. Yet Biden continues to say no. One excuse is that Russian planes launching devastating “glide bombs” have moved back out of ATACMS range. While this is true, it misses the point. There are plenty of other critical Russian military targets within that 300-kilometer range. Biden’s argument that these missiles are in short supply holds more weight for the European missiles, but ATACMS are available in greater quantities.

By withholding these weapons, Biden is not just showing caution; he's rewarding Putin’s recklessness. He is sending a clear message: Putin can wage war with impunity because the West won’t escalate. This emboldens Putin to think he can outlast Ukraine and the West, playing a waiting game as the Western alliance frays at the edges. And indeed, Biden’s caution has rubbed off on Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been even more reluctant to arm Ukraine fully. Germany, for instance, has refused to provide its powerful Taurus missiles. This division between NATO allies makes the West appear weak and indecisive—exactly the image Putin wants to project to the world.

Historically, appeasement has always been a dangerous game. The West tried to placate Hitler in the 1930s, hoping he would stop after the annexation of certain territories. We all know how that turned out. Today, Biden’s refusal to arm Ukraine fully is akin to that same strategy of appeasement. The argument that giving Ukraine long-range missiles would escalate the war and lead to unpredictable consequences is deeply flawed. The reality is that the war is already at a critical juncture, and failing to act now will only make things worse in the long run. Putin is already destabilizing Europe, and if the West continues to hold back, it won’t be long before other countries, seeing the success of his aggression, start to act similarly.

Moreover, allowing Ukraine to strike military targets deep inside Russia would not be some wild, out-of-bounds escalation. Ukraine has consistently proposed a proportionate, legal response to Russia’s illegal attacks on its civilian infrastructure. Striking military targets inside Russia would send a powerful message to Putin: that Ukraine, with the backing of the West, can and will defend itself by any means necessary. And perhaps even more crucially, it would bolster Ukrainian morale at a time when the war is dragging on with no clear end in sight. Imagine the boost in confidence Ukrainians would feel, knowing they can finally hit back at the very source of their suffering.

Biden should stop being the hesitant leader who gives Ukraine enough to survive but not enough to win. He should follow the lead of Britain and France and give Ukraine the long-range missiles they need to hit back at Russian military targets. This would not only strengthen Ukraine’s hand in any potential peace talks but also send a clear message to Putin that the West will not be cowed by his threats. As the Ukrainian proverb goes, “When you ride a lion, don’t be afraid of its claws.” Biden needs to show that he’s not afraid to ride the lion of military support all the way to victory for Ukraine.

At the end of the day, Biden's cautious approach only benefits one person: Vladimir Putin. It’s time to call his bluff and give Ukraine the weapons it needs not just to survive but to win. If the West keeps playing this half-hearted game, we might as well send Putin a thank-you note for showing us how to exploit indecision. After all, as history has shown us, “he who hesitates is lost”—or in this case, Ukraine may be.

Falling Giants: The Implosion of Britain’s University Business Model

 

If British universities are “world-class,” then the world is setting the bar embarrassingly low—these institutions are running on fumes, held together by outdated models and political cowardice. Simply put, by treating education like a business, British universities are churning out degrees as if they were fast food meals—cheap, convenient, and devoid of real substance.

British universities are no longer the ivory towers they once were—they’re crumbling under the weight of their own business model. The very structure that once promised academic excellence now seems more like a house of cards, wobbling under the weight of frozen tuition fees, a steep decline in foreign students, and financial instability that could see some universities go bust. The problem is deeper than just numbers on balance sheets; it’s a symptom of a larger failure to adapt to a rapidly changing world, where higher education’s value is constantly being questioned. As the saying goes, “When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water,” and in this case, the well of British universities is drying up fast.

Universities have been stuck with the same £9,000 cap on tuition fees since 2012, barely enough to keep up with inflation. What seemed like a hefty sum over a decade ago has lost its value, now worth less than £6,500 in 2012 prices. It’s the same old story: costs go up, but fees stay frozen, leaving universities strapped for cash. While this might have worked if the government had increased grants or other forms of support, that hasn’t happened. Instead, universities are left to do more with less, all while trying to maintain their reputations and facilities. The outcome is predictable—financial chaos.

At the heart of this issue is the fact that British universities are not just institutions of learning; they’re businesses, and like any business, they need to turn a profit. The influx of international students over the past five years briefly saved them from disaster. These students, particularly from countries like India and Nigeria, were willing to pay twice or even three times as much as domestic students, all in exchange for the opportunity to work in Britain after graduation. But even that well is now running dry. Thanks to new visa restrictions and global economic downturns, foreign student numbers have plummeted. A 17% drop in visas issued this year alone is no small matter. For universities that built their financial models on attracting these high-paying students, the fallout could be catastrophic.

The irony here is palpable: the very policies that once boosted foreign student numbers are now strangling them. The Conservative government’s 2022 decision to forbid most foreign students from bringing their families with them has had a larger-than-expected impact. The ban was an effort to reduce net migration, but it ended up deterring international students who saw Britain as a place not just to study but to build a future. Universities that once thrived on these students are now staring down the barrel of a 30-50% decline in foreign enrolment.

The consequences are already being felt. According to the University and College Union, 70 institutions are cutting costs in one way or another, and the Office for Students reports that 40% of universities expect to be in deficit by the end of the 2023-24 financial year. In a worst-case scenario, that figure could rise to 80% in just three years. It’s not just the small, regional universities that are at risk, either. Even some prestigious institutions are being forced to reconsider their financial strategies as they face an uncertain future.

Yet, despite the writing on the wall, there seems to be little political will to address the problem. Labour’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in his speech on September 10th, acknowledged the issue, listing universities among the public services that are “crumbling” and “worse than expected.” But beyond acknowledging the problem, there’s been little in the way of concrete action. If a university does go bankrupt, the official government line is clear: no bailouts. In August, Skills Minister Jacqui Smith stated that failing universities would be left to fail, suggesting that the market should sort itself out. This sounds bold on paper, but in practice, it’s a risky game. A university collapse could devastate local economies, especially in regions where these institutions are among the largest employers.

Let’s not forget, this isn’t just a question of business—it’s a question of public good. Education should not be treated like a market commodity, where the highest bidder gets the best service and everyone else is left scrambling. Yet, that’s exactly what’s happening. Universities have been forced into a system where they must compete for students as if they were customers, not scholars. When foreign students stopped coming in droves, universities tried to offset the loss by admitting more British students. But even that has its limits, especially for lower-ranking institutions that struggle to attract enough domestic students to fill their seats.

One proposed solution is to raise tuition fees. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that increasing fees would cost the government far less than expanding grants. But in a country where Labour was, until recently, promising to abolish tuition fees altogether, such a move would be politically toxic. It would also put even more financial burden on students, many of whom are already drowning in debt. Another option, perhaps more palatable, is to reform the loan system. Labour’s Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has floated the idea of reducing monthly repayments for new graduates, giving them more breathing space in the early years of their careers. But such reforms would take time, and universities need help now.

It’s not just about the money, though. There’s a deeper issue at play here: the commodification of higher education. Universities have become more about generating revenue than fostering knowledge and critical thinking. They’ve been forced to operate like corporations, cutting corners and slashing budgets just to stay afloat. And when education becomes a business, the first thing to suffer is quality. Fewer resources mean fewer faculty, larger class sizes, and a diminished student experience.

Without putting it in so many words, the British university system is a sinking ship. It is a broken business model that’s been held together with duct tape for too long. The question is no longer if it will collapse but when. And when it does, the fallout will be immense—not just for the universities themselves but for the students, the staff, and the local communities that rely on them. If the government doesn’t act soon, they may find themselves dealing with an academic Armageddon of their own making. But, perhaps that’s the plan all along—after all, if you can’t fix the problem, just let it crumble.

Equal Pay Lie: How the Gender Pay Gap Myth is Fooling an Entire Generation

 

The idea that women are paid less than men for the same job is a convenient political myth, designed to manipulate rather than reflect reality. If women truly earned less than men for the same work, smart businesses would only hire women to save money—yet that’s not happening. The truth remains that the wage gap claim is an outdated narrative that ignores the personal choices women make in their careers, which naturally affect their earnings.

It is time to set the record straight: the wage gap between men and women is a mathematical myth, one that seems to multiply in the minds of politicians and activists who apparently never did their homework. The idea that women are paid less than men for doing the same job is nothing more than a fallacy. Those pushing this narrative are either motivated by political gain or simply have a poor grasp of arithmetic. Let’s break it down.

The idea of a gender pay gap, at least in the sense that women earn less than men for identical work, has been popularized by politicians and activists alike. They routinely claim that women are paid, on average, 77 or 82 cents for every dollar a man earns. But these numbers are often presented without proper context, leading to widespread confusion and misrepresentation of the issue.

The truth is, these numbers do not compare men and women working the same jobs with the same qualifications, experience, or working hours. Rather, they compare the overall average earnings of all men with the overall average earnings of all women, without factoring in critical variables like job type, level of education, years of experience, or hours worked. When you account for these differences, the supposed gap shrinks dramatically, if not vanishes entirely.

Let’s examine the facts. The 2020 study by the U.S. Department of Labor showed that when factors like occupation, industry, work experience, and education are considered, the gender pay gap narrows significantly. For younger, college-educated women entering the workforce, the pay gap is virtually nonexistent. Many reputable economists, like those at Harvard University, have pointed out that the remaining wage gap can often be explained by personal choices rather than discrimination. For example, women are more likely to choose flexible jobs that allow for a better work-life balance, or they may take time off for caregiving duties, which inevitably affects lifetime earnings. It’s not that women are paid less for the same work — they’re simply making different career choices.

Even when comparing men and women in the same profession, salary differences often arise because of different negotiation tactics. Studies have shown that men are generally more likely to negotiate higher salaries than women. This isn’t a product of discrimination but rather of different social norms and expectations. And while this trend may change over time as more women become comfortable with salary negotiations, it’s certainly not evidence of systemic sexism.

Some politicians and advocates, however, are quick to ignore these facts in favor of a more dramatic narrative. Take Senator Kamala Harris, for example, who in 2019 proposed a bill that would fine companies if they did not prove they were paying women equally to men for similar work. The idea sounded great on paper, but it’s based on the flawed assumption that wage disparities are the result of discrimination rather than a multitude of factors, including personal choice. What Harris and other advocates of this narrative fail to acknowledge is that, in a free market, employers who consistently underpay one gender would quickly lose those employees to competitors willing to pay them what they’re worth. No company wants to lose top talent, male or female, because of arbitrary pay differences.

Historically, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 already made it illegal to pay women less than men for doing the same job under the same conditions. So, what exactly are these modern-day activists asking for? The law is already on the books. What they’re really doing is cherry-picking statistics to create a problem that doesn’t exist in the way they portray it.

To better understand how this myth perpetuates, let’s look at the numbers. In 2019, a study by Payscale found that when you control for job title, location, and other compensable factors, the wage gap shrinks to about 2%, meaning that women earn 98 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that 2% could be explained by other unmeasured factors, such as individual performance or time spent in the workforce. This is a far cry from the inflated 77-cent figure often cited by politicians.

Moreover, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that in certain industries, like health care and tech, women under 30 actually outearn their male counterparts. So why isn’t this fact making headlines? Because it doesn’t fit the convenient narrative.

It’s also worth noting that women, particularly in Western societies, have made extraordinary strides in education and the workforce. As of 2020, women accounted for more than 50% of college graduates in the U.S., and in many industries, they are outpacing men in terms of qualifications and job placements. Women are entering fields that were traditionally male-dominated, and many are rising to the top of their professions. The claim that women are systematically oppressed in the workplace simply doesn’t align with the reality of today’s labor market.

The persistence of the gender pay gap myth is not just misleading, it’s harmful. It fosters a sense of victimhood among women and creates unnecessary division between the sexes. It also distracts from the real challenges that working women face, such as balancing career and family responsibilities, which is a far more nuanced issue than simplistic slogans about unequal pay. If politicians really want to support women in the workforce, they should focus on policies that provide better access to child care, flexible work arrangements, and paid family leave — all of which would allow women to make the choices that are best for them without penalizing them financially.

The bottom line is this: the notion that women are paid less than men for doing the same job is a red herring. It’s a talking point used by those who either don’t understand the data or are cynically using it to push an agenda. As the old saying goes, "You can’t fix what isn’t broken." And yet, here we are, with politicians and activists trying to fix a non-existent problem.

In plain terms, the next time someone tells you that women earn less than men for doing the same job, remind them that numbers don’t lie — but people with political motives often do. After all, it seems like some folks are better at spinning tales than crunching numbers.

Faith for Sale: How Nigeria's Celebrity Pastors Turn Prayer Into Profit

 

Nigeria’s celebrity pastors are masters at performing one true miracle—turning the blind faith of desperate followers into luxury cars, private jets, and sprawling estates. If their powers were real, Nigeria's hospitals wouldn’t be packed with the sick and dying.

In Nigeria, it seems that the divine call to pastor is also a call to wealth, fame, and untouchable celebrity status. If praying could build cities, then Nigeria should be a country of gold-lined streets and skyscrapers that touch the heavens. After all, no country prays like Nigeria does. The nation is packed with celebrity pastors whose rise to fame is as miraculous as the wealth they accumulate from their massive congregations. For decades, Nigeria has been the spiritual battleground for "prayer warriors" led by the likes of Pastor Benson Idahosa, Pastor Anwuzia, Pastor Chris Oyakilome, Pastor Chris Okotie, Pastor Enoch Oyedepo, and countless others. But the list doesn’t stop there, as newer generation pastors like Pastor Jerry Eze and Evangelist Chukwuebuka Obi continue to grab headlines, capturing hearts with fiery sermons and promises of miraculous wealth and success.

Yet, with all this divine intervention, something doesn't add up. If prayer is indeed the key to prosperity, Nigeria should be one of the richest and most developed countries in the world. But the sad reality paints a very different picture. Nigeria remains plagued by corruption, unemployment, and poverty, with dilapidated infrastructure and security issues that have spiraled out of control. For a country that prays so much, it’s hard not to wonder: why is it still struggling so badly?

This paradox is stark, and it points to something that many Nigerians are slowly waking up to – their celebrity pastors seem to have grown fat off the land, while the majority of their congregations remain trapped in the very poverty they seek to escape through prayer. These pastors have become millionaires and even billionaires, raking in vast sums from donations, tithes, and offerings, all while promising their followers miracles that never seem to materialize.

Pastor Jerry Eze, for example, has popularized the slogan "What God cannot do does not exist," drawing millions of viewers to his daily online prayer sessions. But for all the claims of healing and financial breakthroughs, there’s a glaring question that remains unanswered: If these pastors truly have the power to perform miracles as they claim, why don’t they take their miracles to the places where they’re most needed?

Nigeria's hospitals and clinics are overflowing with the sick and the dying. Many of these facilities are ill-equipped, understaffed, and underfunded. A large portion of the population can’t afford the medical care they need, leading to preventable deaths. These are people whose conditions have been confirmed by medical professionals – surely, a pastor who can heal the blind or cure cancer should have no trouble performing miracles in these settings. And yet, Nigeria’s celebrity pastors avoid these spaces, preferring to heal anonymous individuals within the walls of their churches or during grand public events. Who’s fooling who here?

The question isn’t just about the pastors’ reluctance to heal the sick in hospitals – it’s also about the larger issue of accountability. In a country where trust in leadership is already at an all-time low, these pastors operate with an almost unchecked level of power. They preach about prosperity and divine favor, but their own wealth continues to grow while their followers remain in a cycle of poverty. According to reports, the net worth of Nigeria’s wealthiest pastors is staggering. Bishop David Oyedepo, founder of Living Faith Church, has been estimated to be worth over $150 million, while Pastor Chris Oyakilome is said to have a net worth of over $50 million. These are astronomical sums for men who claim to serve a higher calling. Yet, their lavish lifestyles – complete with private jets, luxury cars, and sprawling estates – tell a different story.

There’s also the issue of the messages these pastors are promoting. For many, the gospel has shifted from one of salvation and spiritual growth to one of instant success and material wealth. The concept of "prosperity gospel" has taken root in Nigeria like nowhere else. This brand of Christianity teaches that wealth is a sign of God's favor and that those who give generously to the church will be rewarded with riches in return. But when you look at the data, the numbers don’t support these claims. Nigeria remains one of the poorest countries in the world, with over 40% of its population living below the poverty line. The unemployment rate hovers around 33%, and inflation continues to make life harder for the average Nigerian. Despite the promises of prosperity from their pastors, many Nigerians are sinking deeper into financial hardship.

Even more troubling is the rise of "miracle merchants" who prey on the desperation of the poor and the sick. In recent years, there have been numerous reports of fake miracles staged by pastors to boost their popularity and draw in more donations. From staged healings to fake testimonies, the deception runs deep. In one infamous case, a Nigerian pastor was caught on camera instructing a woman to pretend to be paralyzed so he could "heal" her during a church service. The scam worked, and donations poured in – but it only highlights the lengths to which some pastors will go to maintain their image of divine power.

And let’s not forget the hypocrisy. While these pastors preach about humility and giving, their own actions tell a different story. They live in mansions while their followers struggle to pay rent. They fly in private jets while many Nigerians can’t afford basic transportation. They preach about the importance of family values while rumors of infidelity and financial scandals swirl around them. For a group of men who claim to be so close to God, their behavior seems remarkably out of line with the teachings of Jesus, who preached about helping the poor and living a life of humility.

In the end, the real question is not about whether these pastors can perform miracles. It’s about whether their followers will continue to believe in their promises of instant success and divine favor, even as the evidence to the contrary mounts. Nigerians are some of the most devout people in the world, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that prayer alone won’t solve the country’s problems. And as long as the celebrity pastor industry continues to thrive, it seems unlikely that anything will change.

Perhaps it's time for Nigerians to ask themselves: who really benefits from all this praying? After all, as the saying goes, "Heaven helps those who help themselves" – and it seems the celebrity pastors of Nigeria have learned that lesson all too well.

 

 

 

A Treaty with the Devil: Why Negotiating with Russia Will Doom the West

 

Negotiating with Moscow is akin to rewarding tyranny — a surefire way to let dictators everywhere know that violence pays. Simply put, negotiating with Moscow is a fool's errand — it gives Putin the green light to invade more, oppress more, and win more. In plain terms, any treaty with Putin is as good as the paper it's written on: meaningless, hollow, and destined for betrayal.

Striking a deal with the devil always sounds enticing, but it's about as wise as signing up for a tango with a tiger and hoping not to get bitten. The current political climate, which entertains the idea of negotiating with Vladimir Putin to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine, is walking a perilous tightrope. It's worth questioning if anyone has taken a moment to recall history — and more importantly, the terrifying results of appeasing dictators. Because when did Russia, under any regime, ever honor its promises? Negotiating with Russia would be akin to cutting a deal with Satan himself, one where the ink barely dries before the betrayal sets in.

Let’s not forget that Russia's track record for keeping agreements is as consistent as a broken clock. Take a trip back to the 1940s. During World War II, the United States and Britain did Stalin a favor by providing air cover and weapons to help push back Hitler’s advance. What did the Allies get in return? Stalin gobbled up Eastern Europe, including East Germany, and erected the Iron Curtain. So much for agreements. The West gave Stalin aid, and he gave them a slab of Eastern Germany and decades of Cold War tension. What makes anyone think Putin, the modern-day reincarnation of such ambitions, would behave differently?

Putin is not just another political leader; he's an autocrat with a vision — a vision to restore what he perceives as Russia’s rightful empire. Engaging him in negotiation only signals weakness. It tells him, and every other would-be dictator watching closely, that you can invade a country, butcher civilians, and destroy lives — and, if you hold out long enough, the international community will come to the table to reward your aggression with talks. The message? Empire-building is back on the menu. If the West shows even the slightest inclination toward negotiation, other despots will rub their hands in glee, ready to try their own hand at redrawing borders.

Think about it: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was based on the flimsy pretext of “denazification” and protecting Russian-speaking Ukrainians. If the Kremlin had any real diplomatic ambitions, they would have chosen the negotiation table before sending tanks into Kyiv. But Putin did not. Because, like Stalin before him, Putin is playing a long game — one that rewards persistence, terror, and intimidation over diplomacy. The only way he steps back is if he’s pushed back. Allowing any room for negotiation emboldens him, and history is the greatest evidence of this.

The New York Times reports that the Biden administration is considering providing Ukraine with long-range precision weapons. That move is a sign of strength — one that should be applauded, not undermined by talk of negotiations. But of course, some analysts are wringing their hands, worried that Russia may interpret this as an act of war. So what? Since when has Russia ever cared about interpretations? Putin has already claimed that Western involvement means war. In his eyes, NATO countries are already at war with Russia. Does anyone truly believe that stopping now, reeling back, and sending diplomats to Moscow will suddenly make him change his tune?

Moreover, the argument that providing Ukraine with such weapons risks nuclear escalation is naïve at best and cowardly at worst. Putin has been rattling his nuclear sabers for months. He stationed nuclear weapons in Belarus and consistently threatens the West with catastrophe. But it’s all part of his psychological warfare. This is a man who understands that the fear of nuclear war paralyzes Western leaders, making them hesitant to act. But if Putin truly wanted a nuclear exchange, we wouldn’t be here talking. The fact is, he won’t go nuclear unless his very regime is in danger — and while that day may come, it won’t be because Ukraine uses long-range missiles. It will be because the West buckled under fear.

Let’s also remember that in Russian culture, strength is admired, and weakness is pounced upon. By considering negotiations now, the West would be offering itself up as prey. Putin will see it as a victory — a sign that his brinkmanship worked. If anything, increasing Ukraine’s military capabilities is the best way to push him back, not some pie-in-the-sky negotiation deal that will never hold. Putin already knows he’s playing with house money; he just needs a weak handshake to cash in.

For those who argue that diplomacy is the only way forward, answer this: What exactly are you negotiating? Are you willing to trade Ukrainian sovereignty for “peace”? Because that’s what Putin wants — a Ukraine under his thumb, subservient to Moscow. And what message does that send to the Baltic states, to Poland, or even to China eyeing Taiwan? It tells them that if you wait long enough, the West will cave.

Remember John F. Kennedy’s words during the Cuban missile crisis: “Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.” Kennedy knew the delicate balance required when dealing with nuclear-armed states, but he also knew that strength, not concession, was the key to avoiding catastrophe. The Biden administration should heed this wisdom and avoid the temptation to sit across from Putin in false hope of peace.

In any case, Putin has made his goals clear. In 2022, he openly declared that Russia would use “all available means” to defend its territory, even if it meant nuclear war. This is not the kind of man you negotiate with. This is a man whose worldview is dictated by domination, not diplomacy.

So, where does that leave us? Negotiating with Moscow is akin to dealing with the devil. And if history teaches us anything, it’s that signing treaties with devils doesn’t end well. In the best-case scenario, you’re left empty-handed; in the worst, you’ve set yourself up for disaster. The West cannot afford to make that mistake again. Putin is the devil incarnate, and no one in their right mind should ever sign a deal with the devil.

But if you're still keen on talking with Moscow, you might as well book your next vacation in Siberia — it's where the road to negotiating with tyrants tends to lead.

Rate Cut Fantasy? Jerome Powell Is About to Serve a Cold Dose of Reality

 

Jerome Powell is more likely to crush Wall Street's rate cut fantasies than to cave into their demands for easy money.  Investors betting on deep rate cuts are about to get a brutal lesson in Powell’s dedication to inflation control, not market euphoria.

When it comes to the Federal Reserve, investors may be getting their hopes up only to have them dashed. Like someone getting dressed for a party that might not happen, the anticipation of a rate cut has set investors abuzz. Yet, just as someone might say, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch," the assumption that Jerome Powell will bring a feast of rate cuts could end in disappointment. For while the market seems to be pricing in a sure-fire rate cut after the Fed’s September 18th meeting, Powell may yet surprise everyone—not by slashing rates more than expected but by holding firm, if not hawkish, in his stance.

This isn’t a baseless notion. Powell has a history of zigging when markets expect him to zag. Look at how investors reacted over the past two years to the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest-rate hikes—the fastest series of increases since the 1980s. While stock markets have swooned every time it seemed interest rates might stay higher for longer, Powell has consistently shown that taming inflation and keeping the economy steady are his top priorities. Even as speculation about a rate cut builds, Powell has every reason to continue prioritizing inflation over Wall Street’s desires.

Investors are banking on a 40% chance of a 0.25 percentage point cut and a 60% chance of a 0.5 point cut, yet history suggests they might want to temper their enthusiasm. “Buy the rumor, sell the fact” is a mantra that rings truer in times of economic uncertainty, and while the prospect of rate cuts might set pulses racing, their actual arrival often brings a bitter taste. Just look at how rate cuts have panned out in the past: Alan Greenspan’s Fed of the 1990s saw markets flourish with cuts, but the story has been much less pleasant in the 21st century. Rate cuts in the early 2000s came just as the dotcom bubble burst, and the cuts starting in 2007 coincided with the global financial crisis.

Even the cuts of 2019, which briefly boosted share prices, were overshadowed by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rate cuts alone don’t guarantee a happy ending for investors—something Powell is keenly aware of. In fact, he knows all too well that cutting rates isn’t always the best medicine for an ailing economy, especially when inflation remains a lurking threat.

There’s an additional wrinkle in the current situation. When Milton Friedman warned of the “long and variable lags” in monetary policy’s impact, he couldn’t have foreseen just how significant those lags might become in today’s environment. As the Fed prepares to potentially loosen policy, many companies and consumers will still be grappling with higher borrowing costs. Businesses that loaded up on cheap fixed-rate debt when interest rates were near zero will eventually face the harsh reality of refinancing at much steeper rates. Likewise, homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages who need to refinance will find themselves staring down higher monthly payments, even as the Fed looks to ease.

The truth is, rate cuts may not pack the punch they once did. With the cost of borrowing still elevated and inflation lurking, the Fed’s largesse may not translate into the stock market rally investors expect. Even more troubling, the expectation for rapid cuts—traders are pricing in 1.25 percentage points of cuts by the end of the year, followed by another 1.25 next year—has only occurred in times of economic crises or recessions. Are we heading toward such a scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps Jerome Powell knows better than to let market expectations dictate his policy decisions.

If we look at Powell’s history, he has often been more hawkish than the market predicted. As early as 2021, Powell made it clear that inflation wasn’t just a “transitory” issue, as many had believed. His hawkish stance caught many by surprise, and since then, he’s shown little hesitation in holding firm to his goals, even if it causes temporary market pain. Powell’s goal has never been to please Wall Street—it’s to ensure long-term economic stability, and that might mean disappointing investors who are betting on quick and deep rate cuts.

The lesson here is that while rate cuts may appear to be a silver bullet for investors, the reality is far more complex. The stock market might get a brief bump from reduced borrowing costs, but that effect is often drowned out by other factors—economic uncertainty, rising debt costs, and most importantly, the fact that investors have already baked the benefits of these cuts into current prices. When markets expect a rate cut and get it, there’s little room left for upside. In fact, Powell could pull a fast one and issue a smaller cut than expected, or none at all, leaving traders scrambling.

And let’s not forget: Powell has a lot on his plate beyond just placating the stock market. Inflation, while cooling, is still above the Fed’s 2% target. The labor market, while no longer as red-hot as it was, remains strong enough to support higher interest rates for longer. So why should Powell rush into rate cuts just to soothe Wall Street? He might do just the opposite, holding firm or offering only a token cut to keep inflation in check and the economy steady, even if it means disappointing investors.

In the end, the Federal Reserve is not beholden to market whims. Powell’s mandate is clear—keep inflation low and ensure economic stability, even if it means sacrificing short-term gains in the stock market. Investors betting on a dovish Fed might find themselves in for a rude awakening. As the proverb says, “The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.” Jerome Powell may very well be that second mouse, taking his time and not rushing to cut rates as deeply or as quickly as the market desires. Investors might want to brace for a hawkish surprise.

If Powell does surprise on the hawkish side, well, perhaps investors can take solace in the fact that even when you don’t get what you want, you sometimes get what you need. But for now, Powell might be more interested in keeping a tight grip on inflation than delivering gifts to Wall Street—making the Fed’s September 18th meeting less of a party and more of a cautionary tale. Because in the world of central banking, it’s not always about making investors happy; sometimes, it’s about showing them who’s boss.

 

Clinton vs. Harris: The Real Reason Hillary Lost—America Wanted Change, Not the Same Old Politics

 

Clinton’s failure in 2016 had nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a symbol of Washington elitism, while Harris taps into the same populist energy that Clinton never could.

Hillary Clinton may have shattered the glass ceiling, but it seems Kamala Harris is dancing on the shards. The 2016 presidential election was supposed to be a historic moment for women in America, with Hillary Clinton standing as the first major female candidate for president. However, Clinton's campaign faced challenges, and she ultimately lost to Donald Trump, sparking a debate about whether America was ready for a female president. Some analysts argued that sexism played a role in her loss, while others pointed to Clinton’s personality and history. Fast forward to today, and Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the first female vice president, seems to enjoy a level of popularity and political influence that Clinton struggled to attain. The question is: what changed? Why is Kamala Harris enjoying more widespread appeal, and is America now truly ready for a female president?

Looking back at Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, it is clear that her candidacy was viewed through a much different lens than that of Kamala Harris today. Clinton was often described as unlikable, cold, or distant. Even many women didn’t rally behind her as the expected feminist candidate. In fact, a Gallup poll during the campaign showed that Clinton’s unfavorable rating was 55%, higher than that of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. Clinton's long political history, which included controversies such as the Benghazi attack and her private email server, cast a shadow over her candidacy. Her close ties to the political establishment didn’t help either. For many voters, she represented more of the same in a time when the country was crying out for change.

In contrast, Kamala Harris’s rise to prominence has been swift. Just a few months ago, she was perceived by some as a "giggling" political nobody, largely unknown on the national stage outside of California. But today, as vice president, she is regarded as a highly popular figure, especially among women. This change seems to have happened almost overnight. Her identity as a woman of color, her relatively short national political career, and her charismatic public persona seem to have struck a chord with voters. In particular, her background as a child of immigrants and her work as a prosecutor resonates with a broad base of supporters. A Reuters poll conducted in 2023 showed Harris with a 53% approval rating among women, significantly higher than Clinton’s during her campaign. But why the difference? What’s changed in the political landscape?

It’s tempting to say that America has evolved since 2016, but the truth is likely more complicated. The idea that America wasn’t ready for a female president in 2016 doesn't hold much weight when examined closely. After all, if a woman could be the most powerful candidate in the race at the time, how could it be argued that Americans weren’t prepared for a woman in the White House? In fact, the very notion seems to be a convenient excuse for a range of other factors that contributed to Clinton’s loss. Her policy positions, her political baggage, and her inability to connect with key voting blocs may have been more decisive than any supposed gender bias. To argue otherwise is to overlook the role of personal choice in voting decisions, reducing it to an issue of gender alone.

Harris, on the other hand, has managed to navigate these political waters with a different approach. She presents herself as a candidate of the future—young, diverse, and energetic. But it’s not just that she’s a woman of color; it’s that she’s a woman who speaks to a different demographic. While Clinton appealed more to older, white voters, Harris has been embraced by younger voters and people of color. Her background as a former prosecutor, rather than being a liability as some feared, has allowed her to present herself as a tough-on-crime politician, while also advocating for criminal justice reform. In a country where racial inequality has become a central political issue, Harris’s identity and record are seen as assets.

Moreover, Harris’s rise can also be attributed to the change in political dynamics. In 2016, Donald Trump’s outsider status, brash personality, and promise to shake up the political system overshadowed Clinton’s experience. Trump’s victory was a rejection of the political elite, and Clinton, as a long-time figure in that world, became a symbol of the status quo. Harris, however, benefits from the current political climate. After four years of Trump’s presidency, voters were eager for a return to normalcy. Harris, alongside Joe Biden, represents stability and professionalism. Unlike Clinton, she is not burdened by years of political baggage. Her relative newness to the national stage works in her favor.

But let’s not forget the changing role of gender in politics. Women are now more active and visible in American politics than ever before. In 2021, a record number of women were sworn into Congress. Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Abrams have become political powerhouses. In this context, Harris’s gender is no longer a novelty. If anything, it’s an advantage. Women voters, in particular, are more likely to rally behind a candidate who they believe represents them. The #MeToo movement has also shifted perceptions, with women demanding more representation and power in political spaces.

Yet, despite this, the question remains: is America ready for a female president? Some would argue that Harris’s rise to vice president suggests that the country is finally prepared to break that final barrier. However, others may point out that Harris’s popularity may not be as broad as it seems. She has faced criticism from conservatives, and some moderates question her progressive positions on issues like immigration and healthcare. Just because Harris is popular today doesn’t guarantee that the American public is ready to elect her—or any woman—as president.

In plain terms, it may be that Clinton’s loss in 2016 wasn’t about gender at all. Perhaps it was more about the candidate herself. Clinton’s decades in politics made her a polarizing figure, while Harris, with her fresh face and dynamic background, offers voters something new. But whether Harris’s popularity will last or whether America will truly elect a female president remains to be seen. As the saying goes, “Only time will tell.”

For now, Harris is enjoying her moment in the sun, and perhaps she’s figured out something that Clinton never did. But one thing’s for sure: if Clinton cracked the glass ceiling, Harris may be poised to shatter it completely—unless, of course, America decides it prefers the view from below.

Et Tu, Secret Service? How Many Close Calls Before the Secret Service Finally Wakes Up?

 

The Secret Service is more concerned with technicalities than with actually protecting the lives of the very people they're sworn to defend. How can the Secret Service be trusted to protect America’s leaders when they can’t even secure a golf course from an armed gunman?

Fore! Once again, a golf course is the stage for a close call, as Donald Trump narrowly escapes another assassination attempt, this time during a round of golf in Florida. The recurring theme of political violence is alarming enough, but what is even more disturbing is the growing suspicion about the competence of the United States Secret Service. How is it that a gunman, armed with an AK-47-style rifle, could approach within yards of a former president? This latest breach has raised the eyebrows of both the public and political elites, leading to an unsettling question: What’s wrong with the Secret Service? Is their reputation of being America’s elite protection force nothing more than a farce?

In this latest debacle, Ryan Wesley Routh, a 58-year-old man with a history of volatile political opinions, managed to sneak up close enough to Trump's golf course to pose a deadly threat. He was only discovered when a Secret Service agent noticed the barrel of a rifle peeking out from behind a fence. The fact that this agent caught a glimpse of the weapon just in time raises an uncomfortable realization—this was a near miss, one that could have gone much worse. What’s more, this marks the second time in just two months that a gunman has come dangerously close to Trump. One must wonder, is the Secret Service asleep at the wheel?

This agency, charged with protecting the lives of America’s highest-profile politicians, seems to have lost its grip on the very job it was created to do. One would think that after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, or the near-fatal attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan in 1981 and President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the Secret Service would have taken all necessary precautions. These incidents were supposed to serve as lessons for future generations, prompting the agency to be on perpetual high alert. But with two close calls on Trump’s life in just a matter of weeks, that vigilance seems to have been thrown out the window.

Let’s not forget the recent event in July, when another gunman, Thomas Crooks, fired a shot that grazed Trump’s ear at a rally in Pennsylvania. Crooks was arrested, but not before exposing a serious flaw in the Secret Service’s ability to protect a figure as polarizing as Trump. When Ric Bradshaw, the Palm Beach County Sheriff, was asked how Routh had managed to get so close to Trump on the golf course, his response was as shocking as the event itself: "He’s not the sitting president." Bradshaw’s nonchalant explanation essentially points to the fact that the Secret Service is willing to scale down security based on a technicality.

This is where the problem lies. Yes, Trump is not the sitting president, but does that give the Secret Service a free pass to downgrade its security measures? America is in an era where political violence knows no boundaries, where armed radicals seem to emerge from the shadows with alarming regularity. The agency’s mindset should not be one of "limited to the areas the Secret Service deems possible," as Bradshaw described, but rather a full-fledged commitment to securing any venue where high-profile targets are present. Complacency, as history has shown, can be deadly.

The agency’s lackluster defense is even more glaring when considering the timing. This attempt came just days after Vice President Kamala Harris debated Trump. The political tension is already at an all-time high. Political figures from both parties have been targets for years, and Trump, with his controversial stance on nearly every issue, is a lightning rod for both admiration and hatred. The Secret Service must know this, and yet, here we are—another gunman inches away from what could have been a national tragedy.

There is a reason why the American public is losing faith in the Secret Service. If the elite protection unit can’t keep a former president safe on a golf course, what confidence should the public have in its ability to prevent another attempt on Trump's life, or the lives of any high-profile politician? The fact that Ryan Wesley Routh was allowed to come so close to a former president is a stinging indictment of the agency's failure to stay ahead of the threats. Worse still, the gunman reportedly had a GoPro camera, likely intending to film his violent act. This chilling detail adds an extra layer of horror to the already disturbing scenario: Are we on the verge of seeing political assassinations broadcasted like reality TV?

Public trust in the Secret Service has wavered before. Scandals involving agents in Colombia and the shocking 2014 incident in which a knife-wielding man breached the White House grounds have already cast a long shadow over the agency. But these assassination attempts on Trump, so close to the elections, have given new life to the skepticism surrounding the agency’s competence. How many more near-death experiences must it take before the leadership of the Secret Service takes real responsibility for its failings?

The hard truth is that if the Secret Service doesn't address its shortcomings soon, America may be in for a much darker chapter in its history. The question that looms large is: What would happen if they don't get their act together? The 2024 election cycle is set to be one of the most contentious in modern history. If the agency cannot rise to meet the challenge, it’s not just Trump’s life that could be in jeopardy, but the very fabric of the American political system.

In the aftermath of the July incident, Trump declared, "I WILL NEVER SURRENDER!" While the former president’s defiant rhetoric may rally his base, the fact remains that another close call like this could plunge the nation into chaos. And what of the Secret Service? Will they continue to offer hollow explanations and half-hearted security measures?

Et tu, Secret Service? It seems that the very agency tasked with safeguarding American democracy may be inadvertently sowing the seeds of its own destruction. If history has taught us anything, it’s that complacency can be fatal. The Secret Service needs to wake up and face the music—before it’s too late.

Ukraine Has Shown the World Russia’s Weakness—Now It’s Time to Exploit It

 

Ukraine has single-handedly exposed Russia as a fragile superpower, and it’s time for the West to finish what Ukraine has started—by breaking Putin’s empire for good. It is no secret that the only reason Putin’s regime still stands is because the West hasn’t unleashed its full might. So if the West doesn’t capitalize on Ukraine’s battlefield victories now, they’ll be inviting the next dictator to take the world hostage.

In the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war, Vladimir Putin’s grand posturing on the global stage has become little more than a circus act—a loud show of force with hollow results. The world has watched as the illusion of Russian might crumbled in the face of Ukrainian resilience. If there was ever a moment for the United States and the West to strike a decisive blow against Russian aggression, this is it. Ukraine has handed them the opportunity on a silver platter. Failing to seize this chance might leave the West powerless to ever challenge Putin’s belligerence again.

For years, Putin has projected an image of Russia as an untouchable global power, capable of standing toe-to-toe with NATO and the United States. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and interference in U.S. elections seemed to bolster his claims of Russian influence. But the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 peeled back the curtain on Putin’s regime, revealing a country ill-prepared for a protracted war and a military that is more show than substance. Russia has found itself bogged down in a conflict it expected to win within days, unable to crush a nation that was considered a far weaker adversary.

Ukraine, a country with significantly fewer resources and military power, has fought back with surprising tenacity, proving that Russia's bark is far worse than its bite. With the support of American and Western military aid, Ukraine has exposed Russia’s vulnerabilities. Russia’s military, once feared for its sheer size, has been outsmarted and outmaneuvered by Ukrainian forces equipped with Western technology. Javelin anti-tank missiles, HIMARS, and other Western-supplied weapons have decimated Russian convoys and logistics lines, leaving the Kremlin scrambling to maintain even a semblance of control in occupied regions. Ukraine’s success on the battlefield has done more than just repel Russian advances—it has shattered the myth of Russian invincibility.

This is a pivotal moment in history. America and the West have a unique chance to deal a final, crushing blow to Putin’s regime. If they choose not to, the consequences could be dire. The last time the world hesitated in the face of Russian aggression, we ended up with a frozen conflict in Crimea and an emboldened Putin. If the West allows Putin to recover from this self-inflicted debacle in Ukraine, they risk facing a reenergized Russian autocrat who will be more dangerous and unpredictable than ever. And next time, the stakes might be even higher.

The Ukrainian conflict has also exposed just how isolated Russia has become on the world stage. European nations, once reliant on Russian oil and gas, have taken drastic steps to reduce their dependence. Germany, historically reluctant to engage in military matters, has increased defense spending and sent aid to Ukraine, signaling a shift in its post-World War II policy of military restraint. The European Union has implemented sweeping sanctions that have crippled Russia’s economy, and even traditionally neutral countries like Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership in response to Russia’s aggression.

Despite this, there remains a real danger that the West might waver at this crucial juncture. Some voices, especially within Europe, are calling for a diplomatic solution, urging Ukraine to negotiate with Putin to end the bloodshed. But any notion of negotiating with Putin is folly. He has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted to uphold any agreements. The Minsk agreements of 2015, which were supposed to bring peace to eastern Ukraine, were violated almost immediately by Russia. To sit down with Putin now, after his blatant disregard for international law and the sovereignty of a neighboring country, would be an insult to every life lost in this war.

Moreover, a negotiated settlement would only serve to embolden other authoritarian regimes around the world. If Russia can invade a neighboring country, commit atrocities, and walk away with some semblance of a victory, what message does that send to other rogue states? China, for instance, is watching the conflict closely. A weak Western response could pave the way for Beijing to make moves on Taiwan, or embolden other dictators with expansionist ambitions. The West’s failure to deliver a decisive outcome in Ukraine could have ripple effects across the globe, destabilizing regions far beyond Eastern Europe.

The numbers don’t lie. According to reports from both the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and independent analysts, Russia has lost tens of thousands of troops since the war began, along with significant amounts of military equipment, including tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Russia’s economy, under the weight of unprecedented sanctions, has contracted by about 3% to 4% in 2023 alone, with the ruble losing over 40% of its value since the start of the conflict. Oil and gas revenues, which once propped up the Kremlin, have plummeted as Europe has turned to alternative sources. By any metric, Russia is losing.

Yet, despite these setbacks, Putin’s regime remains defiant, digging in its heels as the war drags on. Therein lies the danger. Cornered animals are the most dangerous, and Putin is no exception. He has shown a willingness to sacrifice his people, his economy, and his country’s future to cling to power. This is a man who, rather than admitting defeat, might escalate the conflict in ways we cannot predict. The Kremlin has already hinted at the possibility of using nuclear weapons, a terrifying prospect that the world cannot afford to ignore.

That is why America and the West must act decisively now. Ukraine has already proven that it can defeat Russia on the battlefield with Western support. What remains is for the West to increase that support and push Putin to the brink. More weapons, more financial aid, more pressure on Moscow—these are the tools that can finish the job Ukraine has started. Failure to do so will only prolong the suffering and give Putin the time he needs to regroup and lash out again, either in Ukraine or elsewhere.

In the end, if the West chooses appeasement, they may as well give Putin a throne in the heart of Europe. They will have squandered the last opportunity to end the Russian menace once and for all. And when the next conflict inevitably arises, the world will look back on this moment with regret, wondering why they didn’t stop the madman when they had the chance.

It’s been said that “a stitch in time saves nine.” Well, Ukraine has already sewn the fabric of Russian defeat—it’s up to the West to pull the thread that unravels Putin’s empire. If they don’t, we’ll be left asking ourselves, “Who’s really the puppet now?”

The Only Thing Biden Should Lose is Putin: Why Deeper Strikes Into Russia Are the Answer

 

 The only thing President Biden stands to lose by letting Ukraine strike deeper into Russia is Putin—a dictator long overdue for a lesson in humility. By allowing Ukraine to hit Russia’s heartland, Biden can end Putin’s imperial ambitions and show the world that nuclear threats are nothing but bluster. And history will remember him as the U.S. president who finally broke Putin’s iron grip over Europe, not as the president who let Ukraine's cries go unanswered.

President Biden has a unique opportunity in the Russia-Ukraine war—one that could cement his legacy as a president who ended Vladimir Putin's ambitions once and for all. In fact, one could say Biden holds the key to putting Russia “to bed.” How? By allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory using long-range Western weapons, including the American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles. It's a bold move that would push the boundaries of what the West has been willing to support, but one that could potentially end the war and put Biden in the history books as the president who finally defeated Putin's grip on Eastern Europe.

Many Americans might flinch at the idea of escalating the war, but let’s face it: half-measures have not worked. The war has dragged on for over a year, and every day Ukraine fights, it does so under the heavy shadow of Russia’s nuclear threat. This war has cost Ukraine thousands of lives, devastated cities, and destabilized Europe. And what has been accomplished? Not enough. Russia continues to strike at will, hoping to outlast Ukrainian resistance and Western resolve.

Biden, however, has a chance to flip the script entirely. Instead of letting this war sputter out in the mud, with Ukraine struggling to reclaim its territory inch by inch, why not give them the tools to strike deep into Russia? Why not allow Ukraine to hit Russia where it hurts the most—its homeland? Ukraine’s army is more than capable. It’s been proven on the battlefield that, with the right weapons, they can stop Russian advances and even retake occupied territory. If given long-range ATACMS missiles and British Storm Shadows, Ukraine could destroy key Russian military assets far beyond the frontlines, crippling Putin’s war machine and forcing him to negotiate from a position of weakness. History teaches us that wars are often won not by defense, but by taking the fight to the enemy’s doorstep.

Take World War II as an example. The Allied forces didn’t just defend their territory—they launched decisive offensives deep into Axis-controlled Europe, crippling Hitler’s armies and forcing the Nazi regime into surrender. The lesson is clear: to win wars, you must do more than hold the line. You must push the enemy back and strike where they least expect it. Ukraine has shown it can do this with Western-supplied weapons, such as HIMARS and other advanced systems. The time has come to take this support a step further.

Allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia would be controversial, yes. It would raise concerns about escalation, especially from Moscow, which would undoubtedly cry foul and issue more nuclear threats. But how long will the world allow Putin to hold the threat of nuclear war over everyone’s heads like a sword of Damocles? At some point, the bluff must be called. Putin has demonstrated that he is a master of manipulation, playing the West against itself by issuing veiled threats while continuing his brutal invasion of Ukraine. Biden could do what no other president has dared—strip Putin of his power to intimidate. By empowering Ukraine to strike Russia, Biden would be sending a message that Putin’s threats are hollow, that his bluster no longer holds sway over the global stage.

Let’s not forget the purpose of deterrence. For years, the idea has been that showing strength prevents adversaries from acting recklessly. Yet, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine happened despite years of NATO posturing and sanctions. It happened because Putin believed the West wouldn’t dare confront him. If Biden allows Ukraine to hit Russia hard, he would be proving Putin wrong in the most dramatic way possible. And the only thing he would lose is Putin. Not a bad trade-off for peace in Europe and a key victory for democracy.

Some will argue that deeper strikes into Russia could lead to unintended consequences—escalation, even wider war. But consider this: Putin’s forces are already committing atrocities in Ukraine. Russian missiles have rained down on Ukrainian cities, targeting civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people. Is there truly a line left to cross? The war is already ugly, already brutal. Striking back hard would not only weaken Russia’s ability to continue its invasion but would send a message to other rogue states watching closely. If Biden is willing to back Ukraine in such a significant way, other potential aggressors, such as China, may think twice before embarking on their own imperial adventures.

This move could also boost Biden’s standing domestically. With a tough election ahead, foreign policy successes could help counter some of his challenges at home. Voters respect a leader who can decisively end conflicts, especially one that has drained U.S. resources and attention. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war by enabling Ukraine to deliver a knockout blow to Russia could rally support for Biden as a strong leader on the world stage—one who didn’t shy away from tough decisions when they mattered most. He could exit the Oval Office with his head held high, his presidency marked by a final, triumphant act of leadership.

And what would the world lose? Putin. The man who has destabilized global peace for over two decades. The architect of annexations, invasions, and war crimes. If Biden can neutralize Putin by helping Ukraine strike deep into Russia, history will judge him favorably. It will be said that President Biden did what no one else could—he ended the reign of Vladimir Putin, dealt a blow to authoritarianism, and helped secure a more peaceful Europe. That’s a legacy worth fighting for.

Of course, critics will howl that Biden is playing with fire. But sometimes you have to risk a little heat to stop the blaze from spreading. In this case, it’s a gamble worth taking. By finishing this Russia-Ukraine business before he leaves office, Biden can claim one of the most significant geopolitical victories in recent history. He will be remembered not just as a caretaker president, but as the leader who put Putin in his place.

As the old saying goes, "If you want peace, prepare for war." Biden has prepared long enough—it’s time to let Ukraine bring the war to Russia. And if anyone complains about it, well, they can ask themselves why they’d prefer to keep Putin around anyway.