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.
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?
I most certainly certainly hope not, Michael. I think he's taking a calculated wager that his first mover advantage will keep us out. Strategically, he's almost certainly correct--because the logic of MAD is that it makes anything more than deterrence by military means impossible. The hope is that the economic deterrence we've deployed pulls him back.
That's the flaw in MAD, isn't it? If you're actually nuts and grab a first mover advantage, then......??? I wish I could imagine a solution to that, that doesn't include a nuclear response and off to the races.
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.
I hear you, Denna. I do agree with you that sanctions hurt the wrong people most of all, innocent Russians who have either been lied to or forced to comply with what their dictator is after. Of course I, like you, like all of us watching, want to stop the loss of innocent lives. It's dastardly and despicable what he's doing. However, we also have to ask: what is the cost in innocent lives of stopping the loss of innocent lives? Because that is the question at hand right now. I worry that if we fail to ask that question, we could lose more innocent lives in the process. Nuclear power changes the calculus immensely. I hope Kasparov is wrong about Putin--but I think this leads us into assessment I tried to analyze toward the end of the piece, about whether or not Putin is a Hitler-esque actor. And we are not making the same mistakes the allies made with Hitler right now. I recommend Ezra Klein's recent interview with Timothy Snyder: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-timothy-snyder.html
A very sincere THANK YOU for the link; I have read the transcript and look forward to reading it again, more carefully. I follow both Klein and Snyder on Twitter; they are well-worth anyone's time. I have nothing else to add now, other than to say that my point about Putin not being a rational actor works within the end-means analysis that Snyder offered. Putin is not a product of the hopeful 90s liberalism of Russia that gave so many of us hope. He emerged then, but he is utterly Soviet and protagorean, even with his mysticism. I would never claim to understand him but what Snyder describes jibes with what I've understood. (I was fascinated as a child with Soviet military power and did a lot of book reports that upset a lot of teachers. I, as with many of my generation, didn't think we'd grow up...we kind of assumed nuclear war would take care of our futures. My reaction was to try and learn what I could about 'how' and 'why' they did what they did the way they did it.)
Finally, I would just like to say that I am Norwegian, living in Norway. I have friends in Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Poland, Romania, and, until recently, Ukraine. As theoretical and philosophical as this can get (and I must admit to being endlessly fascinated on an intellectual level), my current personal concern is related to the fact that none of our pharmacies has potassium iodide tablets in stock...and 5-liter containers for water are on back order at most locations. I have reviewed the "in case of" instructions for what to do when/if radiation becomes an issue. And I'm wondering where the blankets I knitted last year are, as I want to include them with things I'm taking to the local receiving center for Ukrainian refugees, as my county is taking several thousand right now. This feels very close and I keep vacillating between reading and learning (your column, followed by that you shared) on the one side and trying to remain calm amid the news from those on the ground in Ukraine as well as those sitting in their big chairs around the world on the other. Thank you for all you do.
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Denna. I admit, certainly, that it must feel so much more immediate from where you're situated in the world. I'm grateful for your perspective and readership.
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.
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.
Dennis, the central point you're making about NATO expansion as a function of Putin's aggression is clear. If Putin's goal was to weaken NATO--at all--that has certainly backfired. It's also going to remilitarize Europe in a rather immediate way. Consider the flow of history, the impact of remilitarizing Germany cannot sit easily in the Kremlin. But such is the consequence of wanton militarism that he has chosen. The downstream consequences of that are hard to foresee. But in human history, more guns tends to more violence.
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.
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?
I most certainly certainly hope not, Michael. I think he's taking a calculated wager that his first mover advantage will keep us out. Strategically, he's almost certainly correct--because the logic of MAD is that it makes anything more than deterrence by military means impossible. The hope is that the economic deterrence we've deployed pulls him back.
That's the flaw in MAD, isn't it? If you're actually nuts and grab a first mover advantage, then......??? I wish I could imagine a solution to that, that doesn't include a nuclear response and off to the races.
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.
I hear you, Denna. I do agree with you that sanctions hurt the wrong people most of all, innocent Russians who have either been lied to or forced to comply with what their dictator is after. Of course I, like you, like all of us watching, want to stop the loss of innocent lives. It's dastardly and despicable what he's doing. However, we also have to ask: what is the cost in innocent lives of stopping the loss of innocent lives? Because that is the question at hand right now. I worry that if we fail to ask that question, we could lose more innocent lives in the process. Nuclear power changes the calculus immensely. I hope Kasparov is wrong about Putin--but I think this leads us into assessment I tried to analyze toward the end of the piece, about whether or not Putin is a Hitler-esque actor. And we are not making the same mistakes the allies made with Hitler right now. I recommend Ezra Klein's recent interview with Timothy Snyder: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-timothy-snyder.html
A very sincere THANK YOU for the link; I have read the transcript and look forward to reading it again, more carefully. I follow both Klein and Snyder on Twitter; they are well-worth anyone's time. I have nothing else to add now, other than to say that my point about Putin not being a rational actor works within the end-means analysis that Snyder offered. Putin is not a product of the hopeful 90s liberalism of Russia that gave so many of us hope. He emerged then, but he is utterly Soviet and protagorean, even with his mysticism. I would never claim to understand him but what Snyder describes jibes with what I've understood. (I was fascinated as a child with Soviet military power and did a lot of book reports that upset a lot of teachers. I, as with many of my generation, didn't think we'd grow up...we kind of assumed nuclear war would take care of our futures. My reaction was to try and learn what I could about 'how' and 'why' they did what they did the way they did it.)
Finally, I would just like to say that I am Norwegian, living in Norway. I have friends in Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Poland, Romania, and, until recently, Ukraine. As theoretical and philosophical as this can get (and I must admit to being endlessly fascinated on an intellectual level), my current personal concern is related to the fact that none of our pharmacies has potassium iodide tablets in stock...and 5-liter containers for water are on back order at most locations. I have reviewed the "in case of" instructions for what to do when/if radiation becomes an issue. And I'm wondering where the blankets I knitted last year are, as I want to include them with things I'm taking to the local receiving center for Ukrainian refugees, as my county is taking several thousand right now. This feels very close and I keep vacillating between reading and learning (your column, followed by that you shared) on the one side and trying to remain calm amid the news from those on the ground in Ukraine as well as those sitting in their big chairs around the world on the other. Thank you for all you do.
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Denna. I admit, certainly, that it must feel so much more immediate from where you're situated in the world. I'm grateful for your perspective and readership.
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.
Thank you for helping keep me sane and giving me hope. Being a leader for peace means not going to war - YES!
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.
Dennis, the central point you're making about NATO expansion as a function of Putin's aggression is clear. If Putin's goal was to weaken NATO--at all--that has certainly backfired. It's also going to remilitarize Europe in a rather immediate way. Consider the flow of history, the impact of remilitarizing Germany cannot sit easily in the Kremlin. But such is the consequence of wanton militarism that he has chosen. The downstream consequences of that are hard to foresee. But in human history, more guns tends to more violence.