Having read through your comments, I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness. I'm as spooked by this as any of you, having spent the first ten years of my life worrying that the Soviet Union would drop a bomb on America at any moment. I even remember urging my father to build a bomb shelter (to which his wise response was "not unless you, Bobby, are willing to kill neighbors who will want to crowd into it").
American foreign policy is dominated by two metaphoric enemies -- either Hitler (whom appeasement only encouraged) and Ho Chi Min (whose nationalism had nothing to do with Soviet communism). Putin seems to exist more in the former camp. We need to do everything possible to make his invasion of Ukraine as painful as possible for him. But there's also an element of ethnic nationalism to his aggression, which suggests he might be willing to settle for Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine and not threaten NATO.
I'm no expert in foreign policy, but I do think it important for us to be clear-eyed about all this, and succumb neither to a war-mongering jingoism that could lead to nuclear annihilation (as exemplified by today's letter from foreign-policy heavyweights calling for a "limited" no-fly zone) nor to a naive isolationism. Like many of you, I trust Biden and his foreign policy advisers. I think they've done an excellent job so far. And I'm thankful that the former guy is far from the Oval Office. But I'm still deeply worried.
I think annexing parts of a sovereign country because they speak the language or have a common heritage should at least be something that is voted on by the people - not because another country has bombed them into submission. If it were a simple procedure to take over a part of a country because of heritage, we could be losing parts of CA and AZ to the Mexicans or parts of FL to the Cubans.
Everybody is talking about war crimes. If they are real (n a legal sense), wouldn't it be a good idea to loudly charge them. If the world was clearly condemning Russia's acts as crimes wouldn't that weigh on the people?
Putin has already extended an olive branch: cede two of the most eastern (largely Russian-speaking) provinces, along with Crimea (the Ukrainians have essentially already done that) and drop demands to join NATO. Ukrainians can keep 90% of their land, including all the large cities.
A little bit of history: In 1953 Eisenhower approached Churchill and asked if the UK would join the US in helping France in Vietnam. Churchill responded "Why would you want to do that?" And Eisenhower said "To oppose Russia," to which Churchill replied "Don't worry about Russia, it'll collapse under its own economic weight within 50 years." This kept US troops out of Vietnam for 8 years, until that young bull, JFK, decide to "bear any burden" followed by a direct confrontation with Khrushchev.
Fast forward 36 years to 1989, and Churchill's prediction was vindicated. Gorbachev agreed to pull out of Germany but demanded that Germany not join NATO.
After much discussion, James Baker (I think it was) negotiated a deal where Germany would be allowed to join NATO, at the same time giving a firm promise from NATO would never push one inch further east.
In 1995, Bill Clinton reneged on that promise by admitting Poland and Hungary into NATO - a move which that most brilliant of diplomats, George Brennan, described as a tragic mistake. This laid the groundwork for this current awful conflict.
Let's all agree, it's always a bad idea to poke a bear in the eye.
We do not need to confront Russia, and, to extend Churchill's original thought, the economic system of Karl Marx will eventually give way to the economic system of Adam Smith. It was already beginning to happen: McDonald;s, Apple, Coca Cola, etc, corny as they are, had already become wildly popular in Russia.
Putin is also demanding that Ukraine not join the European Union. We cannot arrogantly dictate to Ukraine, a sovereign nation, what it should or should not accept as conditions of its existence.
As I understand it, admission to NATO is by a vote of the members. The U.S. president does not unilaterally make that decision.
Some more recent history: Trump weakened Zelenskyy, and by extension, Ukraine, by making it clear that he as president of the United States did not support him, and that he considered Ukraine to be merely a pawn in his reelection bid. Trump further expressed belief in Putin's fabrication that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in our 2016 election. Trump's January 6, 2021 Capitol riot encouraged Putin's aggression by making our country look weak and divided. Republicans and their radical extremist media continue to encourage Putin by relentlessly attacking the President of the United States.
Carolyn you make great points. I have been saying for years the Republicans and Democrats need to quit fighting each other. The USA true enemies are Russia and China. America could be so much stronger if those at the top would learn to work together and quit their viscous attacks on each other.
Sadly, there is too much money to be made by the cable news channels covering the fighting, and political power to be gained by politicians engaged in the fighting. Depressing!
There is only one party to blame and it's not the cable news channels and any politicians but one. The party to blame is Putin. Tim, you are making an argument of "spread the blame around." That is not helpful.
Gary, the "fighting" that I am referring to in my comment is between the two political parties (see Ms. Jernegan's comment) and applies to more than Ukraine. . The "fighting" in Ukraine is Putin's fault. My comment should have been clearer.
A tacit, but obvious, pillar of successful journalism is, "Let's You And Him Fight." If it bleeds, it ledes, right?
Large numbers of eyeballs are attracted only if there's conflict or controversy; journalism feeds that need. So do sports: We homo sapiens are hypnotized by movement, violence, potential or kinetic. Boredom is a real problem, for which we need rational solutions, not cage-fighting.
No, but they make a fortune off conflict. They'd starve if they ran with stories of peace and cooperation, in fact, even if half of their stories were in that category. They are forced, by the nature of the beast and the necessity of making a profit, to look for trouble and broadcast it. An ABC-TV head honcho famously proclaimed, "I don't know if (Candidate) Trump is good for America, but he's good for ABC."
Victor. We do have to get along with Russia and China. Our planet is big, but the world is small. Remember they are both communism. Something we do NOT want in America. The main difference is under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. That is why you see Republicans fighting hard not to have socialism or communism in America.
This idea that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting with each other is simply not feasible anymore. Republicans regularly attack the very fabric of democracy by doing things like trying to restrain and undermine voting rights, by attacking the capitol to prevent a legitimate president-elect from taking office, through their agenda of continued racism and their hatred of the LGBTQ+ communities. How can Democrats reasonably be expected to reach across the aisle when the Republican party has become a party of hatred and extremism?
I respectfully say that is how YOU view events. I see a southern border in crisis, inflation, gas prices, war, more COVID deaths than the year before, dead soldiers in Afghanistan, empty shelves and now gas prices at a all time high. There are many people in our Washington DC government making BIG money paid for with our taxes. No one had any idea this war between Ukraine and Russia was coming? We did not prepare? Republicans are not undermining voting rights as they are trying to make them safe and fail proof from election fraud. Many are NOT racist or hate the gay community. That is the only thing democrats say about Republicans. Simply not true. Just my humble opinion for you. Both parties have hatred and extremism on both sides. Why we need to figure out how to shut off the nasty rhetoric and compromise.
The Republican National Committee calls the January 6th attack on the Capitol reasonable political speech. I don’t know how you can possibly defend the Republican Party.
Stan. Let me ask you this question. What did we in America call BLM protests that burned down our cities? Riots? Protest? Free Speech? Political speech? Arson, vandalism, and looting between May 26 and June 8 were tabulated to have caused $1–2 BILLION in insured damages nationally—the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. What happened at the White House on January 6th was terrible and horrible. But so were the BLM riots. Let's move forward as a nation. Perhaps as Americans and Politicians we can learn from both. Let's not fight each other. Our real enemies are Russia and China.
Yes! It should be clear that we have also had a problem with the lader at the top of the entire thing. Signs are that things are improving---slowly--but it will take a good long while to establish and maintain a leadership role in the United States, what with Putin and Trump's efforts to diminish our national leadership role and convert our foreign affairs into personal ones run by (between) the Russian tyrant and the American one. If Ukraine is a sovereign nation on a par with such sovereign states as France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, etc. etc., it determines its own membership in international organizations, along with the other member states and on a par with such states. (Britain voted to leave the European Union and did so; the US played on role in that decision and other member-states accepted that decision.) I believe this entire and very dangerous situation with respect to Ukraine stems from the former incompetent and foolhardy president who seemed to think that he could play on the same court as the deeply wily and dishonest tyrant PUtin...he also seemed to believe that conducting foreign negotiations of the most crucial sort was a matter of personal proclivities and friendships when, generally, foreign diplomacy is carried out with a basis on sound policies and governance, in accord with established international laws and policies and treaties. It was never a matter of "Putin likes me and I like him, he called me brilliant," but that was where we stood for a good four years. Career diplomats and experts (people such as Marie Yovanovich and Alexander VIndman) were dismissed and foreign policy became a matter of who likes who and shaking hands vigorously. I am afraid that we are going to be dealing with this sort of "legacy" for a while yet and that, when strength is needed (as it is right now), we will have to deal from a weakened position. It unfairly falls to Zelenskyy and Ukraine to deal with a situation that we created. You have to admire their determination to carry it through; you only wondered (at least I do) how long they can hold out and what will it all lead to if and when they falter.
As Norman Mailer once pointed out, "The paradox is that no love can prove so intense as the love of two narcissists for each other." [Of course, the "love" in this instance is unidirectional, but Trump is too ignorant to have figured that out.]
It was always interesting to look at Putin's eyes whenever he glanced at Trump-- his expression was always saying, "You sucker."
I got over being embarrassed by Trump's stupidity a long time ago. My greatest concern during his occupation (probably not a bad term) of the Oval Office was that some yo-yo would mention that a nuclear winter would immediately stop global warming. That would elicit a vision of a Nobel Prize. Kind of like injecting bleach to cure Covid-19.
In his campaign leading up to the '16 election, one of his favorite throwaways was how "the whole world is laughing at us." What he never "got," was that the whole world was laughing at >him< and everyone who voted for him.
Oh about 30-60 days. Zelensky will probably be killed, imprisoned, or exiled, and a puppet will hold his office, as tens of thousands (perhaps many more) Ukrainians are killed.
Now ol' Tweety's tryin' to take credit for providing the anti-tank ordinance, without mentioning that it was as part of his blackmail scheme for bullying Zelenskyy into cooperating with his political witch-hunt for dirt on Biden.
Thanks, Michael. I was there when Clinton proposed that Poland and Hungary join NATO. I don't recall a single voice sounding any cautionary alarm at all.
Excellent comment! But there was of course a dilemma. How could we deny Poland and the Baltics the protection which they sought with NATO membership? The past 1000 years saw a continuous change, an ebb and flow of the Russian empire. These countries had every reason to be afraid and seek the protection which NATO membership
afforded. How could it be denied without offering these countries to a revengeful Russia on a silver bladder.
To add to this: drawing a line with the denial of membership to NATO to Poland and the Baltics reminds me of the so called non aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin and we know the result. What’s the difference between Putin and Stalin?
Fear has clouded people's analytical ability. There is no difference between these two men. Putin must be stopped. He is not going away. We have failed to learn the lesson taught during the second world war. The history of our dealing with Putin or should I say the lack of dealing with him has greatly emboldened him. Our history of indifference when Putin acted out is the cause of what we are witnessing today. When a bully is not dealt with, he/she worsens.
When a bully is dealt with successfully, who rushes in to replace him? Should this happen (hah ..) and preferably at the hands of his own people--circle or populace--a re-awakened Duma might resolve to call (drum roll) for elections. Wouldn't Kasparov, who's amazingly still alive, be a great replacement?
Meanwhile and in any case, we have a raft of other goddam self-visited problems ..
If another bully arises to replace Putin, then he will have to be given a bloody nose also. Eventually, an honorable person who is not a bully will rise up or be raised up by the people. BTW, I heard an excellent interview of Sam Harris of Kasparov yesterday on Sam's podcast. Kasparov would be a very good replacement for Putin, but there are several others.
I believe that Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and the borders already established. I believe this agreement went into effect before Russia took Crimea so, if that is so, Russia had already reneged on its agreement with Ukraine. I believe that Russia will not honor or abide by any subsequent agreement any more than it honored its agreement about Crimea. Ukraine is under the gun and being forced (by Russia) to relinquish more and more of its territory. (I believe the two provinces of Ukraine that were recently seized by Russia voted some time ago to remain with Ukraine and the vote was 90% in favor of Ukraine.) The problem with appeasing Russia and ceding territory to it is that, eventually, Russia will decide it wants the whole pie and will try to swallow up the country. None of this will solve Russia's economic woes: the country which is huge (occupies 11 different time-zones) and has enormous resources within its borders has a miniscule economy and a decreasing population (as I understand it). Foreign investments in Russia have (I believe) improved economic conditions a bit but most of the foreign investments and profits return to the companies making the investment. So for all its size and potential, Russia is not increasing its markets and its share in the world economy. I do not know what the effect of sanctions (and investment pull-outs) will be but I can't think they will help the Russian people substantially--and they are the ones who will ultimately pay the price for PUtin and his bellicosity. It would seem that Putin's aggression is extremely unfortunate for Russia as well as Ukraine. Evidence of Putin's poor judgment and interest in his own wealth and power to the exclusion of everything (and everyone) else but, having just finished four years of our own exercise in poor decision-making by a supposed leader with no sense of decency, judgment, or history, we have not been able to rule by example. Everyone involved in the situation (Ukraine, Russia, USA, UK, European Union, NATO) faces a real flash point. We may rest assured, however, that the ones bearing the greatest burden and facing the most danger will be the citizens and ordinary people of the entire region who will also face the onerous task of picking up the damage and, of course, the tab.
My biggest project right now is trying to figure out the best way to send a gift to the Ukrainians, something that will be sure to arrive and help people on the ground. I am currently fighting off a scam associated with amazon.com and have to deal with calls at 5:30AM about my "recent invoice" from amazon. (Because of my scam-victim history, I am considered a mark.) Amazon is like many large corporations in that they do not pride themselves on a solid history of fair dealing but only take money in and do no care about treating either their customers or their workers decently...so that leaves me with my dwindling Macy retirement account which I reckon can help the Ukrainians better than me. If you decide that Trump is long-gone and can't do much damage anymore, please be dissuaded of that notion. I reckon he will be with us and doing damage long, long, after his material cowl is cast off.
Lanae. Thank you for caring so much. I have no idea what Trump, HRC, Obama or Biden will be doing down the road. Just believe we need new politicians in office. I am looking at Tulsi Gabbard. Good luck sending good things to the Ukraine people. My local Rotary group is working with all the Rotaries around the world to help too. Sending you hugs.
My only question here is: "What business did the US & USSRussia >ever< have negotiating the destinies of sovereign, third-party nations who weren't invited to speak for themselves in the first place?" Although I appreciate the history lesson, could'a, would'a, should'a's - aka "hurling subjunctives" - are a load of crap in view of the conflict we face in the present. There'll eventually be plenty of time for assigning blame if we survive this. The word "Rubicon" is historic, as well, and we all stand at its banks.
Another slightly older bit of history. Prior to the start of World War II, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, and what became The Allies, made a concerted effort to acquiesce to Adolf Hitler and to protest meekly when Hitler invaded other countries and extended his monstrous regime. It became clear that the old saying was true: "If you gave him an inch, he would take a mile." I believe Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain kept striking agreements with Hitler that Hitler would go to a certain border but no further. It was, however, Hitler's ultimate plan to subjugate all of Europe to his rule and he very nearly succeeded but for Britain (Winston CHurchill and King George VI) and eventually, the United States (FDR). What was true for the Allies before and during WWII is also true today: a tyrant will not abide by agreements and treaties if he has set the goal of taking all of a territory, he will just aim to attain his goal and it won't much matter to him whether people in other (to be conquered) nations or his own people pay the ultimate price. If you need an example from the US backyard, you might consider the fate of our many indigenous people who were always amenable to signing agreements and treaties with the idea of avoiding armed conflict. What happened to them was what usually happens to people who are dealing with tyrants and oppressors honorably and honestly: the Native Americans were pushed farther and farther from their ancestral territories and, impoverished and deprived of their way-of-life, consigned to the parts of America that the powers in Washington DC deemed uninhabitable. Ultimately, the ordinal people in Ukraine AND in Russia will end up paying a price for the selfish interests of the Russian tyrant and that price will be a physical and tangible one as well as a generally decline in an already iffy standard-of-living (for the Russians). It would be well if Putin came to consider his ventures in terms of the harm he has wrought (and will continue to dispense on his people but, well, our own unfortunate and wealth/power-hungry former leader refused to take responsibility for his own damage and the lofty tab we left for ordinary citizens to pay. We are not a good example for dealing with other nations but at least we now have a leader who will take some repsonsibility when things go awry--which I reckon they will do, to greater or (hopefully) lesser extent.
I agree with you! This conflict is our moment to stop tyranny! Biden has done a super job here. Now is the time to double down on our resolve! If we hesitate or allow allies to hesitate, we will pay a higher price in the long run. The west must act decisively and reasonable quickly! If Germany could stop importing natural gas from Russia it would be very decisive! Oh yes it would hurt them and perhaps we could encourage them to do so. I'm not on any way a war monger, in fact, I am very much in favor of peace but, not peace at any price!
Michael, The agreement you presented in your opening paragraph is quite similar to the one proposed by The Guardian and also elsewhere. I neither have read nor heard that Russia has agreed to its terms. Do you have a reference verifying Russia’s approval?
Btw, Though, in 1991, Russia guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty over its borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, still, may I presume this new agreement, if there is one, again, assures Ukraine sovereignty of its somewhat reduced borders?
Thank you for asking this question. I think the olive branch is purely wishful thinking.
We know what will happen. We saw this playbook in Syria and cities like Aleppo before and Putin got away with it. Who then was in charge in the US and countries like Germany? Putin loves so called humanitarian corridors as an excuse for a final amargeddon on the remaining defenders and those unfortunate who were left behind.
Putin's "olive branch" not worth a damn. His promises are made to be broken. No appeasement. If those two parts of Ukraine want to join Russia, let them vote for that.
Putin has said that Ukraine is not a real country and should be part of Russia, or at a minimum, its government should be controlled by Russia. That seems to be his hard and fast position. He may superficially accept that "olive branch" of concessions to give him time to rebuild his military for another full-scale invasion when the rest of the world has lost interest and moved on. Meanwhile, he could continue his pattern of cyberattacks, shutting off gas to Ukraine, etc.
"Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states."
The U.S. government and Europe, I believe, now bear responsibility for prolonging a dangerous war that could be ended tomorrow, leaving most of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent democracy, except for Crimea and the two eastern Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. In light of the history nicely summarized above by Michael, I believe that the Russian conditions are reasonable and that there is no longer any excuse for prolonging this war - and the wider risk of nuclear war - for even 24 more hours.
Geordie, I read the Reuters 2022 link and noted that by
insisting on Ukraine’s neutrality, the Russians were demanding that “Ukraine…reject any offer to enter any bloc,” a provision I interpret as including the EU, as Carolyn had stated earlier. Do you think that’s an acceptable demand?
My understanding is that this provision is only about NATO membership, which Russia regards as a security threat. Russia wants Ukraine to be a neutral country.
I don't think rejecting EU membership is a condition for Russian withdrawal - that certainly wouldn't make any sense to me.
Geordie, Admittedly, the only indications are the quote referenced above and Carolyn Herz’s remark also above stating “Putin is… demanding that Ukraine not join the European Union.” If this demand is accurate, I imagine the reason could be that Ukraine’s desire for integration with the West conflicts with Putin’s desire for recreating a greater Russia. Suffice it to say, in my view, there’s enough here to merit paying attention.
Putin extended an olive branch? Putin does not get to make demands on his neighbors. He can ask, but not require compliance, especially not with a gun in his hand. The west is not dealing with a person who is being a "good citizen". Putin is a brute, a thug and if the west thinks that he is going to back down, they are wrong. The west has pretty much told him that they will not get involved in Ukraine, fearing a larger conflict. What would you take away from that kind of information if you were Putin? I think he sees it as he can do what he wants and the west will bitch and moan, but do nothing else. You would give in to Putin's demands, just to avoid poking the bear, rather than supporting the right of every country to choose its future without a gun pointed to the head? I guess support to democratic principles is no longer a thing.
Yes, Russia is a third world country in every way except for nuclear weapons. We are seeing that the military remains poorly trained, equipped, and led. The people are so uniformed that they don't know what they don't know about living in under a dictatorship. This is not just about Ukraine. It is about many other countries that are ripe for the taking if Putin wins this argument. It is about which overarching ideology will prevail into the future. The UN seems worthless, but that's another issue.
Your argument like Michael's is well stated. My take-away from what you have said is clear. Do not let 3rd world countries develop nuclear weapons, as Biden is about to do in his deal with Iran. That's the next shoe to drop, unless Israel has something to say about it.
A country that wants nuclear weapons will find a way to get them with or without our saying or doing anything - Israel and North Korea are examples. Don't make Biden the fall guy for Iran. We had a reasonably good treaty to postpone that development (giving the west time to convince them of the folly of nukes) but Trump backed out of it. Iran is not Russia, and the leadership of Iran is not Putin and wealth-sucking oligarchs.
We have seen the same playbook in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria before. Human corridors and then carpet bombings. God help those left behind in the hospitals and shelters.
Michael. Thank you for your history lesson. It really does matter when we vote in America. It does matter who the President listens too. (Your analogy about Clinton and Brenna) I agree bad idea to poke a bear in the eye. However, the bear can be crippled so no longer a threat.
Wow! I did not her of this olive branch! I do not believe it! Wolf and indeed! Putin is a list like Hitler was a liar! Think of this: why would he invade just to give up territory? Does not make sense! Where did you get this information?
Hi Stephen. I believe it was the Guardian. There was no echo in the US Press. It might be disinformation or a ruse by Putin, however it is plausible. Putin badly underestimated the response by Ukraine and the West. He has thousands of dead soldiers, and an incompetent war machine. He needs a face-saving way out.
Given Russia's extensive cyber warfare campaign against the U.S. and western Europe dating back to at least 2014, I think the reality is we are ALREADY at war with Russia. The question, and it's one that I don't have an answer to, is how do we prevent the war from going nuclear? The best I've got is Biden and his team have been doing pretty well so far, and have access to way more Intel than any of us. We need to trust them, not necessarily unquestioningly, but with an understanding that this is why we elect smart, serious people. There is no way for the average American to formulate a good answer to this question- not enough time or resources to even fully comprehend it...
Yes, it's very difficult to answer complex foreign policy questions. But when we leave foreign policy solely to the experts (the "best and the brightest") we often find ourselves in terrible messes. Although we don't know what Biden is learning each morning in his intelligence briefings, we can make it clear to our elected representatives that we're determined to prevent Putin from invading any NATO member but we don't want Americans to die for Ukraine and we don't want to risk a nuclear war over Russia's invasion. You may disagree with my bottom line here, but I think it important for Americans to debate this openly. There are always tradeoffs and limits in foreign policy. Foreign policy can't be neatly separated from domestic policy. All involve politics, which requires democratic deliberation.
I don't disagree at all that it needs to be debated openly. I just- and you tend to be good at this- think that it's equally important to acknowledge in public debate what we know, and what we don't. And I don't know if I agree with your bottom line or not. I agree that nuclear war is to be avoided. I don't know- particularly as the safety systems at Chernobyl are running on back up generators at the moment- if sacrificing the Ukraine is actually the way to accomplish that...
And I think my biggest point is that this is why the 'conservative' minority of the political spectrum needs to take back their party from the lunatics. The stakes are too DAMN high to have idiots making decisions of consequence.
Tad. I agree with you. America is at war. This is the time ALL Americans including the Republicans and Democrats must rally around President Biden. I am NOT a fan of Biden. I did not VOTE for him. He seems senile and not "with it" on TV. He is definitely not an orator. However, he is the current President of America. I pray to God he has smart decision makers surrounding him. We need every single influence maker in America to come up with ideas how we as citizens can help. We need every Republican from Donald Trump to Paul Gosar (my congressman) to come together to make America strong again. We also need to become energy independent like in 2020. (Buy American including our oil!!) People like Obama, AOC, HRC, Newt Gingrich, Jim Jordan, Mitch McConnell to name a few need to work on uniting us rather than dividing us with their rhetoric and tweets. Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, The View and SNL need to understand Americans needs to come together more than ever before. Russia attacked Ukraine now because they see the USA divided on issues like the BLM Riots burning our cities and White House riot on January 6th. Russia and China are making us fight each other. There are trolls all over social media that continue to manipulate us. When will Americans and our politicians figure this out?
Laurie. You need to get out of your bubble. The master plan by the democratic party is to transition the USA to a socialist welfare state. "You get a free car. You get a free house. You get free healthcare. You get free a college education. No one has to work because the government will take care of you. That is why the Republicans are fighting hard to keep America a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.” However, over the past 30 years money and greed has changed everything. Career politicians on both sides need to have term limits. No one over the age of 70 should run for President. My 2 cents.
Getting a free car? A free house? Who has ever seriously offered that? I think you may be in a bit of a bubble yourself. Helping to make a family's ends meet is what that kind of argument attempts to deflect. Introducing a progressive tax structure so that one pays tax according to their ability to pay tax is what that kind of palaver attempts to deflect. Implementing rational regulations to limit capitalist kleptocrats and would-be capitalist kleptocrats' ability to gouge the public with misrepresented goods & services while profiteering through a pandemic is what that kind of palaver >intends< to deflect - and I'm not spendin' a single dime buyin' that nonsense about a socialist welfare state or some other, falsely advertised capitalist ideologue's notion of freedom.
Paula. I am an "older people". Why I have much wisdom. I turned 70 last year. I am pretty sharp for an old baby boomer. We do have a lot to contribute. But at some point we need to let the younger folks have a chance. No one over the age of 70 should consider running for President. Just my humble opinion.
I haven’t had these feelings of dread since I was a kid and they talked about what a nuclear war would be like. We must avoid this & somehow make sure Russia is defeated in their attempt to subvert the democracy of Ukraine
Jab. I like you remember over 60 years ago in school when we had to hide under our desks. It was called "duck and cover" drills. Because Russia was going to drop a bomb. We had bomb shelters back then too. Americans MUST come together to fight evil instead of fighting each other. I am so sick of HRC and Donald Trump with their nasty fighting with each other. It is time we come together for America. For our grandchildren. We can work together. It is called compromise!
And once again, HRC was wrong about Trump. She has one goal in mind: To be the first woman President of America. She will say or do anything to be elected. She is still trying.
tRump has one goal in mind. To be like Putin and other autocrats and dictators. After he incited Sedition, he should not even be allowed to run for any office in the the United States of America. As far as Hillary Clinton goes, If she wants to run, it is her right to do so!
What makes you think HRC did any such thing? At one time he claimed to be a Democrat, she and ol' Bill were personal friends, and ol' Tweety constantly bloviates to any willing ear. You could just as easily say that Access Hollywood was spying on him as he bragged about what he claimed he liked to grab. Remember, he invited a delegation of Russian spies into the oval office for a private meeting >without< any kind of security oversight, and the wanker's now trying to claim it's HRC who spied on the WH. Your >claim< sounds hollow, here, to me. ol' Tweety tried to use that same, lame, both sides at fault reasoning following the Charlottesville riot. On the other hand, I have a bridge that has your name on it. It's a bridge, the likes of which >the world< has never been seen before, and >just for >you< and >you alone<< I'll make >you< the >sole owner< for a special, >bargain< price.
I agree we need to stop the infighting but also, I'm not one to accept that HRC has anything to do with the division that TFG has inflicted on the world. But yes, I also remember those drills.
As awful as that sounds, being held hostage to the fear of nuclear war is worse. Fear based decisions will eventually destroy us. We should offer value based honest efforts to negotiate and continue to do what’s right. Perhaps humans can’t coexist. In my time on earth I’m not impressed. Every relationship requires cooperation. Putin must not be emboldened and has to be stopped otherwise it will only get worse.
We are in a tough place. A determined relentless path to totally isolating him and making him impotent seems like it would be helpful. The whole world needs involved and willing to sacrifice. Especially need to shutdown the Putin cheerleaders and remove fascist republicans. Demonstrate to the world by making him nothing but a bully. Biden is on the right path
Putin's forces attacked a maternity hospital! Babies are dying because their mothers are dehydrated and cannot nurse them. I think he wants to commit suicide by war. He hopes to get annihilated! Certainly deserves it.
Do what we’re currently doing, supplying Stingers and Javelins, and stopping business and freezing assets. Putin is a sociopathic narcissist with delusions of grandeur. He probably won’t accept the humiliation of a loss. A no-fly zone and fighter jet transfer might be too provocative right now. Let’s see, despite the ghastly humanitarian situation, if we’re applying enough pressure to get Putin to change his calculus. We don’t know what could push him over the edge to a tactical nuke. That would almost assuredly provoke a response from the West that might unleash Armageddon. To call this situation delicate is a vast understatement.
Honestly, and as respectfully as possible, when there is acknowledgement that the two sides are not equivalent. The Left has been trying to unite the country while the Right has been fundraising off of division. The Left tries to do things. The Right tries to dismantle government. The Left has discussions among themselves about what the best thing to do is, and at times suffers for it because they cannot always unite themselves. The Right would never dream of appearing to hand the Left a victory, even when that victory benefits their constituents. The Left takes aim at itself, in the hopes of at least providing a united front. The Right always finds a way to demonize Democrats.
If you think Joe Biden looks senile and sleepy on TV then it is pretty clear that you only watch Fox or outlets further to the right. Try reading the New York Times. Whose newsletter this morning actually had a pretty in depth take on masks maybe not being as effective as those on the Left would hope them to be. that's the definition of NEWS. Go where the facts lead. If the facts lead to the "Left", it's because the "Left" is actually pretty centrist, and defined most by empiricism and rationality. If the Right wants to unite this country, they need to look in the mirror and start electing smart, serious people who care more about making life in the United States better than "owning the libs".
Well stated. Agreed. Here's a tip in the Q-publican word game: everything >not< Q-publican is the radical left. It's a question of perspective. I'm sure it seems that way to those so radically far to the right.
We must not go to nuclear war! We must stop Putin in a way that either results in him being removed by rational forces inside the Kremlin, or by the people of Russia. If that is not possible, he must lose in a way that allows him to save face. The Kremlin has said the U.S. has declared economic war on Russia. U. S. businesses and our government are, surprisingly, working in concert in an economic war on Putin and his oligarchs, and that is a good thing. We must not replace Russian oil with Saudi Arabian or Venezuelan oil. They are countries also ruled by despots that are good at killing their own people. We must accelerate our change from fossil fuels to renewables. Nuclear war would be suicide, as Prof. Reich says, but fossil fuels are resulting in catastrophic climate change, which may well result in suicide for the human race and many other species within 50 years or less. Our Mother Earth provides us with enough solar, wind, hydro and geothermal resources to provide all the power we can possibly use, if only we are willing to harness it. Let’s establish a Marshall Plan to harness that power for all of earth’s children!
Joe Tonini ; Good idea, if it can be done. Those who are making a 'kiiling' on fossil fuels will have to decide whether they want to live or die, much like addicts of drugs and /or alcohol. It's a no brainer, seemingly.
That is what was done with Hitler, but it had to be done posthumously after five or more years of disastrous world war. And this Hitler wannabe has enough nuclear weapons to destroy our civilization. Hopefully, Putin’s reign of terror can be ended from within Russia.
We cannot start a war with Russia, a nuclear power! We just ended a 20 year war and have not won a war in my lifetime. We need to see what the sanctions do and keep hurting Putin as much as possible that way. I hope Putin doesn’t want to go back to the dark ages!
My understanding is that Ukraine cannot withstand the power of Russia without more help from the West, specifically more air defense weapons. Hence, discussion has turned to limited no-fly humanitarian corridors (providing safe passage out of Ukraine) and to limited no-fly humanitarian zones (providing protection to terrorized citizens from shelling, most of which has nothing to do with the war effort). Considering that shelling under either circumstance is a war crime, were one to assess the rules of engagement, presuming they weren’t meaningless to Putin, I imagine one would conclude that these limited no-fly zones would fall short of justifying provocation of a shooting war with Russia. The rub, of course, is that Putin, wrongly, could use this limited defense of air space as a pretext for expanding the war. Adding to the complication, in the alternative, one could argue that not doing something to help bring this painful, drawn-out war to an end could result in it further escalating.
Admittedly, as a lay person, my purpose for writing was not to make a determination, but to make the case for thoughtful consideration both for and against.
God, I hope not - but that has been my fear since the beginning of this conflict. Under what circumstances would it be possible for Putin to back off and still save face?
True. Putin’s ego is a huge hurdle to overcome. Putin is (apparently) as insane as Hitler was & somehow we need him removed from power. It won't be easy.
"In Putin’s case that would mean withdrawing his forces from Ukraine immediately; offering a face-saving lie to justify his “special military operation,” like claiming it successfully protected Russians living in Ukraine; and promising to help Russians’ brethren rebuild. But the inescapable humiliation would surely be intolerable for this man obsessed with restoring the dignity and unity of what he sees as the Russian motherland."
2) Significantly increase the military capability of NATO to deter Putin from expanding his war to NATO countries.
3)Work out a settlement in Ukraine per M. Hutchinson's comment to end the Ukraine bloodshed. Meanwhile, continue to provide weapons and humanitarian aid to the Ukrainians.
4) Tell the warmongers like Lindsey Graham to go to hell!
Nuclear war can be averted if we keep our heads and try to keep Putin from losing his head!
Although M. Hutchinson's facts are correct, they lead to an inescapable conclusion: let the aggressor tyrants have what ever they claim, as soon as they claim it. Better than risking a nuclear war, isn't it? History has shown, time and again, that the more we acquiesce to invaders' demands, the more they want and take. Poker, anyone??
Having read through your comments, I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness. I'm as spooked by this as any of you, having spent the first ten years of my life worrying that the Soviet Union would drop a bomb on America at any moment. I even remember urging my father to build a bomb shelter (to which his wise response was "not unless you, Bobby, are willing to kill neighbors who will want to crowd into it").
American foreign policy is dominated by two metaphoric enemies -- either Hitler (whom appeasement only encouraged) and Ho Chi Min (whose nationalism had nothing to do with Soviet communism). Putin seems to exist more in the former camp. We need to do everything possible to make his invasion of Ukraine as painful as possible for him. But there's also an element of ethnic nationalism to his aggression, which suggests he might be willing to settle for Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine and not threaten NATO.
I'm no expert in foreign policy, but I do think it important for us to be clear-eyed about all this, and succumb neither to a war-mongering jingoism that could lead to nuclear annihilation (as exemplified by today's letter from foreign-policy heavyweights calling for a "limited" no-fly zone) nor to a naive isolationism. Like many of you, I trust Biden and his foreign policy advisers. I think they've done an excellent job so far. And I'm thankful that the former guy is far from the Oval Office. But I'm still deeply worried.
I think annexing parts of a sovereign country because they speak the language or have a common heritage should at least be something that is voted on by the people - not because another country has bombed them into submission. If it were a simple procedure to take over a part of a country because of heritage, we could be losing parts of CA and AZ to the Mexicans or parts of FL to the Cubans.
Everybody is talking about war crimes. If they are real (n a legal sense), wouldn't it be a good idea to loudly charge them. If the world was clearly condemning Russia's acts as crimes wouldn't that weigh on the people?
Putin has already extended an olive branch: cede two of the most eastern (largely Russian-speaking) provinces, along with Crimea (the Ukrainians have essentially already done that) and drop demands to join NATO. Ukrainians can keep 90% of their land, including all the large cities.
A little bit of history: In 1953 Eisenhower approached Churchill and asked if the UK would join the US in helping France in Vietnam. Churchill responded "Why would you want to do that?" And Eisenhower said "To oppose Russia," to which Churchill replied "Don't worry about Russia, it'll collapse under its own economic weight within 50 years." This kept US troops out of Vietnam for 8 years, until that young bull, JFK, decide to "bear any burden" followed by a direct confrontation with Khrushchev.
Fast forward 36 years to 1989, and Churchill's prediction was vindicated. Gorbachev agreed to pull out of Germany but demanded that Germany not join NATO.
After much discussion, James Baker (I think it was) negotiated a deal where Germany would be allowed to join NATO, at the same time giving a firm promise from NATO would never push one inch further east.
In 1995, Bill Clinton reneged on that promise by admitting Poland and Hungary into NATO - a move which that most brilliant of diplomats, George Brennan, described as a tragic mistake. This laid the groundwork for this current awful conflict.
Let's all agree, it's always a bad idea to poke a bear in the eye.
We do not need to confront Russia, and, to extend Churchill's original thought, the economic system of Karl Marx will eventually give way to the economic system of Adam Smith. It was already beginning to happen: McDonald;s, Apple, Coca Cola, etc, corny as they are, had already become wildly popular in Russia.
Putin is also demanding that Ukraine not join the European Union. We cannot arrogantly dictate to Ukraine, a sovereign nation, what it should or should not accept as conditions of its existence.
As I understand it, admission to NATO is by a vote of the members. The U.S. president does not unilaterally make that decision.
Some more recent history: Trump weakened Zelenskyy, and by extension, Ukraine, by making it clear that he as president of the United States did not support him, and that he considered Ukraine to be merely a pawn in his reelection bid. Trump further expressed belief in Putin's fabrication that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in our 2016 election. Trump's January 6, 2021 Capitol riot encouraged Putin's aggression by making our country look weak and divided. Republicans and their radical extremist media continue to encourage Putin by relentlessly attacking the President of the United States.
Carolyn you make great points. I have been saying for years the Republicans and Democrats need to quit fighting each other. The USA true enemies are Russia and China. America could be so much stronger if those at the top would learn to work together and quit their viscous attacks on each other.
Sadly, there is too much money to be made by the cable news channels covering the fighting, and political power to be gained by politicians engaged in the fighting. Depressing!
There is only one party to blame and it's not the cable news channels and any politicians but one. The party to blame is Putin. Tim, you are making an argument of "spread the blame around." That is not helpful.
Gary, the "fighting" that I am referring to in my comment is between the two political parties (see Ms. Jernegan's comment) and applies to more than Ukraine. . The "fighting" in Ukraine is Putin's fault. My comment should have been clearer.
A tacit, but obvious, pillar of successful journalism is, "Let's You And Him Fight." If it bleeds, it ledes, right?
Large numbers of eyeballs are attracted only if there's conflict or controversy; journalism feeds that need. So do sports: We homo sapiens are hypnotized by movement, violence, potential or kinetic. Boredom is a real problem, for which we need rational solutions, not cage-fighting.
Oh, so CNN invaded Ukraine? Now I get it.
No, but they make a fortune off conflict. They'd starve if they ran with stories of peace and cooperation, in fact, even if half of their stories were in that category. They are forced, by the nature of the beast and the necessity of making a profit, to look for trouble and broadcast it. An ABC-TV head honcho famously proclaimed, "I don't know if (Candidate) Trump is good for America, but he's good for ABC."
Why are our "true enemies" Russian and China? We have to get along with them for the sake of world peace.
Victor. We do have to get along with Russia and China. Our planet is big, but the world is small. Remember they are both communism. Something we do NOT want in America. The main difference is under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. That is why you see Republicans fighting hard not to have socialism or communism in America.
This idea that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting with each other is simply not feasible anymore. Republicans regularly attack the very fabric of democracy by doing things like trying to restrain and undermine voting rights, by attacking the capitol to prevent a legitimate president-elect from taking office, through their agenda of continued racism and their hatred of the LGBTQ+ communities. How can Democrats reasonably be expected to reach across the aisle when the Republican party has become a party of hatred and extremism?
I respectfully say that is how YOU view events. I see a southern border in crisis, inflation, gas prices, war, more COVID deaths than the year before, dead soldiers in Afghanistan, empty shelves and now gas prices at a all time high. There are many people in our Washington DC government making BIG money paid for with our taxes. No one had any idea this war between Ukraine and Russia was coming? We did not prepare? Republicans are not undermining voting rights as they are trying to make them safe and fail proof from election fraud. Many are NOT racist or hate the gay community. That is the only thing democrats say about Republicans. Simply not true. Just my humble opinion for you. Both parties have hatred and extremism on both sides. Why we need to figure out how to shut off the nasty rhetoric and compromise.
The Republican National Committee calls the January 6th attack on the Capitol reasonable political speech. I don’t know how you can possibly defend the Republican Party.
Stan. Let me ask you this question. What did we in America call BLM protests that burned down our cities? Riots? Protest? Free Speech? Political speech? Arson, vandalism, and looting between May 26 and June 8 were tabulated to have caused $1–2 BILLION in insured damages nationally—the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. What happened at the White House on January 6th was terrible and horrible. But so were the BLM riots. Let's move forward as a nation. Perhaps as Americans and Politicians we can learn from both. Let's not fight each other. Our real enemies are Russia and China.
Yes! It should be clear that we have also had a problem with the lader at the top of the entire thing. Signs are that things are improving---slowly--but it will take a good long while to establish and maintain a leadership role in the United States, what with Putin and Trump's efforts to diminish our national leadership role and convert our foreign affairs into personal ones run by (between) the Russian tyrant and the American one. If Ukraine is a sovereign nation on a par with such sovereign states as France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, etc. etc., it determines its own membership in international organizations, along with the other member states and on a par with such states. (Britain voted to leave the European Union and did so; the US played on role in that decision and other member-states accepted that decision.) I believe this entire and very dangerous situation with respect to Ukraine stems from the former incompetent and foolhardy president who seemed to think that he could play on the same court as the deeply wily and dishonest tyrant PUtin...he also seemed to believe that conducting foreign negotiations of the most crucial sort was a matter of personal proclivities and friendships when, generally, foreign diplomacy is carried out with a basis on sound policies and governance, in accord with established international laws and policies and treaties. It was never a matter of "Putin likes me and I like him, he called me brilliant," but that was where we stood for a good four years. Career diplomats and experts (people such as Marie Yovanovich and Alexander VIndman) were dismissed and foreign policy became a matter of who likes who and shaking hands vigorously. I am afraid that we are going to be dealing with this sort of "legacy" for a while yet and that, when strength is needed (as it is right now), we will have to deal from a weakened position. It unfairly falls to Zelenskyy and Ukraine to deal with a situation that we created. You have to admire their determination to carry it through; you only wondered (at least I do) how long they can hold out and what will it all lead to if and when they falter.
As Norman Mailer once pointed out, "The paradox is that no love can prove so intense as the love of two narcissists for each other." [Of course, the "love" in this instance is unidirectional, but Trump is too ignorant to have figured that out.]
Yes! It was always abundantly clear that Putin was playing Trump--and always embarrassing that Trump never got it.
It was always interesting to look at Putin's eyes whenever he glanced at Trump-- his expression was always saying, "You sucker."
I got over being embarrassed by Trump's stupidity a long time ago. My greatest concern during his occupation (probably not a bad term) of the Oval Office was that some yo-yo would mention that a nuclear winter would immediately stop global warming. That would elicit a vision of a Nobel Prize. Kind of like injecting bleach to cure Covid-19.
Bemusement, indeed!
In his campaign leading up to the '16 election, one of his favorite throwaways was how "the whole world is laughing at us." What he never "got," was that the whole world was laughing at >him< and everyone who voted for him.
Oh about 30-60 days. Zelensky will probably be killed, imprisoned, or exiled, and a puppet will hold his office, as tens of thousands (perhaps many more) Ukrainians are killed.
Now ol' Tweety's tryin' to take credit for providing the anti-tank ordinance, without mentioning that it was as part of his blackmail scheme for bullying Zelenskyy into cooperating with his political witch-hunt for dirt on Biden.
DITTO
Thanks, Michael. I was there when Clinton proposed that Poland and Hungary join NATO. I don't recall a single voice sounding any cautionary alarm at all.
It is hard to make these decisions, it is easy to sit in judgement years later. But given what we know about Putin it was the right decision.
Excellent comment! But there was of course a dilemma. How could we deny Poland and the Baltics the protection which they sought with NATO membership? The past 1000 years saw a continuous change, an ebb and flow of the Russian empire. These countries had every reason to be afraid and seek the protection which NATO membership
afforded. How could it be denied without offering these countries to a revengeful Russia on a silver bladder.
To add to this: drawing a line with the denial of membership to NATO to Poland and the Baltics reminds me of the so called non aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin and we know the result. What’s the difference between Putin and Stalin?
Fear has clouded people's analytical ability. There is no difference between these two men. Putin must be stopped. He is not going away. We have failed to learn the lesson taught during the second world war. The history of our dealing with Putin or should I say the lack of dealing with him has greatly emboldened him. Our history of indifference when Putin acted out is the cause of what we are witnessing today. When a bully is not dealt with, he/she worsens.
When a bully is dealt with successfully, who rushes in to replace him? Should this happen (hah ..) and preferably at the hands of his own people--circle or populace--a re-awakened Duma might resolve to call (drum roll) for elections. Wouldn't Kasparov, who's amazingly still alive, be a great replacement?
Meanwhile and in any case, we have a raft of other goddam self-visited problems ..
If another bully arises to replace Putin, then he will have to be given a bloody nose also. Eventually, an honorable person who is not a bully will rise up or be raised up by the people. BTW, I heard an excellent interview of Sam Harris of Kasparov yesterday on Sam's podcast. Kasparov would be a very good replacement for Putin, but there are several others.
I agree. Until the bully gets a bloody nose, he will continue stealing lunch boxes.
We have no right to bargain away a nation's sovereignty, just like Putin has no right to just take it away.
Body count
Yes, body count is part of the assessment of outcomes, but only part. And the assessment must consider the long run as well as the short run.
Want a headline? 'NATO and EU offer membership to Kaliningrad' ..
I believe that Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and the borders already established. I believe this agreement went into effect before Russia took Crimea so, if that is so, Russia had already reneged on its agreement with Ukraine. I believe that Russia will not honor or abide by any subsequent agreement any more than it honored its agreement about Crimea. Ukraine is under the gun and being forced (by Russia) to relinquish more and more of its territory. (I believe the two provinces of Ukraine that were recently seized by Russia voted some time ago to remain with Ukraine and the vote was 90% in favor of Ukraine.) The problem with appeasing Russia and ceding territory to it is that, eventually, Russia will decide it wants the whole pie and will try to swallow up the country. None of this will solve Russia's economic woes: the country which is huge (occupies 11 different time-zones) and has enormous resources within its borders has a miniscule economy and a decreasing population (as I understand it). Foreign investments in Russia have (I believe) improved economic conditions a bit but most of the foreign investments and profits return to the companies making the investment. So for all its size and potential, Russia is not increasing its markets and its share in the world economy. I do not know what the effect of sanctions (and investment pull-outs) will be but I can't think they will help the Russian people substantially--and they are the ones who will ultimately pay the price for PUtin and his bellicosity. It would seem that Putin's aggression is extremely unfortunate for Russia as well as Ukraine. Evidence of Putin's poor judgment and interest in his own wealth and power to the exclusion of everything (and everyone) else but, having just finished four years of our own exercise in poor decision-making by a supposed leader with no sense of decency, judgment, or history, we have not been able to rule by example. Everyone involved in the situation (Ukraine, Russia, USA, UK, European Union, NATO) faces a real flash point. We may rest assured, however, that the ones bearing the greatest burden and facing the most danger will be the citizens and ordinary people of the entire region who will also face the onerous task of picking up the damage and, of course, the tab.
Lanae. Well said. Thank you for caring.
My biggest project right now is trying to figure out the best way to send a gift to the Ukrainians, something that will be sure to arrive and help people on the ground. I am currently fighting off a scam associated with amazon.com and have to deal with calls at 5:30AM about my "recent invoice" from amazon. (Because of my scam-victim history, I am considered a mark.) Amazon is like many large corporations in that they do not pride themselves on a solid history of fair dealing but only take money in and do no care about treating either their customers or their workers decently...so that leaves me with my dwindling Macy retirement account which I reckon can help the Ukrainians better than me. If you decide that Trump is long-gone and can't do much damage anymore, please be dissuaded of that notion. I reckon he will be with us and doing damage long, long, after his material cowl is cast off.
Lanae. Thank you for caring so much. I have no idea what Trump, HRC, Obama or Biden will be doing down the road. Just believe we need new politicians in office. I am looking at Tulsi Gabbard. Good luck sending good things to the Ukraine people. My local Rotary group is working with all the Rotaries around the world to help too. Sending you hugs.
Myhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
My only question here is: "What business did the US & USSRussia >ever< have negotiating the destinies of sovereign, third-party nations who weren't invited to speak for themselves in the first place?" Although I appreciate the history lesson, could'a, would'a, should'a's - aka "hurling subjunctives" - are a load of crap in view of the conflict we face in the present. There'll eventually be plenty of time for assigning blame if we survive this. The word "Rubicon" is historic, as well, and we all stand at its banks.
The US and the USSR (or Russia) never had a right to negotiate the sovereignty of nations, even though they might have thought so.
Another slightly older bit of history. Prior to the start of World War II, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, and what became The Allies, made a concerted effort to acquiesce to Adolf Hitler and to protest meekly when Hitler invaded other countries and extended his monstrous regime. It became clear that the old saying was true: "If you gave him an inch, he would take a mile." I believe Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain kept striking agreements with Hitler that Hitler would go to a certain border but no further. It was, however, Hitler's ultimate plan to subjugate all of Europe to his rule and he very nearly succeeded but for Britain (Winston CHurchill and King George VI) and eventually, the United States (FDR). What was true for the Allies before and during WWII is also true today: a tyrant will not abide by agreements and treaties if he has set the goal of taking all of a territory, he will just aim to attain his goal and it won't much matter to him whether people in other (to be conquered) nations or his own people pay the ultimate price. If you need an example from the US backyard, you might consider the fate of our many indigenous people who were always amenable to signing agreements and treaties with the idea of avoiding armed conflict. What happened to them was what usually happens to people who are dealing with tyrants and oppressors honorably and honestly: the Native Americans were pushed farther and farther from their ancestral territories and, impoverished and deprived of their way-of-life, consigned to the parts of America that the powers in Washington DC deemed uninhabitable. Ultimately, the ordinal people in Ukraine AND in Russia will end up paying a price for the selfish interests of the Russian tyrant and that price will be a physical and tangible one as well as a generally decline in an already iffy standard-of-living (for the Russians). It would be well if Putin came to consider his ventures in terms of the harm he has wrought (and will continue to dispense on his people but, well, our own unfortunate and wealth/power-hungry former leader refused to take responsibility for his own damage and the lofty tab we left for ordinary citizens to pay. We are not a good example for dealing with other nations but at least we now have a leader who will take some repsonsibility when things go awry--which I reckon they will do, to greater or (hopefully) lesser extent.
I agree with you! This conflict is our moment to stop tyranny! Biden has done a super job here. Now is the time to double down on our resolve! If we hesitate or allow allies to hesitate, we will pay a higher price in the long run. The west must act decisively and reasonable quickly! If Germany could stop importing natural gas from Russia it would be very decisive! Oh yes it would hurt them and perhaps we could encourage them to do so. I'm not on any way a war monger, in fact, I am very much in favor of peace but, not peace at any price!
NATO should start with a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Michael, The agreement you presented in your opening paragraph is quite similar to the one proposed by The Guardian and also elsewhere. I neither have read nor heard that Russia has agreed to its terms. Do you have a reference verifying Russia’s approval?
Btw, Though, in 1991, Russia guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty over its borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, still, may I presume this new agreement, if there is one, again, assures Ukraine sovereignty of its somewhat reduced borders?
Thank you for asking this question. I think the olive branch is purely wishful thinking.
We know what will happen. We saw this playbook in Syria and cities like Aleppo before and Putin got away with it. Who then was in charge in the US and countries like Germany? Putin loves so called humanitarian corridors as an excuse for a final amargeddon on the remaining defenders and those unfortunate who were left behind.
Remember, those "humanitarian corridors" Putin proffered led to Belarus & Russia.
NATO should repel the attack now.
The excuse is that one of the signatories to that agreement - the USSR - no longer exists.
Putin's "olive branch" not worth a damn. His promises are made to be broken. No appeasement. If those two parts of Ukraine want to join Russia, let them vote for that.
Putin has said that Ukraine is not a real country and should be part of Russia, or at a minimum, its government should be controlled by Russia. That seems to be his hard and fast position. He may superficially accept that "olive branch" of concessions to give him time to rebuild his military for another full-scale invasion when the rest of the world has lost interest and moved on. Meanwhile, he could continue his pattern of cyberattacks, shutting off gas to Ukraine, etc.
Beware that olive branch. It could be wolfbane ..
Good reservation. I like it!
Thanks for this very nice summary. There is no need whatsoever for this senseless war, or for the dangerous risk of nuclear confrontation by continuing this war. The Russian demands for ending the invasion immediately were posted Monday: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/
These are essentially the same conditions were posted much earlier, before Russia invaded, here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
This quote is from the Kremlin spokesman:
"Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states."
The U.S. government and Europe, I believe, now bear responsibility for prolonging a dangerous war that could be ended tomorrow, leaving most of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent democracy, except for Crimea and the two eastern Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk. In light of the history nicely summarized above by Michael, I believe that the Russian conditions are reasonable and that there is no longer any excuse for prolonging this war - and the wider risk of nuclear war - for even 24 more hours.
Agreed. No need for this senseless war; but Putin invaded anyway. There's the fact. Everything else is opinion.
Geordie, I read the Reuters 2022 link and noted that by
insisting on Ukraine’s neutrality, the Russians were demanding that “Ukraine…reject any offer to enter any bloc,” a provision I interpret as including the EU, as Carolyn had stated earlier. Do you think that’s an acceptable demand?
My understanding is that this provision is only about NATO membership, which Russia regards as a security threat. Russia wants Ukraine to be a neutral country.
I don't think rejecting EU membership is a condition for Russian withdrawal - that certainly wouldn't make any sense to me.
Geordie, Admittedly, the only indications are the quote referenced above and Carolyn Herz’s remark also above stating “Putin is… demanding that Ukraine not join the European Union.” If this demand is accurate, I imagine the reason could be that Ukraine’s desire for integration with the West conflicts with Putin’s desire for recreating a greater Russia. Suffice it to say, in my view, there’s enough here to merit paying attention.
It's always a bad idea to poke a bear in the eye, as Putin has done with NATO. Keep in mind that Putin is the aggressor here.
Putin extended an olive branch? Putin does not get to make demands on his neighbors. He can ask, but not require compliance, especially not with a gun in his hand. The west is not dealing with a person who is being a "good citizen". Putin is a brute, a thug and if the west thinks that he is going to back down, they are wrong. The west has pretty much told him that they will not get involved in Ukraine, fearing a larger conflict. What would you take away from that kind of information if you were Putin? I think he sees it as he can do what he wants and the west will bitch and moan, but do nothing else. You would give in to Putin's demands, just to avoid poking the bear, rather than supporting the right of every country to choose its future without a gun pointed to the head? I guess support to democratic principles is no longer a thing.
Yes, Russia is a third world country in every way except for nuclear weapons. We are seeing that the military remains poorly trained, equipped, and led. The people are so uniformed that they don't know what they don't know about living in under a dictatorship. This is not just about Ukraine. It is about many other countries that are ripe for the taking if Putin wins this argument. It is about which overarching ideology will prevail into the future. The UN seems worthless, but that's another issue.
Your argument like Michael's is well stated. My take-away from what you have said is clear. Do not let 3rd world countries develop nuclear weapons, as Biden is about to do in his deal with Iran. That's the next shoe to drop, unless Israel has something to say about it.
A country that wants nuclear weapons will find a way to get them with or without our saying or doing anything - Israel and North Korea are examples. Don't make Biden the fall guy for Iran. We had a reasonably good treaty to postpone that development (giving the west time to convince them of the folly of nukes) but Trump backed out of it. Iran is not Russia, and the leadership of Iran is not Putin and wealth-sucking oligarchs.
We have seen the same playbook in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria before. Human corridors and then carpet bombings. God help those left behind in the hospitals and shelters.
Michael. Thank you for your history lesson. It really does matter when we vote in America. It does matter who the President listens too. (Your analogy about Clinton and Brenna) I agree bad idea to poke a bear in the eye. However, the bear can be crippled so no longer a threat.
Cecelia Jernegan ; We would hope the crippled bear would no longer be a threat.
Yes! The intern abusing president was a symptom of the tone at the top. The implications of that brokenness are now reaching terminal metastasis.
Wonderful comment.
Couldn’t have been any shorter.
Wow! I did not her of this olive branch! I do not believe it! Wolf and indeed! Putin is a list like Hitler was a liar! Think of this: why would he invade just to give up territory? Does not make sense! Where did you get this information?
Hi Stephen. I believe it was the Guardian. There was no echo in the US Press. It might be disinformation or a ruse by Putin, however it is plausible. Putin badly underestimated the response by Ukraine and the West. He has thousands of dead soldiers, and an incompetent war machine. He needs a face-saving way out.
Do you believe a country should wait 50 years for the international community to decide its fate?
Given Russia's extensive cyber warfare campaign against the U.S. and western Europe dating back to at least 2014, I think the reality is we are ALREADY at war with Russia. The question, and it's one that I don't have an answer to, is how do we prevent the war from going nuclear? The best I've got is Biden and his team have been doing pretty well so far, and have access to way more Intel than any of us. We need to trust them, not necessarily unquestioningly, but with an understanding that this is why we elect smart, serious people. There is no way for the average American to formulate a good answer to this question- not enough time or resources to even fully comprehend it...
Yes, it's very difficult to answer complex foreign policy questions. But when we leave foreign policy solely to the experts (the "best and the brightest") we often find ourselves in terrible messes. Although we don't know what Biden is learning each morning in his intelligence briefings, we can make it clear to our elected representatives that we're determined to prevent Putin from invading any NATO member but we don't want Americans to die for Ukraine and we don't want to risk a nuclear war over Russia's invasion. You may disagree with my bottom line here, but I think it important for Americans to debate this openly. There are always tradeoffs and limits in foreign policy. Foreign policy can't be neatly separated from domestic policy. All involve politics, which requires democratic deliberation.
I don't disagree at all that it needs to be debated openly. I just- and you tend to be good at this- think that it's equally important to acknowledge in public debate what we know, and what we don't. And I don't know if I agree with your bottom line or not. I agree that nuclear war is to be avoided. I don't know- particularly as the safety systems at Chernobyl are running on back up generators at the moment- if sacrificing the Ukraine is actually the way to accomplish that...
And I think my biggest point is that this is why the 'conservative' minority of the political spectrum needs to take back their party from the lunatics. The stakes are too DAMN high to have idiots making decisions of consequence.
Tad. I agree with you. America is at war. This is the time ALL Americans including the Republicans and Democrats must rally around President Biden. I am NOT a fan of Biden. I did not VOTE for him. He seems senile and not "with it" on TV. He is definitely not an orator. However, he is the current President of America. I pray to God he has smart decision makers surrounding him. We need every single influence maker in America to come up with ideas how we as citizens can help. We need every Republican from Donald Trump to Paul Gosar (my congressman) to come together to make America strong again. We also need to become energy independent like in 2020. (Buy American including our oil!!) People like Obama, AOC, HRC, Newt Gingrich, Jim Jordan, Mitch McConnell to name a few need to work on uniting us rather than dividing us with their rhetoric and tweets. Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, The View and SNL need to understand Americans needs to come together more than ever before. Russia attacked Ukraine now because they see the USA divided on issues like the BLM Riots burning our cities and White House riot on January 6th. Russia and China are making us fight each other. There are trolls all over social media that continue to manipulate us. When will Americans and our politicians figure this out?
Cecelia J ; I wonder who you voted for . The Republican party is not functioning for democracy. It is the party of seditionists and neo fascists
Laurie. You need to get out of your bubble. The master plan by the democratic party is to transition the USA to a socialist welfare state. "You get a free car. You get a free house. You get free healthcare. You get free a college education. No one has to work because the government will take care of you. That is why the Republicans are fighting hard to keep America a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.” However, over the past 30 years money and greed has changed everything. Career politicians on both sides need to have term limits. No one over the age of 70 should run for President. My 2 cents.
Getting a free car? A free house? Who has ever seriously offered that? I think you may be in a bit of a bubble yourself. Helping to make a family's ends meet is what that kind of argument attempts to deflect. Introducing a progressive tax structure so that one pays tax according to their ability to pay tax is what that kind of palaver attempts to deflect. Implementing rational regulations to limit capitalist kleptocrats and would-be capitalist kleptocrats' ability to gouge the public with misrepresented goods & services while profiteering through a pandemic is what that kind of palaver >intends< to deflect - and I'm not spendin' a single dime buyin' that nonsense about a socialist welfare state or some other, falsely advertised capitalist ideologue's notion of freedom.
There is a lot to be said for wisdom gained through many years of living. Please don’t write off us older people. We have a lot to contribute.
Paula. I am an "older people". Why I have much wisdom. I turned 70 last year. I am pretty sharp for an old baby boomer. We do have a lot to contribute. But at some point we need to let the younger folks have a chance. No one over the age of 70 should consider running for President. Just my humble opinion.
Republican talking points all.
Republicans and Democrats both have their talking points. It is up to citizens as educated readers, listeners to connect the dots.
Currently there are no Republican talking points that I listen to. They are all blitso.
Good point.
I haven’t had these feelings of dread since I was a kid and they talked about what a nuclear war would be like. We must avoid this & somehow make sure Russia is defeated in their attempt to subvert the democracy of Ukraine
Jab. I like you remember over 60 years ago in school when we had to hide under our desks. It was called "duck and cover" drills. Because Russia was going to drop a bomb. We had bomb shelters back then too. Americans MUST come together to fight evil instead of fighting each other. I am so sick of HRC and Donald Trump with their nasty fighting with each other. It is time we come together for America. For our grandchildren. We can work together. It is called compromise!
How could HRC even begin to work with a Donald tRump when he and his crew want to 'lock her up'?
Laurie Blair...sounds to me like HRC spied on Trump. Both sides are the blame.
Hilary Clinton was one of the first to call tRump out for being Putin's puppet.
And once again, HRC was wrong about Trump. She has one goal in mind: To be the first woman President of America. She will say or do anything to be elected. She is still trying.
tRump has one goal in mind. To be like Putin and other autocrats and dictators. After he incited Sedition, he should not even be allowed to run for any office in the the United States of America. As far as Hillary Clinton goes, If she wants to run, it is her right to do so!
What makes you think HRC did any such thing? At one time he claimed to be a Democrat, she and ol' Bill were personal friends, and ol' Tweety constantly bloviates to any willing ear. You could just as easily say that Access Hollywood was spying on him as he bragged about what he claimed he liked to grab. Remember, he invited a delegation of Russian spies into the oval office for a private meeting >without< any kind of security oversight, and the wanker's now trying to claim it's HRC who spied on the WH. Your >claim< sounds hollow, here, to me. ol' Tweety tried to use that same, lame, both sides at fault reasoning following the Charlottesville riot. On the other hand, I have a bridge that has your name on it. It's a bridge, the likes of which >the world< has never been seen before, and >just for >you< and >you alone<< I'll make >you< the >sole owner< for a special, >bargain< price.
DZK ; Good points!
More false equivalency.
I agree we need to stop the infighting but also, I'm not one to accept that HRC has anything to do with the division that TFG has inflicted on the world. But yes, I also remember those drills.
We just prayed for peace. I agree it would've been just as effective as "duck and cover" - and >still< is! ];-)> LOL!
No moral equivalence, Cecelia. Edit function didn't work.
As awful as that sounds, being held hostage to the fear of nuclear war is worse. Fear based decisions will eventually destroy us. We should offer value based honest efforts to negotiate and continue to do what’s right. Perhaps humans can’t coexist. In my time on earth I’m not impressed. Every relationship requires cooperation. Putin must not be emboldened and has to be stopped otherwise it will only get worse.
Is there honor among thieves? How can we coexist with Putin? He can't even allow people to flee a war zone! He is beneath the Pit!
We are in a tough place. A determined relentless path to totally isolating him and making him impotent seems like it would be helpful. The whole world needs involved and willing to sacrifice. Especially need to shutdown the Putin cheerleaders and remove fascist republicans. Demonstrate to the world by making him nothing but a bully. Biden is on the right path
Putin's forces attacked a maternity hospital! Babies are dying because their mothers are dehydrated and cannot nurse them. I think he wants to commit suicide by war. He hopes to get annihilated! Certainly deserves it.
On what terms cooperate? Note the divorce rate. I'll not hold my breath.
C'mon DZK! we are not married to him! Divorce would be way cool if it kept us from being nuked.
There are an awful lot of murdered spouses, too! Just sayin'!
DZK ; It would be justifiable homicide! Planet and civilization self defense!
Then we get back to my original conclusion: "I ain't a'holdin' m'breath!" ];-)>
How do we know what 'Special Forces' are doing? This is bigger than Bin Laden!!
Do what we’re currently doing, supplying Stingers and Javelins, and stopping business and freezing assets. Putin is a sociopathic narcissist with delusions of grandeur. He probably won’t accept the humiliation of a loss. A no-fly zone and fighter jet transfer might be too provocative right now. Let’s see, despite the ghastly humanitarian situation, if we’re applying enough pressure to get Putin to change his calculus. We don’t know what could push him over the edge to a tactical nuke. That would almost assuredly provoke a response from the West that might unleash Armageddon. To call this situation delicate is a vast understatement.
Sociopathic narcissist with delusions of grandeur who can't accept the humiliation of a loss. . .Trump?
He is away from the button, though, presently.
World Oligarchs, not government, must put up a bounty of $50 Billion for Putin and his top 3 in command.
Yes!
Stephen Collins ' Would 50 bil be enough?
Agreed. I think I used similar language in an earlier discussion.
Honestly, and as respectfully as possible, when there is acknowledgement that the two sides are not equivalent. The Left has been trying to unite the country while the Right has been fundraising off of division. The Left tries to do things. The Right tries to dismantle government. The Left has discussions among themselves about what the best thing to do is, and at times suffers for it because they cannot always unite themselves. The Right would never dream of appearing to hand the Left a victory, even when that victory benefits their constituents. The Left takes aim at itself, in the hopes of at least providing a united front. The Right always finds a way to demonize Democrats.
If you think Joe Biden looks senile and sleepy on TV then it is pretty clear that you only watch Fox or outlets further to the right. Try reading the New York Times. Whose newsletter this morning actually had a pretty in depth take on masks maybe not being as effective as those on the Left would hope them to be. that's the definition of NEWS. Go where the facts lead. If the facts lead to the "Left", it's because the "Left" is actually pretty centrist, and defined most by empiricism and rationality. If the Right wants to unite this country, they need to look in the mirror and start electing smart, serious people who care more about making life in the United States better than "owning the libs".
Well stated. Agreed. Here's a tip in the Q-publican word game: everything >not< Q-publican is the radical left. It's a question of perspective. I'm sure it seems that way to those so radically far to the right.
We must not go to nuclear war! We must stop Putin in a way that either results in him being removed by rational forces inside the Kremlin, or by the people of Russia. If that is not possible, he must lose in a way that allows him to save face. The Kremlin has said the U.S. has declared economic war on Russia. U. S. businesses and our government are, surprisingly, working in concert in an economic war on Putin and his oligarchs, and that is a good thing. We must not replace Russian oil with Saudi Arabian or Venezuelan oil. They are countries also ruled by despots that are good at killing their own people. We must accelerate our change from fossil fuels to renewables. Nuclear war would be suicide, as Prof. Reich says, but fossil fuels are resulting in catastrophic climate change, which may well result in suicide for the human race and many other species within 50 years or less. Our Mother Earth provides us with enough solar, wind, hydro and geothermal resources to provide all the power we can possibly use, if only we are willing to harness it. Let’s establish a Marshall Plan to harness that power for all of earth’s children!
Joe Tonini ; Good idea, if it can be done. Those who are making a 'kiiling' on fossil fuels will have to decide whether they want to live or die, much like addicts of drugs and /or alcohol. It's a no brainer, seemingly.
Make him a war criminal and put him to trial for his sins….lock him up!
That is what was done with Hitler, but it had to be done posthumously after five or more years of disastrous world war. And this Hitler wannabe has enough nuclear weapons to destroy our civilization. Hopefully, Putin’s reign of terror can be ended from within Russia.
We cannot start a war with Russia, a nuclear power! We just ended a 20 year war and have not won a war in my lifetime. We need to see what the sanctions do and keep hurting Putin as much as possible that way. I hope Putin doesn’t want to go back to the dark ages!
My understanding is that Ukraine cannot withstand the power of Russia without more help from the West, specifically more air defense weapons. Hence, discussion has turned to limited no-fly humanitarian corridors (providing safe passage out of Ukraine) and to limited no-fly humanitarian zones (providing protection to terrorized citizens from shelling, most of which has nothing to do with the war effort). Considering that shelling under either circumstance is a war crime, were one to assess the rules of engagement, presuming they weren’t meaningless to Putin, I imagine one would conclude that these limited no-fly zones would fall short of justifying provocation of a shooting war with Russia. The rub, of course, is that Putin, wrongly, could use this limited defense of air space as a pretext for expanding the war. Adding to the complication, in the alternative, one could argue that not doing something to help bring this painful, drawn-out war to an end could result in it further escalating.
Admittedly, as a lay person, my purpose for writing was not to make a determination, but to make the case for thoughtful consideration both for and against.
I still prefer the idea of supplying them with a boatload of SAMs to clear the skies.
God, I hope not - but that has been my fear since the beginning of this conflict. Under what circumstances would it be possible for Putin to back off and still save face?
True. Putin’s ego is a huge hurdle to overcome. Putin is (apparently) as insane as Hitler was & somehow we need him removed from power. It won't be easy.
His own people should remove him.
Exactly
And the grunts in the army gettin' blown up & shot should develop their WWI taste for shootin' their officers!
From Tom Friedman:
"In Putin’s case that would mean withdrawing his forces from Ukraine immediately; offering a face-saving lie to justify his “special military operation,” like claiming it successfully protected Russians living in Ukraine; and promising to help Russians’ brethren rebuild. But the inescapable humiliation would surely be intolerable for this man obsessed with restoring the dignity and unity of what he sees as the Russian motherland."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/opinion/putin-ukraine-russia-war.html
What about his birthplace? The Donbass (sp?). Region.
Not for nothing is vanity one of the 7 >deadly< sins!
Read Michael Hutchinson‘s brilliant comment below. No war for billionaires and trillionaires.
The two states where Russian speaking people are wanting to be part of Russia could be released to Putin.
Maybe release to him Donbas and the two other states if Ukraine agrees, along with an agreement about NATO.
Here are my two cents:
1) Biden should reject the 'no fly zone" letter
2) Significantly increase the military capability of NATO to deter Putin from expanding his war to NATO countries.
3)Work out a settlement in Ukraine per M. Hutchinson's comment to end the Ukraine bloodshed. Meanwhile, continue to provide weapons and humanitarian aid to the Ukrainians.
4) Tell the warmongers like Lindsey Graham to go to hell!
Nuclear war can be averted if we keep our heads and try to keep Putin from losing his head!
Although M. Hutchinson's facts are correct, they lead to an inescapable conclusion: let the aggressor tyrants have what ever they claim, as soon as they claim it. Better than risking a nuclear war, isn't it? History has shown, time and again, that the more we acquiesce to invaders' demands, the more they want and take. Poker, anyone??
As Neville Chamberlain learned to his - and everybody's - cost.
Sounds like strip poker to me. Eventually our rights , decency and rule of law, and habeas corpus and liberty itself is gone. Is it worth it?
The fish stinks from the head - find a way to eliminate Putin permanently.
Dee leads the way! Boomer bomber squad report!
If we go to war we can do the following:
Stop paying bills.
Stop going to work.
Demand criminal investigation for crimes and prosecution of those who committed crimes when in power and those previously in power.