View this post on the web at [link removed]

With 8,500 U.S. troops on high alert for possible deployment to Eastern Europe right now, we can't avoid the elephant (or bear?) in the room. The situation along the Russia-Ukraine border rightfully has drawn the attention of the world, and the question on everyone's mind is, how far will Vladimir Putin go this time—or, for the U.S. and its NATO allies, how far will we? After the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan just a few months ago, Americans don’t have the stomach for another foreign policy stumble, and President Biden can ill afford one. What’s your take? If Russia invades Ukraine, a threat that Biden has called “imminent,” should the U.S. take a muscular military approach, or stick with harsh economic sanctions, as Biden has indicated he would? Let us know what you think here [[link removed]]. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
Georgia to impanel grand jury in probe of Trump bid to overturn 2020 election — [[link removed]]Reuters [[link removed]]
U.S. military aircraft circles Taiwan as China warplanes alarm island [[link removed]] — [[link removed]]Newsweek [[link removed]]
27 lawmakers call on House leaders to ban members from stock trading — [[link removed]]CNBC [[link removed]]
Biden phoned to make amends after insulting reporter — [[link removed]]The Daily Beast [[link removed]]
U.S. court rejects Alabama redistricting as violating Black voting rights — [[link removed]]Reuters [[link removed]]
'This is all Putin’
NATO has ships and jet fighters in Eastern Europe at the ready. President Biden is teleconferencing with his counterparts in Europe. “World War 3” is trending on Twitter. Fox News host Tucker Carlson is openly floating Russian propaganda to millions of Americans. It can only mean one thing: Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a dangerous game, and once again, Ukraine is the unfortunate victim. We've been down this road before, most notably in 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimea from the former Soviet republic. But this time is different. “If he were to move in with all those forces, it would be the largest invasion since World War II,” said Biden. “It would change the world.” —CNN [[link removed]]
So what’s the plan? According to Biden, that all depends on “what Putin does or doesn’t do.” During Biden’s 20-minute conference call with European leaders, they discussed “diplomacy, deterrence, and defense efforts" as well as what would constitute potential sanctions against Russia. “We have no intention of putting American forces, or NATO forces, in Ukraine,” Biden said. “But…they’re gonna be serious economic consequences if [Putin] moves,” including potential sanctions for Putin himself. —ABC News [[link removed]]
Keep calm and carry on. As for Ukraine’s leaders, they are doing their best to project calm, reassuring the nation that an invasion from Russia is not imminent, even as they acknowledged the threat and the receipt of military equipment from the U.S. In a televised speech, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged Ukrainians not to panic. “We are strong enough to keep everything under control and derail any attempts at destabilization,” he said. —Associated Press [[link removed]]
“Russia maintains a range of offensive cyber tools.” Stateside, cybersecurity remains a major concern. The Department of Homeland Security warned in a Jan. 23 memo that Russia would consider conducting a cyberattack on the U.S. homeland if Moscow perceived that a U.S. or NATO response to an invasion of Ukraine "threatened [Russia's] long-term national security.” Sen. Mark Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed similar fears, adding, “I am concerned that Russia has been using Ukraine as a sort of testing ground for its cyber capabilities.” —CNN [[link removed]]
MORE: Fiona Hill: For Russia’s president Putin, it’s not just about Ukraine — [[link removed]]The New York Times [[link removed]]
Diamond: Embrace the possible
“We can’t know what might be possible through bipartisan negotiations, but we do know that the Democrats’ two voting rights bills have not gotten passed this year. We must embrace the reform we can achieve—and continue the fight for the important reform work of the future.” —Larry Diamond in The New York Times [[link removed]]
Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is the author of “Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency.”
MORE: Bipartisan Senate group discusses changes to election law — [[link removed]]The Hill [[link removed]]
Olsen: Purity tests are poisoning our politics
“Both parties want to make significant policy changes, but neither can do so without enduring majority support from independent voters. These voters have been sending a clear message for more than two decades that they want to back a party that is principled but not purely ideological. [Sen. Kyrsten] Sinema’s censure shows Democrats still don’t get it. Meanwhile, Trump’s ongoing personal jihads against Republican foes show the GOP doesn’t get it either. The first party that does—the one that has room for both Kyrsten Sinema and their most devoted partisans—will reap the rewards.” —Henry Olsen in The Washington Post [[link removed]]
Henry Olsen is a Washington Post columnist and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
MORE: Matt Gaetz backs Newt Gingrich’s threat to punish Jan. 6 investigators — [[link removed]]The Daily Beast [[link removed]]
Focus on the Jan. 6 investigation
Turns out, despite months of public criticism, the Justice Department is getting more involved in the investigation of last year’s insurrection at the U.S. Capitol than was once believed. We already heard that the DOJ charged 11 rioters with sedition, and that former Attorney General Bill Barr has been in touch with the committee. Today, we’re learning that federal prosecutors are reviewing the fake Electoral College certifications that declared Donald Trump the winner of states he lost in the 2020 election. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco says the DOJ is “going to follow the facts and the law, wherever they lead, to address conduct of any kind and at any level that is part of an assault on our democracy.” —CNN [[link removed]]
The “Hail Mary pass” in Arizona. A newly released tranche of emails reveals the elaborate scheme to subvert the election outcome in Arizona. With the Trump campaign’s blessing, a group of investigators and researchers pressed state legislators on a plan to find supposed fraud and use the “evidence” to challenge the 2020 election outcome in the battleground state. One state lawmaker included on the emails, Mark Finchem, is now running for secretary of state in Arizona. If Finchem wins, he would oversee Arizona’s elections. —Rolling Stone [[link removed]]
“It’s really unconscionable.” Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, appearing on Fox News on Sunday, suggested that if the GOP retakes control of Congress in the midterm elections, members of the House select committee will “face a real risk of jail.” Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney said in response: “A former Speaker of the House is threatening jail time for members of Congress who are investigating the violent Jan. 6 attack on our Capitol and our Constitution. This is what it looks like when the rule of law unravels.” —Yahoo! News [[link removed]]
It might not be jail, but it’s a lost job. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares has fired a lawyer from a public university in the state who serves as a top counsel on the House committee. Tim Heaphy worked as counsel at the University of Virginia but has been on leave from the position to work for the committee. Virginia Rep. Elaine Luria, a member of the panel, said she is "very concerned" that Heaphy was fired for "political reasons." Miyares’ office denies it. —NBC News [[link removed]]
MORE: More federal coordination needed to tackle U.S. domestic extremism — [[link removed]']Just Security [[link removed]']
Jones: State courts are best xxxxxx for democracy
“Voters disenfranchised by partisan legislatures, either through gerrymandering, unwarranted voting restrictions, or unfair counting procedures, should increasingly seek redress through state court systems. Out of 69 challenges following the 2020 election, almost every one was dismissed as being without merit, and many of those decisions were made by state court judges. State courts would likely stand up for democracy in future election controversies, but only if they are called upon to act.” —Jim Jones in The Hill [[link removed]]
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general and 12 years as justice of the Idaho Supreme Court.
MORE: N.J.’s congressional map unfairly favors Democrats, is ‘partisan gerrymandering,’ new report says — [[link removed]]NJ.com [[link removed]]
Walter: Beware ‘anocracy,’ a dangerous hybrid
“Most Americans don’t seem particularly concerned. They have faith in our long-standing institutions, and the threat of authoritarianism seems distant. But anocracy, not autocracy, is our most immediate threat. Anocracy is usually transitional—a repressive government allows reforms, or a democracy begins to unravel—and it is volatile. When a country moves into the anocracy zone, the risk of political violence reaches its peak; citizens feel uncertain about their government’s power and legitimacy. Compared with democracies, anocracies with more democratic than autocratic features are three times more likely to experience political instability or civil war.” —Barbara Walter on The Washington Post [[link removed]]
Barbara Walter is the Rohr Professor of International Relations at the School of Global Policy & Strategy at the University of California at San Diego and the author of “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them.”
Just imagine if the United States positioned 120,000 troops on wide swaths of the Canadian or Mexican border along with artillery, tanks, and air sorties all engaging in battle preparation exercises. We could tell them that we are not satisfied with the current level of drug interdiction, but we could reassure them that we have no intention of rolling our tanks, troops, and aircraft into sovereign Canadian or Mexican territory to root out drug cartels. Does this sound familiar? Do you think a few economic sanctions would be the likely response?
It is abundantly clear that economic sanctions against Russia for amassing troops on the border of Ukraine will have little effect to deter Russia from their aggressive posture. We cannot repeat the past mistakes made in World War II, when appeasement of Hitler did nothing more than embolden his lust for conquest. Putin is engaging in a similar game, albeit in a more sneaky and underhanded manner. As much as it pains me to say this, a military option must be presented to counter this latest threat. Failure to show strength at this critical juncture will result in not only the loss of Ukraine, but will inevitably result in the loss of other former Soviet bloc countries who currently enjoy their independence. —Steven R., California
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff, the Renew America Movement, or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.

Unsubscribe [link removed]