The editors of the Washington Post give broad support to President Biden’s handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
In our view, it is too soon to second-guess, much less abandon, the broadly successful course President Biden and his fellow democratic leaders have adopted. The key principle is to defend “every inch†of NATO territory but otherwise limit the alliance’s role to aiding Ukraine with arms, intelligence, money and humanitarian supplies — while punishing Russia. We say this even though Mr. Putin obviously meant to test the West’s “red line†by launching a devastating missile strike on a Ukrainian base about 15 miles from the border of NATO member Poland, and threatening more strikes on weapons supply lines. And we say it despite our own disappointment with Mr. Biden’s refusal to transfer combat aircraft from Poland to Ukraine.
.
I wonder how the editors are defining success? Is it that President Biden has not started World War III by engaging Russia directly? That seems to me a pretty low bar&mmdash;it could have been achieved by maintaining a decorous silence. Clearly, they don’t measure it by minimizing the loss of Ukrainian lives. Will they still deem it a success if, as seems likely, the Russians defeat the Ukrainian army and reduce its cities to rubble?
I agree with the thrust of these remarks:
As Russian morale deteriorates, it’s no time to risk reviving it by declaring a NATO no-fly zone or dispatching NATO ground troops into western Ukraine, thus converting Mr. Putin’s tale of a war against NATO from propaganda to reality.
It follows that, if the United States and its allies aren’t going to fight on Ukraine’s behalf, they also should not do its negotiating for it.
Will they still regard the approach a success if President Putin achieves his stated objectives in attacking Ukraine?
WaPo are just fanboys. But take two steps back. It turns out Joe “Its His Fault” Biden’s advisors have been recommending, for some time prior to the invasion, the shipment of real armaments to Ukraine. Rejected. And his posture on US energy? Idiotic, especially in light of his knee pad begging of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and passive dealing with Iran. And he showed his mettle and integrity with the shit show in Afghanistan. Putin saw the time was right.
It was and is the case that the US and NATO have no business with no fly zones or fighting Ukraine’s war for them. But that doesn’t mean we have to practically lay down the red carpet for Putin.
As the great philosopher Barack Obama once said, never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.
The one lesson here for everyone is that a strict isolationist policy sounds good in the faculty lounge, but great care must be taken in a world full of treacherous despots.
I’m not an isolationist. I just don’t believe in promoting democracy at the point of a gun. We’re no good at it and it undermines the liberal international order.
I take a more Jeffersonian view. The United States in an outlier in many, many ways. Maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with countries open to them. The closest relationship with any other country should be to maintain a decorous distance. As John Quincy Adams put it we should be the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all but the champion and vindicator only of our own.
Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Italy, Sweden, etc. have little to no impact on my life. For the most part, people will leave you alone if you leave them alone. Having a big gun doesn’t hurt, either.
If not fucking with other people makes me an isolationist, so be it.
Those are two odd responses. I’m not calling anyone out here as an isolationist. I am observing that the notion of a narrow definition of US self interests needs careful examination. Todays absence of self interest is tomorrows self interest as the school yard bully expands his territory and influence.
The best ways to combat it without coming to blows is to control strategic inputs, a strong economy and military, and a willingness to let the bully know “don’t even think about it; it will cost you.” Telling the bully you will be very, very disappointed – not so much.
@Drew
Nobody ever defines what US interests need to be defended. At best, the experts will proclaim some nebulous concept as vital to the national interest, and then, there can be no debate.
For me, US territory and sealanes need to be defended. We should “walk softly and carry a big stick”. Unfortunately, many people with a big stick want to use it, and they will create any excuse to do so.
Anybody who is willing to use force as the means to obtain their goal only understands force, and the only way to convince them that you will respond is to respond with force. Sometimes, you can show your fangs, but usually, you need to nip them a few times.
Sending blankets, MRE’s, bullets, or Javelin missiles ain’t gonna cut it. If the US was serious about using force, we would have shot down any plane “buzzing” our planes or ships. If you will not defend your ships and planes, you are not serious.