Here’s the advice of the editors of the Washington Post:
Deterrence — the most time-tested of security concepts — warranted President Biden’s decision to dispatch fighter aircraft, attack helicopters and infantry to the Baltic states, and a 7,000-strong armored unit to Germany. NATO itself has for the first time activated a 40,000-member rapid response force, drawn heavily from the alliance’s non-U.S. members.
Now, though, for some new ideas: The United States must reconsider its focus on China in light of the renewed geopolitical challenge from Russia — and Moscow’s growing cooperation with Beijing. We must match military budget resources to the combination of threats. NATO should consider admitting Sweden and Finland. Today’s sanctions on Russia could harden into long-term blockages in global trade flows, which were already becoming less fluid because of protectionism and the pandemic. U.S. supply chains may henceforth have to take geopolitical criteria into account.
No commodity is more geopolitically significant than energy, including oil and gas, which the United States possesses in abundance — and which, along with low-carbon nuclear, solar and wind energy, can bolster our security and that of our allies. Europe buys 38 percent of its natural gas from Russia, which means — bluntly — that Europe’s businesses and consumers financed Mr. Putin’s military buildup. This must end.
No country must think anew more urgently than Germany, which took a big step in the right direction on Saturday when it announced its first-ever direct supply of lethal weapons to Kyiv. Over the longer term, it must address its hollowed-out military, the result of a historically rooted but strategically unsustainable aversion to investment in defense. After Russia attacked Ukraine, Germany’s top military commander, Lt. Gen. Alfons Mais lamented that his army was potentially unable “to successfully fulfill . . . our obligations in the alliance.â€
My advice would be somewhat different: learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. Hearkening back to my post of yesterday, we need to identify our priorities and determine which are more important to us than others. We can’t ignore one priority in order to concentrate on another. That would especially be an error if the priority on which we choose to focus is actually the less significant one.
I’d add that we need to get better about considering trade-offs and consequences.
As well as separating personal interest from national interest. Consequences don’t always go in the same direction. What’s good for some people in the U. S. might not be good for all or even most of the people of the U. S.