Tipsheet

Fox's Jennifer Griffin: 'I Don’t Think the World Has Ever Been in a Situation This Dangerous'

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  March 01, 2022 1:45 PM

An intense and unsettling soundbyte, referencing the actions and mentality of an isolated and reportedly irate wager of war who also happens to command the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.  My colleague Jennifer Griffin, Fox News' venerable and experienced National Security Correspondent, is a student of history who has covered conflicts for decades.  When she says something like this, I sit up and listen -- in this case, following-up with a question to make sure I heard her correctly:

“We are in a very, very dangerous situation right now. I don’t think the world has ever been in a situation this dangerous. You are dealing with a an erratic leader. All of the world leaders who have met with him in recent weeks, whether it was the Finnish president or the French president, have said that he’s changed, that he is isolated, that he’s not in touch with reality and even his own inner circle and the people he relies on. You can see the look of fear on their faces...We are entering you throw in the possibility of a cyber war spilling over a nuclear conflict, Article five being invoked on in a European conflict. An erratic leader who’s cornered, who is threatening to use nuclear weapons threatens to put them on high alert. This is not something we have seen in our lifetime.”

Is she right? World War Two, which happened less than a century ago, was surely more perilous, no? An estimated 60 million people died during that epic conflict.  The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and prevent countless more casualties.  What about the Cold War?  There were a number of very precarious stand-offs during those decades that could have escalated into full-blown war between two nuclear superpowers, armed to the teeth.  It's not really contestable that the present moment presents significant danger to the region and the world.  One false move could conceivably force NATO to invoke Article V, triggering a war against Russia, whose military has been exposed as something of a paper tiger over the last week.  But as noted above, Russia also controls thousands of nuclear weapons, more than any other country, including the United States.

Would even an unhinged and humiliated Vladimir Putin unleash that sort of death and destruction?  I'm still very skeptical that he would, but all contingencies must be considered.  Senior members of Congress with access to the highest levels of intelligence have been warning that Putin has changed in a disturbing way, hinting or even asserting that he's gone at least partially around the bend:


Here's former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying something similar:

"He seems erratic...There is an ever-deepening, delusional rendering of history, it was always a kind of victimology of what had happened to them, but now it goes back to blaming Lenin for the foundation of Kyiv in Ukraine. So he's descending into something that I personally haven't seen before."

I'm not at all convinced that Putin -- even despite his egregious and increasingly ghastly invasion of Ukraine -- has lost his mind to the extent that he'd even test Article V at this point, let alone ignite a nuclear armageddon.  The reality at present is disturbing enough; speculating about extinction-level events isn't constructive or realistic.  But Putin has already shocked many of the experts, so Griffin's point about seemingly unthinkable outcomes, if things broke very badly, is at least worth considering as resolutions or off-ramps are debated. Meanwhile, here are some new illustrations of just how united much of the world has become in the face of Russia's aggression:

Recommended

Liberal Media Is Already Melting Down Over Pam Bondi Sarah Arnold
Here's Where MTG Will Fit Into the Trump Administration Sarah Arnold


I'll leave you with the power of a moment that even moves the interpreter to tears: