12 Comments
Mar 16, 2022Liked by Abdul El-Sayed

Thank you for this. It’s been terrifying to hear to many calls for us to go to war, without people seeming to have any idea what that actually means. It’s horrific to see people suffering (though, I must ask why I felt so alone in my horror when it was Afghan or Syrian people suffering, and see people moving mountains to help Ukrainians…), but we cannot just act out of outrage. It’s unreal to me that people are truly advocating reacting with war and violence over trying to avoid total catastrophe. I wish the nation at large would take pause to think about cause and effect.

Expand full comment

A week or so ago, General Wesley Clark made an offhand comment about sending in squads of A-10s to take care of that convoy. No doubt that is the plane to use, but it's not in Ukraine's defense inventory. The good General has since NOT repeated that comment. That's a highly regarded professional with the understandable outrage prompting him to make a specific, and likely dangerous, suggestion. Thanks for your thoughtful words. I'm afraid that we're seeing now the clearest evidence that Mutually Assured Destruction is not MAD enough to stop Putin. What will be? Does this lead through our nuclear holding pens to the slaughterhouse?

Expand full comment

I want to agree with you but alas, I cannot. We are so proud of our sanctions that have cut Russia off from the world. And we cry, "Peace!" But we have failed to account for the vast majority of Russians being victims of the sanctions. We have created a hostage situation in order to compel the leader of Russia to act in a sane and rational way. But he does not mind killing his own. He is as willing to shell his own people as he is to bomb others. And to have them starve? So what. He is not in power because of their support. And so, with our hands relatively less bloody, we pat ourselves on the back for taking the peaceful route. But again, he is not rational. So the Ukrainians die. And the Russians die and will die. And we cry, "Peace!" If we want the least loss of life, we need to do what we can to stop the actual problem. And that is not the regime in Russia, nor is it the NATO/EU status of Ukraine. It is bombs and bullets and tanks killing Ukrainians and destroying the infrastructure of Ukraine. THAT is what must be stopped. All the usual strategies do not apply, once you recognize that Putin is not rational. If he were, he would not have started the invasion or continued the invasion. I want peace...but more, I want the least loss of life. Gary Kasparov is and has been right -- the price of not stopping Putin rises every time we do not stop him. I do not think we can afford the cost next time.

Expand full comment

A cogent analysis. The problem is, given Putin's aims and grievances, I don't see an off ramp, and the suffering in Ukraine, despite the standoff, is hard to watch.

Expand full comment

Thank you for helping keep me sane and giving me hope. Being a leader for peace means not going to war - YES!

Expand full comment

Regarding Chamberlain's so-called appeasement, reality was he had no choice. France and Britain were in no way ready for war at the time. The delay allowed them some time to ramp up and even that was not enough for the blitzkrieg, but could have been worse. This is not the situation now. The west has the military power.

If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, what stops them taking Finland. Even further, if Russia succeeds, Finland may join NATO as did the Baltic states along with Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These nations were invited to begin membership talks during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. They may see that as their only option.

Expand full comment