By Mark W. Fowler

As the fighting in Ukraine continues to an uncertain outcome, there are three observations that come to mind. First, petroleum is power. Any historian worth his salt or any national security advisor worthy of the name would counsel the president that the ability to produce fossil fuels is an asset to be carefully tended. During World War II, both the Germans and especially the Japanese sought to expand their territory to include areas with petroleum resources — the Germans in Poland and the Czech Republic and the Japanese in the Dutch East Indies. Since that time, petroleum reserves in the Middle East, Mexico, and the United States and now Russia supply much of the world’s petroleum. North America has significant reserves in tar sands in Canada and crude oil in Alaska as well as the Gulf of Mexico. The development of fracking technology has opened previously unavailable deposits in the continental United States. And as is well known, the United States was self-sufficient in petroleum during the Trump administration.

If the Biden administration took geopolitical advice from people with real expertise instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg, we would have cultivated those resources instead of shutting down their production. Oil in Canada and America burns according to the same chemical and physical principles as does oil from Russia and the Middle East without the cost of geopolitical uncertainty. Had we preserved our petroleum production, we could be selling oil and gas to Germany and our European allies instead of having them dependent on Russian oil. Americans would not then have to suffer the indignity of watching President Biden be rebuffed by OPEC in his request for higher production. Russia’s influence and power might have been curtailed, and we would not find ourselves buying Russian oil and indirectly subsidizing the incursion into Ukraine. Petroleum will be a primary source of energy for some time until new technology produces an alternative.

The slavish devotion to renewable or green energy has produced other problems. Germany has mothballed several nuclear reactors out of green concerns. But nuclear energy is relative cheap, reliable, and safe (despite Chernobyl, which was a human-error issue). Nevertheless, Greta doesn’t like it, and neither do many progressive because of the now largely solved nuclear waste storage issue. Solar and wind are expensive, unreliable, and require significant outlays of land for wind farms and technology that is pricey.

The power to control petroleum should not have been relinquished at the price of hurting American consumers, the loss of geopolitical advantage, the ascendance of Russian power, and the invasion of Ukraine. Our continued output would not have strained the American economy or hurt consumers, and it would not have enabled Putin to accumulate petro cash to finance the invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, the failure of the Biden administration to place sanctions on Russian oil or to reestablish dominance in the oil market perpetuates American weakness and Russian dominance.

The failure to intelligently exercise power leads to its loss. Just as the Afghanistan debacle was a manifestation of the lack of American resolve and weakness, so was the abandonment of oil production. The blame for this falls on Biden.

Uniquely in the Western world is an explicit provision ensuring the right to self-defense. It originated in response to the tyranny of King George and Parliament, whose idea of raising taxes to finance foreign wars led to the Revolution. The rebellion against English tyranny produced a collection of men whose wisdom, insight, and dedication to freedom (however flawed) may have been one of the brightest moments in human history. They understood that power could only be checked with power, and that a restless citizenry with rifles would pose an insurmountable obstacle to oppression in any form, whether it came from a foreign or domestic enemy.

Admiral Yamamoto had serious reservations about invading the United States during World War II and is credited with saying it would produce immeasurable difficulties because “behind every blade of grass was an American with a rifle.” Hyperbolic, to be sure, but an armed society proficient in the use of firearms is a terrifying thing to consider when you are contemplating invasion. If ever there was a lesson justifying the importance of the Second Amendment, it can be seen in Ukraine now, where the government is distributing AK-47 rifles to anyone who wants them. These alone may not be enough to defeat tanks, artillery, and rockets, but they can inflict terror on unwilling Russian conscripts who had no idea there were being sent to invade Ukraine. And tanks, artillery, and rockets require someone willing to operate them.

The Russian army has not prevailed as swiftly or as decisively as was expected. This is fortunate, as it has given the Ukrainians hope and the world time to arouse. The outcome is not certain either way. The Russians have a large column moving toward Ukraine as this is being written. But the Ukrainians have courage and determination on their side. It bears repeating that an advantage of material, men, and weapons is not a guarantee of victory in the face of determination and grit. This was a lesson learned during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Vietnam war, and the prolonged occupation of Afghanistan by the British, the Soviets, and Americans. A small band of determined men can inflict great damage to the morale of their enemies. And an enemy sapped of morale soon begins to falter.

As Russians enter urban areas, they will face the prospect of pacifying an enraged, determined populace. Brute force will only strengthen Ukrainian resolve, and roving bands of guerillas will inflict serious damage on the invading army. The Russian army brings a built-in set of handicaps, the most prominent of which is an army with large numbers of conscripts fighting people with whom they have no grievance for principles and objectives of which they are uncertain. The growing worldwide anti-Russian sentiment will wreak havoc on discipline. It is reported that some troops are sabotaging their own vehicles in a not-so-subtle attempt to throw the match. Putin is reported to have expected a welcome as a liberator, but the Ukrainians saw neither the need for liberation nor anything desirable about being a Russian satellite. Instead of roses, they greeted the Russians with rifles. These matters combined with long logistics lines, a fight in a foreign land, and the failure of an imagined triumphant waltz into Kyiv creates a scenario perfect for negating the advantage of men and material and turning an expected three-day march into a morass. Let us hope Ukraine teaches Putin a painful and expensive lesson.