I agree with Nick Kristof. There is certainly risks in further arming Ukraine, but what will happen if we don't? Putin will be bolder next time. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and would, I think, eagerly attack Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland and other East European countries. He loves to threaten, and, indeed. he may carry out his threats. I consider myself a pacifist but Ukraine may well be Putin's Austria or Czechoslovakia.
"If not now, when?" Send them any and all help possible, as soon as possible. Is there some percentage in waiting that I don't see or understand? What's the hold-up?? Great column, AS USUAL, Nick. Thanks for being on the front lines for us.
I don't envy the balancing act Biden has to perform in this matter of Ukraine. Many ridiculed him and the US intelligence community when they were predicting a Russian invasion, saying it was more pro-war propaganda like the leadup to the Iraq invasion; some have since apologized for their error. Currently we hear a number of voices urging us to do much more (like President Zelenskyy's plea for a no-fly zone) and nearly as many voices complaining that we have no business participating in any fashion in a European war. My own instincts suggest that any scenario wherein US weapons manufacturers increase their profits is automatically suspect, but then I see photos of bombed buildings and corpses lying in the dirt, and read stories of summary executions, rapes and tortures and I say bomb the invaders back to the 19th century.
Tragically, Biden's support is waning, and we are likely to return to a Republican Congress next January - so whatever we do must be done soon, or the standard partisan dysfunction will once again bind the hands of the president, and risk our own democracy in 2024 with a return to the authoritarian administration we narrowly escaped in 2020. I don't have any answers, but I am convinced that, like so many issues facing us today, if we attempt to view the matter as a simple, right or wrong issue, we risk making catastrophically wrong decisions.
As to the impact on China's threat to Taiwan: As of several weeks ago, in response to Ukraine's success with ground forces and antitank weaponry, analysts I follow were saying that China would probably not want to risk an outright invasion of Taiwan, beginning with amphibious troop landings. Their thinking shifted to the likelihood that China would opt to begin with a naval blockade instead. Now, with the sinking of the Moskva by land-based missiles, that's not looking any better as a strategy either. It's interesting how the strategies for war keep shifting in favor of smaller, more mobile arms and against the larger, more cumbersome tanks and ships. Still to come: What we will learn from escalating cyber warfare in Ukraine and how that will affect scenarios for the defense of Taiwan.
I think you're point is a fair one, and China in particular is said to have developed an anti-ship missile that will make American aircraft carriers vulnerable in the Western Pacific. Big ships are vulnerable! I likewise share the view that China would probably put pressure on Taiwan in other ways than an all-out invasion. These include cyber, cutting undersea cables carrying Internet to Taiwan, and a semi-blockade to curb fuel imports to Taiwan. But I'm not sure the sinking of the Moskva affects the blockade calculations so much. The blockade can be imposed far from Taiwan, where China's ships are less vulnerable, and if a Chinese ship were lost, the next step would be for oil tankers headed to Taiwan to suffer mysterious attacks. Everybody would know that the attacks were by China, but Beijing would deny it, and no ship-owner would take the risk of delivering oil to Taiwan.
I enjoyed your thoughtful op-ed. But I believe you may want to fact-check the number of personnel on the Moskva v General Belgrano. I understand that the General Belgrano had over twice the personnel (but was of a very similar size) than the Moskva.
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions. Your writing is important and enjoyable.
In the main, I agree. At the same time, Russia is done protesting American arms going to Ukraine. Now it is threatening America. Are we willing to put our lives where our money (in the form of munitions) is?
The risk of escalation has already been built into any assistance we give to Ukraine, and the arbiter of when that risk is "existential" (I hate that term) for Russia is Putin. To do anything to favor Ukraine is to incur a risk of escalation that we cannot quantify (Who knows what the percentage risk is if we give better drones or double ammunition shipments?) or qualify (Who knows what response Putin will consider proportionate, or even if he cares about proportion?).
The risk of escalation is a prudential consideration for the West but so is the risk of Russia's continued aggression if not turned back decisively. The suffering of Ukraine is an ethical consideration but so is the broader suffering of a broader conflict.
I see only two decent alternatives: back off or pile on.
If we back off, for ethical reasons we need to inform Ukraine that they should not expose themselves to more harm by holding out because the West is too frightened of Putin's response. It follows that we direct our assistance to evacuation and (comfortable) resettlement for any Ukrainians who would rather not live under Russian rule. Cowardly to be sure, but that spares us the risk of wider war and WMD.
Piling on would mean doing whatever it takes to make sure Ukraine wins decisively and reclaims all the territory Russia has glommed. If it takes infantry and tanks (and it will surely take more than sanctions), then that's what it takes. But more likely it takes domination of the airspace and continued pummeling from there until Russian aircraft, missiles and artillery are neutralized or out of range.
Russia has ALREADY been involved with offensive cyberwar in the US. Doesn't anybody remember their state sponsored attack on gasoline delivery and protection of cyberattackers, cryptocurrency, and doing ransomware against hospitals and municipalities?
The Ukrainians replicated the Indian’s guerrilla tactics of the French-Indian war where the Indians hid in the trees to fire at the (convoy) of Redcoats (Russian tanks). The Russians are providing a shooting gallery of convoys of tanks ( and obligatory fuel tankers) as well as sitting ducks in the Black Sea. Advanced lethal weaponry as in javelins, stingers, weaponized drones and ship seeking missiles is just the ticket. Less for the Ukrainians to hide behind in the “east” but they can figure that out. Additional weaponry from 30 NATO nations, and elsewhere in the incensed world is helping. Putin did not anticipate starting a war with 30, and more, nations as munitions suppliers. When it is over, invite Russia to join NATO (and China to join SEATO) and cut everyone’s military budgets drastically. Hey! The clothes I am wearing are from Viet Nam!
Yes to everything Nick K is saying here. Why Biden's poll numbers are so low in regard to his handling of this crisis is unfathomable to me - i think we are incredibly lucky he's in charge at this moment in history. The more Ukrainians are killed, the fewer we will have as allies should WWIII begin. That's a cold calculation but at the same time, all of us are grieved and outraged for the loss and destruction the Ukrainian people have suffered.
It's become painfully obvious that our military gear costs way too much. Yes the Javalin is more capable than the NLAW, but is it worth $200k vs the NLAW's $30k? How about the Reaper... $100M vs the Bayraktar $5M. And this important, yet likely vulnerable item on the battlefield: the artillery positioning radar costing something like $160M each.
Looking at the financial statements of the top US military contractors shows nothing out of the ordinary in terms of gross profit margins. So I'm not sure what the solution is.
Nic you are very correct, logically: but we are up against a tyrant, wholly illogical in his decision-making.
Today's HL: "Russia warns US to stop arming Ukraine or risk 'unpredictable consequences'"
Nato put in place ingredients for this war many decades ago: Albright ( bless her soul) onwards.
Many lives will be lost if we send more arms: ~* $ 8 BN in taxpayer money.
Listen to Chomsky's words: ..." we can fight Russia to the last Ukranian or we face reality that the only alternative is a diplomatic solution, which will be ugly..."
Save lives of the miserable Ukranians, dying because of naive NATO policies, stop more weapons from flooding Ukraine, haul Putin to the negotiating table ( after Moskva & a bloody nose for Putin) and save $ 8 BN of tax-payer money!
(Even a fraction of that, spent for poor Yemenis will save an entire generation.)
Or else, we will invite certain & imminent danger onto our shores here in the US ( the tyrant is illogical..): which part of the equation do we not get??
Do we not have a sense of history, it lessons, and the desperation of tyrants? Do we expect an ex-comedian President to appreciate that? Or are we cunningly letting him on to the inevitable..., all because we cannot admit the failure of our past policies?
Thanks for your passionate writing about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, and, critically, what more the U.S. can do to stop it.
It seems you may have found the answer to your "now figuring out what to do next" problem.
We should not underestimate the importance of individual Oregonians showing their support in the streets of Portland, especially with President Biden's upcoming visit to Portland. I would ask that you and your followers consider joining the I-205 Bridge Rally for Ukraine, every Saturday at noon.
The next rally is at noon, Saturday April 16, at the pedestrian entrance to the South (Oregon) end of the I-205 Bridge. Address is 11633 NE Glenn Widing Dr., Portland. There is a Home Depot parking lot there.
I so hope that I’m wrong, but I suspect Putin is starting to feel boxed in and that the potential for desperate actions will become more apparent in the weeks to come as we provide more aid. He cannot just walk away and wipe his hands of these mis-deeds. He’s going to have to have something to show for this mis-adventure, just as LBJ and GWB did. I am very anxious that this ends far worse than most are currently perceiving.
I agree with Nick Kristof. There is certainly risks in further arming Ukraine, but what will happen if we don't? Putin will be bolder next time. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and would, I think, eagerly attack Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland and other East European countries. He loves to threaten, and, indeed. he may carry out his threats. I consider myself a pacifist but Ukraine may well be Putin's Austria or Czechoslovakia.
"If not now, when?" Send them any and all help possible, as soon as possible. Is there some percentage in waiting that I don't see or understand? What's the hold-up?? Great column, AS USUAL, Nick. Thanks for being on the front lines for us.
I don't envy the balancing act Biden has to perform in this matter of Ukraine. Many ridiculed him and the US intelligence community when they were predicting a Russian invasion, saying it was more pro-war propaganda like the leadup to the Iraq invasion; some have since apologized for their error. Currently we hear a number of voices urging us to do much more (like President Zelenskyy's plea for a no-fly zone) and nearly as many voices complaining that we have no business participating in any fashion in a European war. My own instincts suggest that any scenario wherein US weapons manufacturers increase their profits is automatically suspect, but then I see photos of bombed buildings and corpses lying in the dirt, and read stories of summary executions, rapes and tortures and I say bomb the invaders back to the 19th century.
Tragically, Biden's support is waning, and we are likely to return to a Republican Congress next January - so whatever we do must be done soon, or the standard partisan dysfunction will once again bind the hands of the president, and risk our own democracy in 2024 with a return to the authoritarian administration we narrowly escaped in 2020. I don't have any answers, but I am convinced that, like so many issues facing us today, if we attempt to view the matter as a simple, right or wrong issue, we risk making catastrophically wrong decisions.
Thank you for writing this. I gained greater perspective and understanding from your clarity and overview.
As to the impact on China's threat to Taiwan: As of several weeks ago, in response to Ukraine's success with ground forces and antitank weaponry, analysts I follow were saying that China would probably not want to risk an outright invasion of Taiwan, beginning with amphibious troop landings. Their thinking shifted to the likelihood that China would opt to begin with a naval blockade instead. Now, with the sinking of the Moskva by land-based missiles, that's not looking any better as a strategy either. It's interesting how the strategies for war keep shifting in favor of smaller, more mobile arms and against the larger, more cumbersome tanks and ships. Still to come: What we will learn from escalating cyber warfare in Ukraine and how that will affect scenarios for the defense of Taiwan.
I think you're point is a fair one, and China in particular is said to have developed an anti-ship missile that will make American aircraft carriers vulnerable in the Western Pacific. Big ships are vulnerable! I likewise share the view that China would probably put pressure on Taiwan in other ways than an all-out invasion. These include cyber, cutting undersea cables carrying Internet to Taiwan, and a semi-blockade to curb fuel imports to Taiwan. But I'm not sure the sinking of the Moskva affects the blockade calculations so much. The blockade can be imposed far from Taiwan, where China's ships are less vulnerable, and if a Chinese ship were lost, the next step would be for oil tankers headed to Taiwan to suffer mysterious attacks. Everybody would know that the attacks were by China, but Beijing would deny it, and no ship-owner would take the risk of delivering oil to Taiwan.
I enjoyed your thoughtful op-ed. But I believe you may want to fact-check the number of personnel on the Moskva v General Belgrano. I understand that the General Belgrano had over twice the personnel (but was of a very similar size) than the Moskva.
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions. Your writing is important and enjoyable.
You're right! The General Belgrano did have a much bigger crew. I updated my piece. Thanks for catching that.
In the main, I agree. At the same time, Russia is done protesting American arms going to Ukraine. Now it is threatening America. Are we willing to put our lives where our money (in the form of munitions) is?
The risk of escalation has already been built into any assistance we give to Ukraine, and the arbiter of when that risk is "existential" (I hate that term) for Russia is Putin. To do anything to favor Ukraine is to incur a risk of escalation that we cannot quantify (Who knows what the percentage risk is if we give better drones or double ammunition shipments?) or qualify (Who knows what response Putin will consider proportionate, or even if he cares about proportion?).
The risk of escalation is a prudential consideration for the West but so is the risk of Russia's continued aggression if not turned back decisively. The suffering of Ukraine is an ethical consideration but so is the broader suffering of a broader conflict.
I see only two decent alternatives: back off or pile on.
If we back off, for ethical reasons we need to inform Ukraine that they should not expose themselves to more harm by holding out because the West is too frightened of Putin's response. It follows that we direct our assistance to evacuation and (comfortable) resettlement for any Ukrainians who would rather not live under Russian rule. Cowardly to be sure, but that spares us the risk of wider war and WMD.
Piling on would mean doing whatever it takes to make sure Ukraine wins decisively and reclaims all the territory Russia has glommed. If it takes infantry and tanks (and it will surely take more than sanctions), then that's what it takes. But more likely it takes domination of the airspace and continued pummeling from there until Russian aircraft, missiles and artillery are neutralized or out of range.
Russia has ALREADY been involved with offensive cyberwar in the US. Doesn't anybody remember their state sponsored attack on gasoline delivery and protection of cyberattackers, cryptocurrency, and doing ransomware against hospitals and municipalities?
The Ukrainians replicated the Indian’s guerrilla tactics of the French-Indian war where the Indians hid in the trees to fire at the (convoy) of Redcoats (Russian tanks). The Russians are providing a shooting gallery of convoys of tanks ( and obligatory fuel tankers) as well as sitting ducks in the Black Sea. Advanced lethal weaponry as in javelins, stingers, weaponized drones and ship seeking missiles is just the ticket. Less for the Ukrainians to hide behind in the “east” but they can figure that out. Additional weaponry from 30 NATO nations, and elsewhere in the incensed world is helping. Putin did not anticipate starting a war with 30, and more, nations as munitions suppliers. When it is over, invite Russia to join NATO (and China to join SEATO) and cut everyone’s military budgets drastically. Hey! The clothes I am wearing are from Viet Nam!
Yes to everything Nick K is saying here. Why Biden's poll numbers are so low in regard to his handling of this crisis is unfathomable to me - i think we are incredibly lucky he's in charge at this moment in history. The more Ukrainians are killed, the fewer we will have as allies should WWIII begin. That's a cold calculation but at the same time, all of us are grieved and outraged for the loss and destruction the Ukrainian people have suffered.
It's become painfully obvious that our military gear costs way too much. Yes the Javalin is more capable than the NLAW, but is it worth $200k vs the NLAW's $30k? How about the Reaper... $100M vs the Bayraktar $5M. And this important, yet likely vulnerable item on the battlefield: the artillery positioning radar costing something like $160M each.
Looking at the financial statements of the top US military contractors shows nothing out of the ordinary in terms of gross profit margins. So I'm not sure what the solution is.
I agree with all except on the idea of sending high level US politicians into Ukraine. Doesn't seem like much to gain from that risky move.
Nic you are very correct, logically: but we are up against a tyrant, wholly illogical in his decision-making.
Today's HL: "Russia warns US to stop arming Ukraine or risk 'unpredictable consequences'"
Nato put in place ingredients for this war many decades ago: Albright ( bless her soul) onwards.
Many lives will be lost if we send more arms: ~* $ 8 BN in taxpayer money.
Listen to Chomsky's words: ..." we can fight Russia to the last Ukranian or we face reality that the only alternative is a diplomatic solution, which will be ugly..."
Save lives of the miserable Ukranians, dying because of naive NATO policies, stop more weapons from flooding Ukraine, haul Putin to the negotiating table ( after Moskva & a bloody nose for Putin) and save $ 8 BN of tax-payer money!
(Even a fraction of that, spent for poor Yemenis will save an entire generation.)
Or else, we will invite certain & imminent danger onto our shores here in the US ( the tyrant is illogical..): which part of the equation do we not get??
Do we not have a sense of history, it lessons, and the desperation of tyrants? Do we expect an ex-comedian President to appreciate that? Or are we cunningly letting him on to the inevitable..., all because we cannot admit the failure of our past policies?
Mr. Kristof:
Thanks for your passionate writing about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, and, critically, what more the U.S. can do to stop it.
It seems you may have found the answer to your "now figuring out what to do next" problem.
We should not underestimate the importance of individual Oregonians showing their support in the streets of Portland, especially with President Biden's upcoming visit to Portland. I would ask that you and your followers consider joining the I-205 Bridge Rally for Ukraine, every Saturday at noon.
The next rally is at noon, Saturday April 16, at the pedestrian entrance to the South (Oregon) end of the I-205 Bridge. Address is 11633 NE Glenn Widing Dr., Portland. There is a Home Depot parking lot there.
I so hope that I’m wrong, but I suspect Putin is starting to feel boxed in and that the potential for desperate actions will become more apparent in the weeks to come as we provide more aid. He cannot just walk away and wipe his hands of these mis-deeds. He’s going to have to have something to show for this mis-adventure, just as LBJ and GWB did. I am very anxious that this ends far worse than most are currently perceiving.
I fear the same.