It again is like trying to choose the lesser of 2 evils. There are no right answers. This again is the proof that being the president of the United States is the toughest "job" in the world. I thank God everyday that President Biden is the president now. I pray to God that he makes the right decision. I sincerely hope that the voters dont forget that Putin was enabled by Trump and the majority of the Republican party.
I've heard it suggested that the attack on the maternity hospital was an artillery strike. A no-fly zone would not prevent further such atrocities.
The lines over what is appropriate engagement/participation and what has very large risks look rather fine to me. My thoughts and prayers are with decision makers worldwide on such matters.
I'm always appreciative of your assessments > thank you!! I think the only way to stop the war is to get rid of Putin and that has to happen wi thin his country! So sad!!
Putin's civilian bombing strategy in Ukraine seems similar, if not identical, to his attack preferences in Syria - particularly in Aleppo - and Crimea and Georgia. I have no past recollections of any hearings or trials for war crimes committed against Putin - at least nothing with consequences. Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong. And what of Moldova and Poland if Putin choses to invade them? More of the same? I know I'm not the only one who doesn't have the appetite for his decades long massacre of innocents. It feels endless. And I'm beginning to fear that Putin might use a tactical nuclear weapon. Then what? With all the complexities of US and NATO rules of engagement, I have the overwhelming sense that while the West is carefully putting on the kid gloves, Putin makes busy with his purposeful brutal bombing of Ukranian women and children and the disabled and elderly. He's outfoxing us, again.
In answer to your question, if Putin continues to Moldova, he would indeed get away with it. In the case of Poland, he would not, because it's a NATO member. But more broadly, I'm not so sure that he has outfoxed us. I don't think he expected the Ukrainian military to put up such resistance, or the international community to impose such an economic penalty. And there's no way he'll be able to occupy Ukraine, so he finds himself in a mess that he created.
What do you do with a rabid homo sapien? We can't shoot him, but can put so much pressure on Russia that his do away with him. I believe that we must assume that there will be no major nuclear war.
There is a much more fundamental reason for holding back on military action: too much of the incentive for action involves moralizing against Russia for a) attacking civilians and b) the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign nation. How brief are our memories! Here are just two extremely inconvenient truths for us to ponder:
1. Only one nation on the planet has ever detonated a nuclear warhead over a civilian population - that's us. And we did it twice within a few days. And yes, I'm very familiar with all the arguments that say we saved millions of lives by doing so, but that's obviously speculation. The fact is, the US slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the most cruel manner imaginable. And that's not counting the many wars we've engaged in since WW2 - which leads to ...
2. Not long ago the US illegally invaded a sovereign nation that had done us no wrong whatsoever. Our actions resulted in the death of the leader of that nation, and we ended up occupying that nation for 10 years.
I get it - that was then, this is now. And I also understand that there are myriad differences between these facts and the facts surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm just offering a few sobering thoughts for some of us to ponder - especially those of us who enjoy swelling ourselves up with righteous indignation. The fact is, we're not all that righteous, so we always need to keep in mind that - in spite of the oft-mentioned "lesson" of Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler - diplomacy works much better than escalation, especially when there are nuclear weapons and an unstable leader involved.
I'm just thankful there are no longer two unstable leaders to worry about!
It's not just Putin. I think we'd all benefit from seeing more and more articles naming the Russian Generals responsible on a day-to-day basis for the bombing + shelling of hospitals, safe-passage corridors, etc. There must be at least a few horror stricken members of Russia's cabinet. I'd like to think that when the world comes out of this current disaster, the on-the-ground perpetrators will not be forgotten.
Establishing a now fly zone requires that the nation or nations establishing the zone have at least some ability to control the airspace. Russia has reasonably complete defensive coverage of the entirety of the Ukraine with radar, SAM, and other devices to protect their troops from the air. Additionally, as Nick points out, most of the damage is coming from artillery (cannons and surface launched missiles.) Those can be interdicted from the air, but the Ukrainian Air Force doesn't have the ability to do so. So, what's the solution? Money and time. If the Ukrainians can continue to resist for another month (something that may be possible), the influx of anti-tank and anti-ground munitions being supplied by the NATO allies and others may cause sufficient Russian casualties to for the Army (not Putin) to reconsider. Additionally, the war is costing Putin $20 to $30 billion a day, omitting losses in material. He doesn't have access to his reserve currency, nor to Western technology to keep his equipment and factories running. Each day the Ukrainians resist hurts the Russians. Additionally, (and this sounds trite but it is significant), the average Russian no longer has international buying ability, they can't get new mobile phones, they have no Big Macs or Cokes or many other consumer goods, and they can't travel internationally except to China or Belarus- trivial but painful reminders that they're pariahs. The costs are mounting for the Russians; an economic war is one they can't win. we don't need a no fly zone - a "no buy" zone will stop the war a lot more effectively and for a longer time, if the Ukrainians can resist for a few more months. So far, they have been successful.
If American vets go to fight in Ukraine, as I read in the nytimes they are volunteering to do, isn’t there a huge danger that Putin will think we sent them? Isn’t the main goal of Biden NOT to have American and Russian soldiers fighting eachother? I have not seen any reference to this huge danger.
NATO discussions on March 4th agreed not to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as well as NOT to fly NATO planes over Ukraine. Thus, there is NO danger of "our" planes being gunned down. On March 5th Vladimir Putin warned that any country attempting to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be seen by Russia as a “participant in the armed conflict”. “We are now hearing that one should create a no-fly zone over Ukraine’s territory,” he said, in remarks carried by the Interfax news agency. “In that very second we would consider them [the countries enforcing a no-fly zone] as participants in the military conflict.” This is the reason for Biden's decision and there is not way to sugar coat it.
Your position against a no-fly zone makes Putin the director of this war. Ukraine can only lose this fight and the West knew this before a single Russian foot was on Ukraine territory. What the West should have said (and I wrote a letter to the editor of the NYT about this before the invasion, but it was not published), was 1) Russia said it didn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO, 2) Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and 3) if Russia takes one step into Ukraine, Ukraine will be made a member of NATO, with the same implications as if another NATO country were invaded by Russia. The death and destruction and millions of refugees caused just because Ukraine was not a formal member of NATO ought to make the NATO countries ashamed of themselves.
Of course we are involved in a war with Russia - right now! Putin regards all of the economic sanctions to be an act of war and he will stop at nothing. He will invade us through cybertechnology, poison our water and all of this without firing a shot. He is a war criminal and must be treated as such.
Why do we have such a hard time distinguishing between worthy and unworthy causes? My uncle was a volunteer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and went to fight Franco in Spain, yet the U.S. government imposed an arms embargo on arms for Spain. Ironically, it was only the Soviet Union that provided arms to Spain. Over 50,000 volunteers from all over the world went to help preserve the Republic. We went where we shouldn't have gone - Iraq and Vietnam, and didn't go where we should have - Rwanda, the old Yugoslavia, and the list goes on. Then we intervened in other countries to change governments that our government didn't like - Iran, Chile, Dominican Republic (we sent the Marines in 1965), Guatemala, Nicaragua (remember Somoza?) and other countries.
So implementing a no-fly zone is the very LEAST we can and should do to not allow the war criminal Putin to continue calling the shots. Sincerely, Alan Jay Rom (ajom1@gmail.com)
I understand your passion, Alan, and I share your outrage. But you don't really address my point about elevated risks. If the no-fly zone increases the risk of a U.S.-Russian war and of a nuclear exchange, is it still a good idea? In other words, are you arguing that there is no elevated risk, or are you arguing that, yes, there is increased risk of a nuclear war but that it's worth it?
Dear Nick: A P.S. to my earlier comments. My wife was watching "Judgment at Nuremberg" when I was writing to you. I joined her for the ending. At the end, the defense lawyer sees the judge and says that the life sentences rendered will be gone and those convicted released after 5 years. The judge (Spencer Tracy) responds that this is logical, but it is not right. Countries must choose between the practical and what is right without knowing the consequences. We need the equivalent of the Berlin airlift with both military and humanitarian support and, when the Ukrainians win, we need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan. For the West to continue as it has for these past two weeks will have the inevitable consequences of a Putin victory. Recalling that old Tom Lehrer song, "Who's Next," will it be the Baltic countries? Poland? Putin's aim is to re-annex the old Soviet Union, with him as Tsar. If he won't be stopped in Ukraine, then consider the consequences. Best, Alan
Dear Nick: And I understand that, in war, there are many "what ifs" that cannot be planned for. The other side of the coin in this case is the gobbling up of a free country and more death and destruction of the people there. And, speaking of risks, continuing on the current course risks the attack by Russia on one or more of the 15 nuclear plants there. It only takes one "mistake," however inadvertent, and then what? The Russians need to be pushed out as soon as possible to hopefully avoid that. And like I said, to do otherwise is to put Putin in charge with us kowtowing (sp) to his every move. War criminals have to be treated as such. BTW, I have been reading your columns for years with great enjoyment for the subjects and your excellent writing skills. Keep it up. Alan
Putin is a brutal, evil person without a shred of conscience to hold him back as he rampages through Ukraine. How is he to be stopped and when? Pleases answer.
I understand your arguments but I look back at the history before we entered WW2. There those that wanted us to get involved and those who did. There was much resistance to our involvement. If we had entered the fray sooner many millions may have been spared. So I keep waffling back and forth on the issue of the no-fly zone. But since we aren't doing that, why did Biden decide to not let Poland send the aircraft Ukraine needs so they can take out the Russian artillery that is causing such horrific damage?
Whichever country actually hands MiGs to Ukraine risks a direct Russian attack on their nation. That's why the Poles proposed to transfer them to the USA with the understanding that we would transfer them, in turn, to Ukraine. Putin could still retaliate with a missile attack on Warsaw, but having the USA in the middle of the transfer would invite a Russian attack on our bases in Europe, our ships in the Black Sea, our fighter jets over the Bering straight, or even commercial airliners. Remember that Putin bombs hospitals. His wounded pride might make it appealing to him to bring down a flight from New York City to Warsaw, the latter being the site where the Soviet-era "Warsaw pact" anti-NATO alliance was founded.
We are in this. Our behavior is not at all like western behavior before 1939. We are supplying Ukraine with equipment that is as good or better than what the Russians have. Before Russia can attack Poland or Latvia, they have to conquer and occupy Ukraine. Russia doesn't have a large enough army to occupy a country size of Ukraine. And even Putin's propaganda machine will have a hard time explaining the need to draft an additional 500,000 soldiers for a peacekeeping mission.
It again is like trying to choose the lesser of 2 evils. There are no right answers. This again is the proof that being the president of the United States is the toughest "job" in the world. I thank God everyday that President Biden is the president now. I pray to God that he makes the right decision. I sincerely hope that the voters dont forget that Putin was enabled by Trump and the majority of the Republican party.
Thank you for this.
I've heard it suggested that the attack on the maternity hospital was an artillery strike. A no-fly zone would not prevent further such atrocities.
The lines over what is appropriate engagement/participation and what has very large risks look rather fine to me. My thoughts and prayers are with decision makers worldwide on such matters.
I'm always appreciative of your assessments > thank you!! I think the only way to stop the war is to get rid of Putin and that has to happen wi thin his country! So sad!!
Putin's civilian bombing strategy in Ukraine seems similar, if not identical, to his attack preferences in Syria - particularly in Aleppo - and Crimea and Georgia. I have no past recollections of any hearings or trials for war crimes committed against Putin - at least nothing with consequences. Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong. And what of Moldova and Poland if Putin choses to invade them? More of the same? I know I'm not the only one who doesn't have the appetite for his decades long massacre of innocents. It feels endless. And I'm beginning to fear that Putin might use a tactical nuclear weapon. Then what? With all the complexities of US and NATO rules of engagement, I have the overwhelming sense that while the West is carefully putting on the kid gloves, Putin makes busy with his purposeful brutal bombing of Ukranian women and children and the disabled and elderly. He's outfoxing us, again.
In answer to your question, if Putin continues to Moldova, he would indeed get away with it. In the case of Poland, he would not, because it's a NATO member. But more broadly, I'm not so sure that he has outfoxed us. I don't think he expected the Ukrainian military to put up such resistance, or the international community to impose such an economic penalty. And there's no way he'll be able to occupy Ukraine, so he finds himself in a mess that he created.
Encouraging words, as always. Thank you.
Very reasonable. I hope President Biden will read this and take your advice.
What do you do with a rabid homo sapien? We can't shoot him, but can put so much pressure on Russia that his do away with him. I believe that we must assume that there will be no major nuclear war.
There is a much more fundamental reason for holding back on military action: too much of the incentive for action involves moralizing against Russia for a) attacking civilians and b) the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign nation. How brief are our memories! Here are just two extremely inconvenient truths for us to ponder:
1. Only one nation on the planet has ever detonated a nuclear warhead over a civilian population - that's us. And we did it twice within a few days. And yes, I'm very familiar with all the arguments that say we saved millions of lives by doing so, but that's obviously speculation. The fact is, the US slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the most cruel manner imaginable. And that's not counting the many wars we've engaged in since WW2 - which leads to ...
2. Not long ago the US illegally invaded a sovereign nation that had done us no wrong whatsoever. Our actions resulted in the death of the leader of that nation, and we ended up occupying that nation for 10 years.
I get it - that was then, this is now. And I also understand that there are myriad differences between these facts and the facts surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm just offering a few sobering thoughts for some of us to ponder - especially those of us who enjoy swelling ourselves up with righteous indignation. The fact is, we're not all that righteous, so we always need to keep in mind that - in spite of the oft-mentioned "lesson" of Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler - diplomacy works much better than escalation, especially when there are nuclear weapons and an unstable leader involved.
I'm just thankful there are no longer two unstable leaders to worry about!
Thank you for this; I agree completely.
It's not just Putin. I think we'd all benefit from seeing more and more articles naming the Russian Generals responsible on a day-to-day basis for the bombing + shelling of hospitals, safe-passage corridors, etc. There must be at least a few horror stricken members of Russia's cabinet. I'd like to think that when the world comes out of this current disaster, the on-the-ground perpetrators will not be forgotten.
I wonder if Putin will always dangel a nuclear bomb against intervention and then eventually do it any way. I wish I could see a more hopeful future.
Establishing a now fly zone requires that the nation or nations establishing the zone have at least some ability to control the airspace. Russia has reasonably complete defensive coverage of the entirety of the Ukraine with radar, SAM, and other devices to protect their troops from the air. Additionally, as Nick points out, most of the damage is coming from artillery (cannons and surface launched missiles.) Those can be interdicted from the air, but the Ukrainian Air Force doesn't have the ability to do so. So, what's the solution? Money and time. If the Ukrainians can continue to resist for another month (something that may be possible), the influx of anti-tank and anti-ground munitions being supplied by the NATO allies and others may cause sufficient Russian casualties to for the Army (not Putin) to reconsider. Additionally, the war is costing Putin $20 to $30 billion a day, omitting losses in material. He doesn't have access to his reserve currency, nor to Western technology to keep his equipment and factories running. Each day the Ukrainians resist hurts the Russians. Additionally, (and this sounds trite but it is significant), the average Russian no longer has international buying ability, they can't get new mobile phones, they have no Big Macs or Cokes or many other consumer goods, and they can't travel internationally except to China or Belarus- trivial but painful reminders that they're pariahs. The costs are mounting for the Russians; an economic war is one they can't win. we don't need a no fly zone - a "no buy" zone will stop the war a lot more effectively and for a longer time, if the Ukrainians can resist for a few more months. So far, they have been successful.
If American vets go to fight in Ukraine, as I read in the nytimes they are volunteering to do, isn’t there a huge danger that Putin will think we sent them? Isn’t the main goal of Biden NOT to have American and Russian soldiers fighting eachother? I have not seen any reference to this huge danger.
NATO discussions on March 4th agreed not to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as well as NOT to fly NATO planes over Ukraine. Thus, there is NO danger of "our" planes being gunned down. On March 5th Vladimir Putin warned that any country attempting to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be seen by Russia as a “participant in the armed conflict”. “We are now hearing that one should create a no-fly zone over Ukraine’s territory,” he said, in remarks carried by the Interfax news agency. “In that very second we would consider them [the countries enforcing a no-fly zone] as participants in the military conflict.” This is the reason for Biden's decision and there is not way to sugar coat it.
Your position against a no-fly zone makes Putin the director of this war. Ukraine can only lose this fight and the West knew this before a single Russian foot was on Ukraine territory. What the West should have said (and I wrote a letter to the editor of the NYT about this before the invasion, but it was not published), was 1) Russia said it didn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO, 2) Ukraine is not a part of NATO, and 3) if Russia takes one step into Ukraine, Ukraine will be made a member of NATO, with the same implications as if another NATO country were invaded by Russia. The death and destruction and millions of refugees caused just because Ukraine was not a formal member of NATO ought to make the NATO countries ashamed of themselves.
Of course we are involved in a war with Russia - right now! Putin regards all of the economic sanctions to be an act of war and he will stop at nothing. He will invade us through cybertechnology, poison our water and all of this without firing a shot. He is a war criminal and must be treated as such.
Why do we have such a hard time distinguishing between worthy and unworthy causes? My uncle was a volunteer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and went to fight Franco in Spain, yet the U.S. government imposed an arms embargo on arms for Spain. Ironically, it was only the Soviet Union that provided arms to Spain. Over 50,000 volunteers from all over the world went to help preserve the Republic. We went where we shouldn't have gone - Iraq and Vietnam, and didn't go where we should have - Rwanda, the old Yugoslavia, and the list goes on. Then we intervened in other countries to change governments that our government didn't like - Iran, Chile, Dominican Republic (we sent the Marines in 1965), Guatemala, Nicaragua (remember Somoza?) and other countries.
So implementing a no-fly zone is the very LEAST we can and should do to not allow the war criminal Putin to continue calling the shots. Sincerely, Alan Jay Rom (ajom1@gmail.com)
I understand your passion, Alan, and I share your outrage. But you don't really address my point about elevated risks. If the no-fly zone increases the risk of a U.S.-Russian war and of a nuclear exchange, is it still a good idea? In other words, are you arguing that there is no elevated risk, or are you arguing that, yes, there is increased risk of a nuclear war but that it's worth it?
Dear Nick: A P.S. to my earlier comments. My wife was watching "Judgment at Nuremberg" when I was writing to you. I joined her for the ending. At the end, the defense lawyer sees the judge and says that the life sentences rendered will be gone and those convicted released after 5 years. The judge (Spencer Tracy) responds that this is logical, but it is not right. Countries must choose between the practical and what is right without knowing the consequences. We need the equivalent of the Berlin airlift with both military and humanitarian support and, when the Ukrainians win, we need the equivalent of the Marshall Plan. For the West to continue as it has for these past two weeks will have the inevitable consequences of a Putin victory. Recalling that old Tom Lehrer song, "Who's Next," will it be the Baltic countries? Poland? Putin's aim is to re-annex the old Soviet Union, with him as Tsar. If he won't be stopped in Ukraine, then consider the consequences. Best, Alan
Dear Nick: And I understand that, in war, there are many "what ifs" that cannot be planned for. The other side of the coin in this case is the gobbling up of a free country and more death and destruction of the people there. And, speaking of risks, continuing on the current course risks the attack by Russia on one or more of the 15 nuclear plants there. It only takes one "mistake," however inadvertent, and then what? The Russians need to be pushed out as soon as possible to hopefully avoid that. And like I said, to do otherwise is to put Putin in charge with us kowtowing (sp) to his every move. War criminals have to be treated as such. BTW, I have been reading your columns for years with great enjoyment for the subjects and your excellent writing skills. Keep it up. Alan
Putin is a brutal, evil person without a shred of conscience to hold him back as he rampages through Ukraine. How is he to be stopped and when? Pleases answer.
His own country men have to get rid of him. His army didn't even know what was happening. They have to be made aware and stop this from happening!!
I understand your arguments but I look back at the history before we entered WW2. There those that wanted us to get involved and those who did. There was much resistance to our involvement. If we had entered the fray sooner many millions may have been spared. So I keep waffling back and forth on the issue of the no-fly zone. But since we aren't doing that, why did Biden decide to not let Poland send the aircraft Ukraine needs so they can take out the Russian artillery that is causing such horrific damage?
Whichever country actually hands MiGs to Ukraine risks a direct Russian attack on their nation. That's why the Poles proposed to transfer them to the USA with the understanding that we would transfer them, in turn, to Ukraine. Putin could still retaliate with a missile attack on Warsaw, but having the USA in the middle of the transfer would invite a Russian attack on our bases in Europe, our ships in the Black Sea, our fighter jets over the Bering straight, or even commercial airliners. Remember that Putin bombs hospitals. His wounded pride might make it appealing to him to bring down a flight from New York City to Warsaw, the latter being the site where the Soviet-era "Warsaw pact" anti-NATO alliance was founded.
We are in this. Our behavior is not at all like western behavior before 1939. We are supplying Ukraine with equipment that is as good or better than what the Russians have. Before Russia can attack Poland or Latvia, they have to conquer and occupy Ukraine. Russia doesn't have a large enough army to occupy a country size of Ukraine. And even Putin's propaganda machine will have a hard time explaining the need to draft an additional 500,000 soldiers for a peacekeeping mission.