Cooler Heads Must Prevail in Ukraine

The risk of escalating the conflict between Russia and Ukraine into a nuclear standoff is far too real to let emotions get in the way.

Millions of people have watched the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold with profound sadness, anger, and frustration. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko have received praise from around the world for being modern-day George Washingtons battling for freedom against the powerful imperialists.

Military conflict is rife with injustice, suffering, and death. It is a cold and brutal reality where good intentions can often fail or make the situation worse.

That is why it is critical for the U.S. and our allies to be driven by objective and sober-minded strategic reasoning as we respond, which means guarding against the irrationalism that can be the result of well-intended but emotional decisions.

As Ukrainians flee their homes or take up arms to defend their communities, many people feel an instinct to help. After watching civilians hunker down in subway stations against aerial assaults, U.S. members of Congress were swayed and began to take seriously Zelenskyy's call for America to institute a "no-fly" zone for Russian aircraft in order to ostensibly help Ukraine "defeat the aggressor." 

The desire to protect civilians is noble, but in a recent interview with Foreign Policy, General Philip Breedlove, former supreme allied commander for NATO operations, detailed how the tactical realities of setting up and enforcing such a zone would be far too risky. "You have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone," says Breedlove, "if you are going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft." Instituting a "no-fly" zone over Ukraine would require disabling Russian radar and communications, air defense weapons systems, and ultimately lead to attacking any Russian aircraft in the designated area.

Breedlove believes establishing a "no-fly" zone would be "interpreted as an act of war" by many. Nor would it help to avoid reaching the top of the escalation ladder: nuclear attack. This past weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin placed his country's nuclear forces on "high alert."

The risk of escalating this conflict into a nuclear standoff is far too real to let emotions get in the way. Knowing the consequences, Breedlove still supports a "no-fly" zone. When pressed about it, he responded, "Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation?" And Breedlove isn't the only one calling for a "no-fly" zone over Ukraine. Last week, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) tweeted, "The fate of #Ukraine is being decided tonight, but also the fate of the west. Declare a #NoFlyZone over Ukraine at the invitation of their sovereign govt." Kinzinger's tweet was met with intense criticism from other members of Congress, veterans, and analysts—rightfully so. Examining national interests requires level-headedness no matter how heart-wrenching a situation is. 

In 2011, the world watched as emotional decision making reared its ugly head in Libya. During increased civil unrest, reports indicated that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's military forces were poised to use aerial attacks on innocent civilians. NATO executed a "no-fly" zone with United Nations authorization, which elevated the conflict to a full civil war. Thousands died over a span of just a few years—including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Libya turned into a breeding ground for terrorism with an unrelenting refugee crisis. Both problems persist today.

Letting emotion drive foreign policy is short-sighted, especially when actions driven by short-term vision can have serious long-term harm. Washington's responsibility is to keep Putin's invasion of Ukraine from escalating into something that threatens the lives and freedoms of Americans. Anything beyond that, no matter how noble, falls outside U.S. security interests and risks jeopardizing that primary objective.

Comments

[Dillinger]

nobody's gonna fire off nukes for pete's sake.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Now you’ve jinxed us!

[Dillinger]

no way Norwood misses that kick.

[Nardz]

Let's hope he's moved on to missile guidance

[Vexatious]

You’re giving everyone way too much credit for how much they value the welfare of Pete.

[Dillinger]

was hoping pete is considered.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Launch an ICBM? No way. That requires a response.

Drop a tactical nuke? Say, on Kiev? Forcing an immediate surrender by the remaining Ukrainian government, ensuring NATO won't send forces into the area for at least a decade and a virtual guarantee that nobody fucks with Russia until Putin is gone? The more pressure that is applied against Russia, the more attractive an option it will become. Putin clearly gives zero fucks about the opinion of the rest of the world.

I keep pointing out that they already know from Chernobyl that the Dnieper can absorb the radiation without lasting repercussions for the cities downstream. You have to know it is on the table.

[Dillinger]

gonna nuke what you want to possess?

[Kevin Smith]

Who says he wants to possess Kyiv? He wants Donbas and Crimea

[Dillinger]

we've all heard the Sudentenland story.

[Quicktown Brix]

If I can't have you, no one can have you. Nah, desperate men never think that way...

[Nardz]

You have plenty of people on the fucking pro Ukraine side making arguments about how nuclear winter is no big deal, just to justify western aggression/escalation

[Gray_Jay]

"Drop a tactical nuke? Say, on Kiev? Forcing an immediate surrender by the remaining Ukrainian government..."

That'd be the goal. Not sure it'd work out like that. Ukrainians are pissed. And I don't know that nuking a city, causing one of the greatest public health crises of our time, and killing a few hundred thousand people, will get them to quit.

[Gray_Jay]

Airburst, and you won't have that much fallout at all. But it'll still be a titanic public health crisis.

And might convince the relevant people in US nuclear C2 that this guy and/or country, can't be trusted with them any longer.

[ThomasD]

About the only example of Putin using a tactical nuke and getting away with it would involve Ukrainian armored columns closing in on his capital.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the Ukrainians are simply not operating in any sort of significant formations that would be suitable for such a strike.

Meaning that Putin either nukes empty fields as a demonstration or nukes what was otherwise occupied civilian space.

Neither is going to be viewed as anything but gross escalation.

Because that's what they would be.

[Hank Ferrous]

One would think that somebody who lists policy adviser and congressional staffer, and touts his experience w/ a defense 'thinktank' pushing its product on capitol hill wouldn't fall for a bit of 'look what you are making me do' sabre-rattling from the russkis. One would apparently be dead wrong. Swamp dwellers apparently need to belch swamp gas.

[Gray_Jay]

Ehhhh. Putin's not doing great right now. If he thinks the oligarchs are going to kill him anyway....

I'd like to agree with you, Dillinger.

[Dillinger]

and everybody knows who was responsible for Ambassador Stevens' very public death.

[Gray_Jay]

Same guys responsible for Adolph Dubs's?

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

As long as he doesn't close our borders to Russian immigrants, there's literally nothing Biden could do that would make me say "Hold on, that's going too far." TBH I hope he formally declares war on Russia. I've wanted to punish that country ever since they attacked us in 2016.

#LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

[soldiermedic76]

This is the danger inherent in relying on rhetoric and sanctions to effect change in the actions of a foreign power. When they invariably fail you are left without much recourse.

We should have been realistic about this from the start. Ukraine wasn't a realistic possibility for NATO inclusion at the present. We should have told them that, and encouraged them to negotiate with Russia. We shouldn't have negotiated for them. We also should have considered how our and our allies energy policies have aided Russian expansion. Finally, Biden shouldn't have started his rhetoric back in January. He did it for obviously political gain and didn't consider the high risk that it carried.

[MollyGodiva]

There is no reason to believe that a promise that Ukraine would not join NATO would have prevented the invasion. It is more likely just one of the many fake reasons Putin has presented.

[CE]

it would have been prudent to find out though

[soldiermedic76]

It may or may not have, but the fact is that under the NATO charter, Ukraine wasn't eligible. Not because it would have stopped Russia, but we certainly weren't being truthful with Ukraine either.

[Hank Ferrous]

Were you present for the operational planning, or did putin call you to tell you his stated reasons were all false? Maybe you could recognize that there is a majority of commenters here, left, center, and right, who comprehend that the vast majority of what you post is utter bullshit. That you have nothing to add but specious claims and false assertions.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I’m sure putins puppet being removed is the reason he decided
he could invade.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ukraine wasn't a realistic possibility for NATO inclusion at the present."

Every individual legislature in the European Union voted to admit the Ukraine into the EU. All of them but the Netherlands had done so by the end of 2015, and the the Netherlands finally did it in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement#Ratification

In short, we need to understand that Putin isn't invading because NATO wanted to expand into the Ukraine. Putin is invading the Ukraine because the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU and NATO so badly, they overthrew their corrupt Putin puppet for getting in the way. Not everything is about the United States, and the EU has been putting off the Ukraine for years in their attempt to join NATO.

When Trump had his big public outburst against Merkel for undermining NATO with its natural gas imports and for not paying their fair share, back in 2018, that was at a conference where the Ukrainians were making their pitch to join NATO. NATO has been putting them off for a long time, and the process to reform their government and their laws gain full EU membership would have taken years.

We shouldn't give Putin a veto over who we can and can't allow into NATO, just like Ukraine refused to give Putin a veto over whether or not they joined NATO. The Ukrainians refused to sacrifice their autonomy to appease Putin, and the United States shouldn't back down from being free to make our choices about our own alliances just because of Putin either.

Because Putin doesn't like what's in America's best interests isn't a good reason for us to do anything other than whatever we were already planning to do anyway--and we weren't planning to let the Ukraine into NATO before. If Putin thought this would prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO, he may have accomplished the opposite. After the valiant way we've watched the Ukrainian people act under occupation, I'm not sure the American people have the heart to turn them down for membership anymore, and I bet the people of Europe feel the same way.

[Nardz]

NeokeNN again showing he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but he does listen to the "news"

[Nardz]

Putin isn't a fucking 12 year old girl. NATO isn't a defensive alliance, which is obvious if you've paid attention to the last 20-30 years. And I'm not interested in pushing brinksmanship because it satisfies your childish, Wilsonian ideals.

[soldiermedic76]

We don't have much say on the EU. And what Ukraine wants is beside the point. NATO charter forbids the admittance of countries with unresolved internal conflicts such as separatist movements. The 8 year long civil war in Ukraine blocked it from being admitted. We should have been truthful from the beginning about this. Not because it would have stopped Russia, or because Russia was opposed to it, but because they weren't eligible and being truthful is always better than building up false hope. America and Biden built up false hope for the Ukrainians. That isn't a good foreign policy.

Who knows how this would have played out if our government had played it more straight with Ukraine. We couldn't prevent Russian invasion and we weren't willing to go to war to protect them. Maybe Biden should have (and previous presidents) been more straight about that from the start.

Maybe they would have been more likely to not have reneged on parts of the Minsk agreement. I know that is distasteful from our perspective and theirs but I don't think giving them false hope has been any better.

Diplomacy should be realistic not totally aspirational.

[Nelson]

"The 8 year long civil war in Ukraine"

That's an interesting way to describe the second Russian invasion of Ukraine. The one right after they invaded Crimea and before their present invasion.

There is a large separatist movement in the Donbass like there is a large fleet of alien spaceships on the dark side of the moon. It just isn't true.

[Nelson]

Plus, of course, the fact that Ukraine isn't eligible for NATO memebership (yet) was not only made clear to them, it was publicly discussed in numerous forums and was widely reported.

And please stop with the Minsk agreements. Russia never followed them, their forces never followed them, and their puppets never followed them. The Minsk agreements were never worth the paper they were written on. Literally there was never a single day in which the Minsk agreements were ever honored by the Russian invaders. But that is a frequent misinformation item that Russian propagandists use.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Maybe it’s just antifa

[Ken Shultz]

"And what Ukraine wants is beside the point."

Actually, the reason Putin is invading the Ukraine is because the Ukrainian people want to join the EU and NATO.

It's not beside the point. It's the whole point.

Whether we wanted to expand NATO into the Ukraine is beside the point.

The point is that the Ukrainian people overthrew Putin's puppet because Putin's puppet got in the way of them joining the EU and NATO--and that's despite the fact that we weren't about to admit them into NATO anyway. They wouldn't have joined the EU for years, at the soonest, and no one in NATO was trying to let them in--especially after Putin annexed the Crimea and fomented rebellion in the two "breakaway" provinces. Letting the Ukraine into NATO under those circumstances would have been like selling someone a fire insurance policy while their house is on fire. No one in NATO was trying to bring the Ukraine into NATO.

[Ken Shultz]

P.S. To be painfully clear, just because Putin says that he blames NATO for pushing expansion, doesn't mean anyone should believe him.

Putin is a liar.

The Ukraine has been begging to get into NATO since 2014. We, along with the rest of NATO, have stiff-armed them.

The idea that the U.S. and its NATO allies were trying to expand NATO into the Ukraine post-2014 is a propaganda fiction put out there by Putin--because he refuses to admit that the people of the Ukraine rejected his rule of their own free will--and want to join the EU and NATO instead of being under Putin's boot.

Putin's stupid story has been that the people of Ukraine actually wanted to lick his boot, but the CIA tricked them into wanting to join the EU and NATO instead--after 2014. Anyone who still believes that's the case at this point is nuts. Look at the people of the Ukraine fighting against being "liberated" by Putin. Even the Russian speaking Ukrainian cities are fighting like mad to resist Putin's "liberation"!

Point being, for eight years after the Ukrainian revolution, we've known that the Ukraine was begging to get into NATO. They actually put it into the Ukrainian constitution in 2019. It wasn't a mystery. We've been putting them off for eight years because we didn't want to go to war with Russia--especially after Russia annexed the Crimea.

There wasn't anything new about NATO not wanting to admit the Ukraine into NATO in 2022 that wasn't already clear in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Putin's story about the U.S. and our NATO allies pushing NATO membership into the Ukraine after 2014 is just factually incorrect.

We were trying to push NATO into the Ukraine (after 2014), and we shouldn't have done that?

That didn't happen. What happened is that the people of the Ukraine turned hard against Putin. Putin can't admit that, so he blames it all on NATO.

[Commenter_XY]

Ken,

Let's stipulate your interpretation of history in your comments is 100% true, for the purposes of my question.

My question: Why do we want Ukraine in NATO? [note: I do not]

Ukraine's graft and corruption is legendary (i.e. Hunter Biden). Their corruption permeates every aspect of their society. Let's remember too some Ukrainian history; when the Nazi's came, a good number of Ukrainians were sympathetic to their cause. Yeah, that WW2 generation is mostly dead, but the culture that nurtured that kind of behavior/action is not. The bottom line to me is they are not a worthy NATO partner. At least, not yet. I am skeptical of the proposition that an entire country will experience a mass cultural conversion in just a month or two. If Ukraine 'wins', I still would not let them into NATO, absent very dramatic change.

Side note - I also want to say this: As an American Jew, I am enormously proud of PM Zalenskyy. He echoes the Maccabees; he sure speaks that way. Zalenskyy is staying put, encouraging his troops. That takes courage like we do not often see in today's world from leadership. I know the essential moral values he was raised with (from a Jewish perspective), and why he is saying the things the way he is saying them.

I greatly admire Zalenskyy for his words and deeds, it is his finest hour.

[Ken Shultz]

There are all sorts of good reasons why admitting the Ukraine into NATO is a bad idea for the United States. And I thought I was clear about that.

The point of the European Union Ukraine Association Agreement is for Ukraine to transform their laws and enforcement to be just like the EU, and that process to fight corruption was to take years. They've worked hard to fight corruption, and chasing Putin's puppet out of power was a big step. Rooting out corruption will remain a big problem for a long time. Trump didn't drain the deep state swamp in four years, and Ukraine was more corrupt than the U.S.

But that isn't the reason to keep them out of NATO.

The reason to keep them out of NATO is because they've been in a state of war with Russia, more or less, since 2014, and because NATO is a mutual defense treaty, that means admitting them would obligate NATO and the U.S. to go to war with Russia. Unless you want to go to war with Russia, we shouldn't admit them. So long as Russia remains in the two breakaway provinces and the Crimea, it is not in our best interests to admit the Ukraine into NATO. That's the beginning and the end of the story for the foreseeable future.

It is true, however, that IF IF IF they can manage to chase the Russians out of the breakaway republics and the Crimea, like the Mujaheddin did in Afghanistan, that the people of the NATO countries will demand that we admit them into NATO--even if we shouldn't. People feel bad about what they're going through and will seek to protect them in the future with NATO membership even if we shouldn't.

Please note that reality is what it is regardless of whether we like it. Because I say something is likely to happen, doesn't mean I want it to happen or that I'm advocating it. That's how progressives operate. They insist on a delusional state where the only things that can happen are things they like. I am not a progressive. The real world is full of things I don't like, with the American people and the people in NATO admitting the Ukraine in spite of our interests rather than because of them being just one example.

[Commenter_XY]

Got it...Thx for the clarification.

[jomo]

The mere fact that you on the one hand call Putin a liar (which he is) but also claim Trump was cleaning up corruption (as opposed to replacing it with his own chosen corrupters) and ignore the fact that Trump relentlessly did and still does praise Putin renders all the rest of your well-written but ill-conceived notions completely fraudulent. What tripe.

[soldiermedic76]

I'm not saying giving Putin a veto, just being honest about the realities of their ambitions.

We want to buy my daughter a saddle for her birthday, but they cost $750 or so for even a good used one. So, we haven't informed her because we may not be able to afford it. She wants a saddle for her horse. Telling her we will buy her a saddle and then not being able to afford one is building up her expectations. It's a small thing but it's managing expectations. The problem with government, especially progressive government is that it doesn't manage expectations.

[R Mac]

I’d say start a gofundme for your daughter, but, you know.

[Ken Shultz]

"I'm not saying giving Putin a veto, just being honest about the realities of their ambitions.

We have been ignoring the Ukraine begging to join NATO for almost eight years.

"Ukraine's newly agreed five-party ruling coalition has reportedly set the country's membership of NATO as its major goal . . . .

"The five pro-Western parties that passed the 5 percent threshold in last month's parliamentary elections control a total of 288 seats in 421-seat parliament."

----November 21, 2014

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-coalition-agreement/26703123.html

They've been pushing for NATO membership ever since, and there was no way NATO was about to admit them after Russia annexed the Crimea and fomented a rebellion in the two "breakaway" provinces. Admitting a new NATO member that is already practically at war with Russia would be tantamount to declaring war on Russia. NATO is a mutual defense treaty, and we'd be obligated to go to war with any Russian forces in the breakaway provinces and/or the Crimea the moment we admitted the Ukraine (after 2014).

We have stiff-armed the Ukraine's earnest and open attempts to join NATO since 2014. We've said "no" every day for almost eight years. Putin insisted on allowing his handpicked "governors" in the "breakaway" provinces to have a veto over the the Ukrainian legislature--so that he can veto any final vote by the Ukrainian legislature to join NATO. That was the essence of Minsk-2. The Ukrainians refused to give their autonomy away to Putin, and good for them!

In the talks leading up to the invasion, Putin insisted that Biden promise him to never admit NATO as a member. That would be like Biden giving Putin a veto over who we can and can't make our allies. If Biden had agreed to that, I'd be screaming for Biden to be impeached. We're not giving Putin the power to tell us who we can and can't have as allies--even if we don't want to let the Ukraine into NATO. And, oh, by the way, we definitely didn't.

When Putin threatens to invade a third party country unless we do what he says, the only appropriate response is for us to stick our middle finger in his face and tell him to eat shit.

[Nardz]

For sovereignty!

"I remember going over and convincing our team, others, to convince that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time"

[Gray_Jay]

There isn't much to negotiate on, soldier, when your opponent wants you eradicated. Vlad wants the band back together before he croaks, and the idea of a separate Ukrainian culture is in the way.

If we were just talking about more territory, grabbing/solidifying Donbas/Luhansk, maybe re-opening the canal to Crimea, you'd have a point. Vlad wants more than that.

As to measures the West can take, not buying Russian oil/gas would be a good start. Asking the Brits/Norwegians to open the Brent/Norwegian Sea gas spigots already, and tell the Greens to go fuck themselves, would help. You don't want to do a no-fly zone, despite the sovereign ruler of that territory asking for one? OK. But nothing stops the US or Europe from treating Ukraine like it's 1973 Israel, and the supply planes are comin'.

You make it clear that this kind of abhorrent conduct is completely unacceptable, or you don't get to act surprised when Vlad goes after the Baltics next. Moreover, if we're not going to crack people for breaking the Laws of Armed Conflict---and using motherfucking Grad batteries on civilian blocks in a city qualifies---then get rid of those Laws. I'm sick of them only being applicable against the US.

[Nardz]

"There isn't much to negotiate on, soldier, when your opponent wants you eradicated. Vlad wants the band back together before he croaks, and the idea of a separate Ukrainian culture is in the way."

I really don't think there's much basis for this claim. The stated demands prior to invasion were: no NATO, cessation of hostilities and autonomy for Luhansk and Donesk, recognition of Crimea's annexation (via referendum) as part of Russia. Since invasion was decided upon, the only additional demand is Ukraine stop taking foreign arms.
What is unique to the Ukrainian culture that Putin wants to wipe out? That doesn't even make sense.
The ultimate issue is that Russia feels it cannot accept a hostile, militarized presence in Ukraine. That's a reasonable red line.
If this invasion is going as poorly as the media reports and many of you seem to believe, why do you also assume Russia will keep going once it conquers Ukraine? And if they do decide to keep going, why would anyone assume the Baltics can't take care of themselves? These are inconsistent positions.

The problem with the whole dialog is rampant, one-sided propaganda (wonder who's funding it) and an inability or unwillingness to see anything from the Russian perspective.
Is striking first always evil? Was Israel wrong to do so in 1967.

Facts:
-since 1999, NATO has doubled its membership, adding 14 nations in a 20 year span, all in Eastern Europe - Czechia, Hungary, & Poland in 99 - Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Estonia in 04 - Croatia and Albania in 09 - then Montenegro in 17 and Macedonia in 20.
-NATO rejected Russian offers to join on at least 2 occasions, in 1999 and 2002
-NATO military intervention in Iraq, Bosnia, Yugoslavia/Serbia, Afghanistan, the Gulf of Aden,, Libya, and held talks regarding Syria (which the US very actively intervened)
-NATO proposed including Georgia as it was engaged in a civil war the Russia was intervening in
-a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that ousted a Russian ally and installed a hostile government, which immediately passed antagonistic laws targeting its Russian population and sparked civil war in the east
-US negotiators wouldn't say they'd refrain from putting military equipment, troops, and even nukes in Ukraine
Those are just the documented, concrete actions. No suspicion or extrapolation. None of NATO's military actions were in the least bit defensive (unless you want to count Afghanistan, which NATO would occupy for 20 years), but all were NATO taking violently inserting itself into non-member states.

Try to look at this from the Russian perspective: NATO, a military alliance specifically designed for conflict with the Soviet Union, expands massively in the direction of and with a hostile attitude to Russia. Is it evil to view NATO as a threat, and conclude that Russia would not be able to defend itself from a Ukraine-based attack?
If that's a fair assessment, which I personally think it is, what choices does Russia have? Either "break out" via securing Ukraine by any means necessary, or do nothing and hope for the best?

[Kazinski]

I'm hoping Ukraine can hold out and Putin flails himself into exhaustion.

But having a long memory I'm not going to say if Putin does consolidate control over the Ukraine that he's won.

I remember a previous European superpower that everyone was afraid to cross establishing undisputed hegemony from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It lasted a while like 1948-1989, about 1/2 a normal lifetime. Then it all collapsed and that superpower ended up a diminished she'll of what they were before, with almost all their former client states as firm enemies.

I'm not saying that if Putin prevails Ukraine will be free again in 40 years, or that it will take nearly that long.

I have no idea if this is an updated remake or a sequel, but I did see the original movie and read the book.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

As the war rages in Europe, the top stories in my local paper:

WA households can now order 2 free COVID test kits monthly — while supplies last
The state is expanding its program to deliver COVID-19 test kits to residents, as health leaders say testing remains a key tool in the fight against the virus. Updated 1:50 pm

Don’t use these 3 unauthorized COVID tests, FDA warns. You might get a false result White House: 40% of free COVID tests to low-income areas

===

Should you unmask in WA? Check the COVID risk level where you live

===

LIVELive updates: Russia claims it has taken Ukrainian port city Updated 1:54 pm

===

Tom Fay picked to serve as Seattle chief librarian

===

Seahawks’ ‘standard response’ when teams ask about Russell Wilson: ‘We’re not shopping’ him

===

WA state to use controversial ID.me Updated 1:28 pm

===

Here’s proof the pandemic culture wars were never about the pandemic | Danny Westneat

[Nardz]

DeSantis is now a bully because he told some high schoolers they don't have to wear a mask anymore, and they're welcome to keep them on but it's ridiculous.

[Ken Shultz]

Didn't Biden just tell us we weren't putting boots on the ground last night? Yesterday, I watched Boris Johnson reply to a question about a no-fly zone with an answer about how 1) that would entail putting NATO in a direct conflict with Russia and so 2) no NATO member is seriously considering that at this time.

It's entirely appropriate to point out Putin's disgusting aggression even while we point out that we shouldn't get involved directly, but just because we shouldn't get involved directly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support the Ukrainian government by sending them arms and ammunition, and if they fall, it will probably be in our interests to continue to support the Ukrainian insurgency.

It's also important to understand how important NATO is as a deterrent to a conventional war with Russia. Glancing over the stats, NATO's population is more than six times the size of Russia's, NATO's per capita income is still more than four times the size of Russia's, and NATO's GDP is almost 30 (thirty) times the size of Russia's--which is why NATO can spend only 2% of our GDP on defense and still spend as much as Russia would IF IF IF the Putin spent more than half of Russia's GDP on defense.

Russia has zero chance of defeating NATO in an aggressive action against a NATO member country using conventional weapons, which is why NATO is such an important deterrent--and prevents getting the United States involved in a war. Somehow, a lot of people seem to be conflating certain things in their minds that really aren't related. Condemnation of Russia, for instance, is NOT support for a war.

Pointing out that it isn't in the best interests of the United States to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine doesn't require us to apologize for Putin, and it doesn't require us to regurgitate his propaganda either. That just kills the anti-war movements credibility. Credibility comes from honesty, not putting your fingers in your ears and insisting on whatever fiction will support your position.

Also add this: Support for NATO's as a deterrent to a U.S. war with Russia is NOT support for a U.S. war with Russia--but arguing against NATO's absolutely is arguing for war whether you realize it or not. The thing that stops Putin from overrunning all of Russia's Soviet era satellites is not the goodness in his heart. It's because Putin can't possibly win a conventional war against NATO. The reason he worked so hard to undermine NATO is because he can't possibly win a conventional war against NATO.

[BadLib]

In 2011, the world watched as emotional decision making reared its ugly head in Libya. During increased civil unrest, reports indicated that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's military forces were poised to use aerial attacks on innocent civilians. NATO executed a "no-fly" zone with United Nations authorization, which elevated the conflict to a full civil war. Thousands died over a span of just a few years—including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Libya turned into a breeding ground for terrorism with an unrelenting refugee crisis. Both problems persist today.

How would defending Ukraine with a "no-fly" zone cause a civil war in Ukraine or turn it into a breeding ground for terrorists? This portion of the argument for "cooler heads" seems like a non-sequitur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

Do we need to dust off George Washington's farewell address? The part about letting the Europeans kill each other and not get bogged down or dragged into their conflicts?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

George Washington's farewell address was the early American version of a mean tweet.

[Jima]

I think you won the internet for today with that comment. I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything, or I'd have had to clean it off the monitor. Thanks for the laugh.

[Nardz]

Agree.
A+ quip.

[Pathogen]

George Washington?! Didn't he own.. like.. slaves, or something? Anyhow, he was just another old white guy, who has been dead for a hundred years.. Your post is invalid..

[dougwesterman]

The response of Germany to the Ukraine invasion shows that the U.S. no longer needs to be the leader of a European security organization. NATO started with 12 members; it now has 28; Look at a map of Europe; Germany, France, UK, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, they have more than enough resources to stand up to Russia and to pay for it.

[DRM]

Breedlove believes establishing a "no-fly" zone would be "interpreted as an act of war" by many.

Yes, because engaging in actual combat with the Russians (necessary to actually establish a "no-fly" zone) would be an act of war.

If somebody wanted to suggest a way to have NATO shoot down Russian aircraft without it being an act of war, they should suggest dusting off the precedent set by the Russians themselves in the Korean War. In that case, NATO members would slap Ukrainian markings on their fighters before sending them up to shoot down Russians, and officially claim that Ukrainian pilots are flying the aircraft.

(I suspect that that might actually have already happened. Several NATO members that were part of the Warsaw Pact are supplying Ukraine with Soviet-model aircraft. It wouldn't be that hard to also supply trained pilots.)

[ThomasD]

"Several NATO members that were part of the Warsaw Pact are supplying Ukraine with Soviet-model aircraft. "

That all got cancelled as soon as the Russians started talking about nukes.

[Nardz]

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1499243655214817286?t=Hm06Gf_2Xu_OHIOWY9kEXQ&s=19

BREAKING REPORT: Biden's nuclear negotiator offers to LIFT IRAN'S SANCTIONS and remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp from TERROR LIST in exchange for signing new deal..

[Nardz]

Totally sane and not at all indicative that something is rotten in Denmark:

https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1499173963955535873?t=p4t0IolFVVE2vZeXMsNXQg&s=19

There are reports on social media of restaurants around the world banning Russians.

This discrimination has no place in a civilized society.

Random civilians should not be blamed for their government's wars.

[Links]

[Nardz]

Click on this one. You will be rewarded.

https://twitter.com/JessicaVaugn/status/1499190911464402948?t=gExIb7XyLN-ZnKUDxGkB9Q&s=19

I think the worst thing you can do in a relationship, whether it be government with its citizens, or individuals with their significant other is prompt along the feeling they’re caged animals. This is a resentment formula to provoke them to endlessly lash out. Don’t do it, ever.
[Pick]

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/The_Real_Fly/status/1499202701065961477?t=udgjVCTPxkUCpUmP8fomPQ&s=19

The Russian themed animated film “Anastasia” has been removed from DisneyPlus in the United States. $DIS

[Liborio]

I went to a Boney M. concert last night, and they didn't play "Rasputin." This is getting out of hand.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1498986755541852160?t=2NjNuxbh4xS9mpYualRN7A&s=19

"[Russia] have orders to erase our history, erase our country, erase us all."

An attack by Russia on Babyn Yar, a memorial site to Ukrainian Jews, has been condemned by President Zelenskyy, who said they had "killed Holocaust victims for the second time.”
[Video]

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1499189405277433858?t=KrkmGjJHJqq-8znejv36Ug&s=19

Like the Snake Island heroes story, Zelenksy's claim that Russia bombed a Holocaust Memorial is also lie - according to Israeli journalist Ron Ben Yishai who visited the Babyn Yar site in #Kyiv. He said the memorial hasn't been damaged. Closest damage was a TV tower 300m away.
[Link]

[Nardz]

Hey, Ken, you know how you frequently call Putin a liar?
Care to comment on this one?

[Nardz]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10569141/Putin-NOT-crazy-Russian-invasion-NOT-failing-writes-military-analyst-BILL-ROGGIO.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Sympathy for the outnumbered and outgunned defenders of Kyiv has led to the exaggeration of Russian setbacks, misunderstanding of Russian strategy, and even baseless claims from amateur psychoanalysts that Putin has lost his mind.

[ThomasD]

Putin wants to be remembered historically.

For restoring greater Russia, not for being Vlad the Irradiator.

[ThomasD]

Conversely, if he loses this he will quite likely go down in history as the person who cemented Ukrainian national identity as something distinctly not Russian.

[From Ohio]

Respectfully disagree. In a negotiation, if you know that threatening something that scares the bejesus out of your opponent - it stays on the table. IT IS LEVERAGE. like it or not, you have to risk going down the rabbit hole.

Remember WWII? This is what weakness buys you!

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

#IfYoureNotWithBidenYoureWithPutin

[Hank Ferrous]

Ha!

[tacticalguy]

You read my mind.

[Kazinski]

Well let's be clear about one thing, he is calling for war: letting cooler heads prevail means the hot head has to lose.

I think what he's trying to say is the "cooler heads" need to step aside and let the hot head take whatever he can get.

I'm not calling for troops to be sent in, but I'm not trying to pretend that somehow let's us prevail.

[Dillinger]

~~does the finger on the nose bit ...

[Nardz]

Also, the media told us this and the media is totes trustworthy, at least on foreign affairs.
Right?

[Don't look at me!]

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If terrorists could take over the US Capitol on Jan 6, I'd hardly call it impossible that Ukraine could be the next alt-right breeding ground.

[Nardz]

They've got a pretty good start with significant factions of ultranationalist bigots, but we're not supposed to talk about that

[Hank Ferrous]

Shhhh, Svodoba, Stepan Bandera, OUN they are Russian disinformation, not antisemitic hardline rightwing ultranationalist groups or revered leaders. OUN certainly never carried out any ethnic cleansing, or murdered scores of Jews, because, the media would cover something like literal white nationalists. They've only been falsifying stories about white nationalism in the US for 5 years now. Clearly, anyone suggesting that these groups exist is a putin supporter. And hates puppies.

[Nelson]

I've become convinced that you don't know what a neocon is. You keep using it to describe things that aren't neoconservative positions or organizations.

[Nelson]

Are you seriously trying to use a WWII-era Nazi group to justify activities of Russia today, 80 years later?

You are brazen in your shameless dishonesty, but your position lacks any actual substance.

Do you still get paid if your propaganda effort suck?

[Nardz]

I think calling the "right-wing" is at least somewhat inaccurate (or meaningless, as is so often the case these days), but otherwise Ferrous is spot on.

[R Mac]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[Nelson]

Apparently neoconservatives are also time travelers. Because NATO was founded in 1949 and neoconservatism came into being in the 1960s.

But don't let little things like reality interfere with your beliefs.

[R Mac]

“to justify activities of Russia today”

I missed that part of his post.

[Nelson]

Right. Because NATO memeber don't see any advantage to the organization.

[Nardz]

Good analogy

[Ken Shultz]

You're a "useful idiot"--at best.

[Ken Shultz]

I called the corrupt ex-head of the Ukrainian government a Putin puppet because he was Putin's puppet. He even fled to Russia when he was chased out of power by the Ukrainian people.

I called you a useful idiot because you regurgitate Kremlin propaganda--and claim to really believe it--despite it being absurd.

That's not even a personal attack. It's just a factual description of who you are and what you do.

General Premise: A useful idiot is someone who promulgates bullshit Kremlin propaganda because he sincerely believes it.

Specific Premise: You claim to be promulgating bullshit Kremlin propaganda because you sincerely believe it.

Conclusion: Therefore, you are a useful idiot.

[Nardz]

NeokeNN has recited all the corporate media "analysis", so I guess there's nothing else to say.
We all need to wave our little Ukrainian flags, pledge that Russia is evil, has always been evil, Putin is the actual devil risen up from hell, and we must spend and do anything it takes to defend the paragon of democracy, sovereignty, and freedom in the world: Ukraine.
Also: wear the damn mask and get your 5th booster, science denier!

[Ken Shultz]

The idea that the Ukrainian people would want to be subjugated by Putin if only it weren't for the CIA is both Kremlin propaganda and laughably stupid.

The idea that NATO wanting to expand into the Ukraine is the issue--rather than the Ukrainian people wanting to join NATO--is both Kremlin propaganda and contradicted by the facts.

To the extent that you promulgate bullshit Kremlin propaganda because you genuinely believe it is the extent to which you are a useful idiot--regardless of whether I am a clown.

And, mind you, I'm not saying you're a useful idiot absolutely. I'm saying that's the best interpretation of your behavior. Pointing you out as a useful idiot is actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.