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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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".
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!
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?
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
World Oligarchs, not government, must put up a bounty of $50 Billion for Putin and his top 3 in command.
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".
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!
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?
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??
The fish stinks from the head - find a way to eliminate Putin permanently.
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.