on Schumaker, see
Putin is a predator, and because of this, in many ways the arguments for and against arming Ukraine are beside the point. If we continue with the same policy and do not arm Ukraine, Putin will see weakness, continue to nibble away at Ukraine, and turn it into, at best, the largest "frozen conflict" in the former Soviet Union, and at worst, cause the country's disintegration. If, on the other hand, we do provide arms to Ukraine, Putin will undoubtedly double down again, causing strains with our allies and creating an even worse situation on the battlefield. What it really comes down to is a moral choice. Are we willing to help our friends and resist our enemies, or are we as morally bankrupt as Putin's Russia? All the options are bad, but I choose to help my friends and to punish my enemies. If this means intensified sanctions, even more aid to Ukraine, and perhaps a new Cold War, so be it. Putin will not stop himself. It is up to us to stop him dead in his tracks. At some point, even Putin will realize the game is not worth the candle.
JB Response
John Brown Dear James -- Thank you as always for your cogent remarks. Allow me to question, however, your remark: "All the options are bad, but I choose to help my friends and to punish my enemies. If this means intensified sanctions, even more aid to Ukraine, and perhaps a new Cold War, so be it." (1) While I much admire the achievements of persons born in the part of the world under consideration (where I had the privilege to serve as a U.S. diplomat, 93-95) I don't think it's in American interests to risk a new Cold War over an area of Europe that is not essential to U.S. national or economic security. I need not cite John Quincy Adams's condemnation about the search for monsters to destroy abroad, in which he states (as you know) that America "is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." In other (more plebeian words) charity begins at home -- where we Americans have our own immense political, economic, and social problems. (2) To simplify international relations in terms or "friends" and "enemies" is, in my view, not the most effective way to bring about peaceful, diplomatic solutions in a world that is not defined in terms of mutually exclusive, Manichean categories. Humanity (including Russian government officials) is too complex to be divided into people one likes and doesn't like. (3) In this new century, the USA has fought two expensive wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) that have resulted in thousands of deaths and brought -- arguably -- very little benefit to the American people (not to speak of the rest of the world). How willing are taxpayers to support another foreign engagement/adventure at their expense? (4) Only one in six Americans can tell where Ukraine is on a map http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-less-americans.../. It is ironic that a supporter of providing lethal weapons to the fragile Ukrainian government (condemned by some commentators as corrupt) is a senator from Arizona, a part of the U.S. faced with crucial, down-to-earth immigration/drug smuggling issues when dealing with neighboring Mexico (see, as one example: http://www.cnn.com/.../mexico-arizona.../index.html . Is the Senator carefully avoiding this touchy "home" issue by pontificating about U.S. foreign policy? I wonder if he can even utter of word of Ukrainian.
The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to...
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
JB Response
John Brown Dear James -- Thank you as always for your cogent remarks. Allow me to question, however, your remark: "All the options are bad, but I choose to help my friends and to punish my enemies. If this means intensified sanctions, even more aid to Ukraine, and perhaps a new Cold War, so be it." (1) While I much admire the achievements of persons born in the part of the world under consideration (where I had the privilege to serve as a U.S. diplomat, 93-95) I don't think it's in American interests to risk a new Cold War over an area of Europe that is not essential to U.S. national or economic security. I need not cite John Quincy Adams's condemnation about the search for monsters to destroy abroad, in which he states (as you know) that America "is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." In other (more plebeian words) charity begins at home -- where we Americans have our own immense political, economic, and social problems. (2) To simplify international relations in terms or "friends" and "enemies" is, in my view, not the most effective way to bring about peaceful, diplomatic solutions in a world that is not defined in terms of mutually exclusive, Manichean categories. Humanity (including Russian government officials) is too complex to be divided into people one likes and doesn't like. (3) In this new century, the USA has fought two expensive wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) that have resulted in thousands of deaths and brought -- arguably -- very little benefit to the American people (not to speak of the rest of the world). How willing are taxpayers to support another foreign engagement/adventure at their expense? (4) Only one in six Americans can tell where Ukraine is on a map http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-less-americans.../. It is ironic that a supporter of providing lethal weapons to the fragile Ukrainian government (condemned by some commentators as corrupt) is a senator from Arizona, a part of the U.S. faced with crucial, down-to-earth immigration/drug smuggling issues when dealing with neighboring Mexico (see, as one example: http://www.cnn.com/.../mexico-arizona.../index.html . Is the Senator carefully avoiding this touchy "home" issue by pontificating about U.S. foreign policy? I wonder if he can even utter of word of Ukrainian.
The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to...
WASHINGTONPOST.COM
No comments:
Post a Comment