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?

Those in the United States who for reasons I find incomprehensible seem to long for World War III have found another way to start it. Instead of demanding that a “no fly zone” be established in Ukraine they are asking for “humanitarian corridors” to be established and humanitarian airlifts conducted by, presumably, the U. S. military to cold and starving Ukrainians.

The Berlin Airlift of 1948-1949 is frequently being cited. It didn’t take place during wartime.

Can anyone think of any humanitarian airlift conducted in war time into the primary war zone? The closest I can come up with if the Biafran airlifts of 1969-1970. During those Catholic Relief Services and some Protestant relief services, using transport planes purchased from the U. S. government, transported food and supplies under the cover of night to starving people in Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. It differed from what is being proposed in some important ways:

1. There was no enforced “corridor” in which to fly.
2. It was conducted by churches not the military.
3. The Nigerian air force of 50 years ago was not the Russian air force of today.

If the U. S. military starts flying missions over Ukraine, whether military or humanitarian, that will be taken by the Russians as acts of war. If the Russians shoot down U. S. military transports it will be taken by the U. S. as an act of war.

If completely private organizations or individuals undertake such humanitarian airlifts, I will applaud their bravery and charity. But the U. S. military?

I think this is another instance of the politicians’ dilemma. Please, please think your ideas through.

This post was inspired by a comment left here by an occasional commenter. On what issues is there presently a consensus in the United States?

Let’s first define what I mean by “consensus”. The dictionary definition of “consensus” is “general agreement”. I don’t mean that for a simple reason: I think there are very few issues on which there is general agreement. No, what I mean is issues on which 65% or more of Americans agree.

Since the comment was left I’ve been looking for such issues and have found very few of them but there are a few so I’ll list them here.

Strengthening the economy

Pew Research has found that 71% of Americans think that strengthening the economy is an important issue. What that means of would entail, of course, is left undefined. That’s how it is with many of the issues on which there is a consensus.

Healthcare

There is no consensus in favor of “Medicare for All”. There is a consensus supporting a “public option” for healthcare. Even the majority support for “Medicare for All” erodes quickly if voters are informed that their taxes would rise to pay for it. How all of that translates into an actual, workable policy eludes me which I think explains why every state that has considered a single-payer system has abandoned it.

Immigration

A consensus of Americans believe that immigrants who meet certain criteria should have a path to citizenship, that the large number of immigrants crossing our southern border is a problem, are unhappy about how unaccompanied minors who show up on our southern border are cared for, and that our border control and enforcement personnel should receive better training.

Military

There is no longer a consensus of Americans supporting our military. A majority do, however.

Congress

There is a consensus of Americans who do not believe that Congress is doing a good job. That has been true for most of the last thirteen years. In what would appear to be a paradox a majority approve of their own Congressional representative.

That’s just about it.

If you find any other issues on which there is a consensus (as defined above) among Americans, please leave it in the comments along with a link supporting it.

Submitted without comment is this graphic taken from Brian Blase’s testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions on February 17, 2022.

It takes Tom MacTague a while to get around to his point in his piece at The Atlantic but he does eventually:

he question for western leaders is how to ensure Putin is defeated while nevertheless providing him with a route out of the crisis and avoiding any missteps that could lead to a wider conflagration. The path along the cliff edge is precarious.

According to diplomats and experts I spoke with, the way forward involves a number of elements. First, the West must ensure that however much support it gives to Kyiv, the conflict remains one between Ukraine and Russia. That way, peace negotiations remain between the two countries, and not Russia and the West more widely. Washington, Paris, London, and Berlin cannot allow talks to become what Putin wants them to be: a negotiation about spheres of influence in which Ukraine and other states can be bargained away. This, in effect, would be a victory for Putin and his tactics of nuclear brinkmanship, leading to a more dangerous world in which other dictators take the lesson that bullying and intimidation work.

Second, the West must not close off potential compromises that the Ukrainians themselves would be willing to negotiate. If Putin is to accept a negotiated defeat, he will require a fig leaf to hide the reality that he has failed to subdue Ukraine. There has been speculation, for example, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky might be prepared to formally renounce his pursuit of NATO membership, one of a number of pledges that could be made to serve as a pretext for Russian de-escalation. Zelensky could also promise not to send troops into the Donbas, for example, or seek to retake Crimea—or even to seek nuclear weapons, or allow them to be stationed on Ukrainian territory. In other words, he could use Russia’s absurd propaganda to his advantage by formally pledging not to do things that he or any of his successors would have considered doing anyway.

The difficulty comes with compromises that are not fair. Why should Ukraine not seek EU or NATO membership? Or why should it accept the annexation of Crimea, a part of its sovereign territory? Here diplomatic skills must come to the fore.

Ultimately, diplomacy will have to get each side to agree to a deal that allows each to save its dignity—even though one side does not deserve to have its dignity saved.

The Cuban missile crisis ended with Russian missiles turning back while the Americans agreed not to invade Cuba, and to remove their missiles from Turkey. Historians disagree over whether this maintained the status quo in terms of the overall balance of power between the two sides, or left Russia slightly better off than when the crisis began. Either way, it ended without catastrophic miscalculation and with a compromise balanced enough that both sides were able to save face.

My concern is that the volume of propaganda from both sides is so enormous as to convince each of the participants that their position is stronger than it actually is. Russian negotiators not to mention President Putin may think that their position is much stronger than it is and Ukraine’s weaker. Ukrainian negotiators may think that their position is stronger than it actually is and Russia’s weaker. NATO negotiators may think their position and above all their unity may be greater than it actually is, the Ukrainians stronger than they actually are, and the Russians weaker than they actually are. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is Russia and Ukraine’s war.

I think the greatest risk is almost the opposite of this:

Washington, Paris, London, and Berlin cannot allow talks to become what Putin wants them to be: a negotiation about spheres of influence in which Ukraine and other states can be bargained away.

Negotiations may become about what NATO countries want and are willing to accept rather than what Ukraine wants and is willing to accept.

The editors of the Chicago Tribune are critical of Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx’s remarks about the verdict and sentence of Jussie Smollett:

After his attempts to clout his way out of trouble failed, he deservedly stood trial, was judged to be guilty by a jury of his peers on five of six counts and, alas for him, met a judge who clearly found his narrative shtick less than credible. All the way through, he showed not a smidgen of remorse.

Thus Smollett now finds himself in Cook County Jail.

Judge James Linn doubtless is well aware that, assuming he behaves himself, Smollett won’t be behind bars for 150 days as sentenced, but should be out of there after a couple of months. Just as the weather gets nice.

That reality of credits for good behavior makes the statement by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx that Linn’s reasonable sentence was indicative of “revenge” all the more ridiculous. Smollett gets a couple of months to think about his future, a bill that accurately reflects real police overtime costs and an admonition to stay out of trouble. Plenty of folks without Smollett’s connections and resources face a much tougher justice system, especially those whose crimes came out of poverty, rather than ambition.

And, as we all know from the musical “Chicago,” Smollett’s career hardly is ruined. His name is more familiar than ever. His PR people will know how to craft a narrative of rebirth.

This is revenge? Seems to us like fair treatment.

Foxx, of course, is trying to cover up for her questionable initial decision not to prosecute Smollett, following a couple of well-placed phone calls made to her office on his behalf. She’s trying to downplay the seriousness of his crime for her own political purposes. And rather than apologize to Chicago for this tawdry business, Smollett’s older brother, Joe, even rolled out the Al Capone cliche to impugn the proceedings and the city in which they were taking place.

The elder Smollett is supporting his family. But it is unbecoming of the state’s attorney to attack a judge for a sentence in line with what prosecutors sought. It does not aid the deficit of trust between police officers and her office. It does not serve the public good, nor the cause that people of all levels of resources should be treated the same way.

I think it’s more than fair. It’s giving him what he clearly wanted: attention. His family, lawyers, and publicity people will ensure that he remains in the public eye as long as they can.

I’m surprised that Ms. Foxx hasn’t been fined or tossed in the clink herself for contempt of court following her remarks. They certainly exhibited contempt.

One Cook County town has called for Kim Foxx to resign. An Illinois state representative has introduced a bill in the Illinois House that would allow the voters of Cook County to recall Ms. Foxx. I’m on record as believing that the Illinois state constitution should be amended to allow any elected official to be recalled at any time for any or no reason if enough of the voters of her or his jurisdiction want it.

But Illinois is possibly the least populist and least democratic state in the Union and the representative is a Republican so the bill is unlikely to go anywhere. I strongly doubt that Ms. Foxx will resign and she’s already been re-elected once, despite her obvious inadequacies. I’m afraid we’re stuck with her.

To date the best primer on the military situation in the Russia-Ukraine War using open source intelligence that I have seen is this one. The author appears to be a retired U. S. colonel presently working as a business consultant on leadership. It appears to be solid and honest.

Hit tip: SST

Can anyone provide evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin has stolen $200 billion from Russia? All that I can find are unsubstantiated claims. It wasn’t supported by the “Pandora Papers”, for example, although the wealth of some in Putin’s inner circle was documented by them.

In a post at Just Security Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro argue that supplying the Ukrainians with weapons is not a breach of U. S. neutrality:

If this war were taking place in 1922 rather than 2022, Putin would have a good legal argument and a basis for claiming that the United States and others can become parties to the conflict by supplying arms to Ukraine. In the Old World Order that existed before 1928, economic sanctions against a belligerent and supplying arms to one side and not another were violations of the duty of neutrality. But when the states joined together to outlaw war in 1928 and reaffirm that commitment in the UN Charter in 1945, they created a New World Order in which might is no longer right and in which states can provide weapons and other support to a state unjustly attacked so that it can defend itself.

The end of impartiality means that states are permitted to supply weapons or other support to Ukraine. Doing so violates no legal duty of neutrality. States would become parties to the international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine if, and only if, they resort to armed force against Russia. Indeed, if anything, providing assistance to Ukraine supports the international legal order by allowing Ukraine to defend itself against a war of aggression.

Their basic argument is that the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter superceded the previous understanding of neutrality articulated by Vattel:

As long as a neutral nation wishes securely to enjoy the advantages of her neutrality, she must in all things show a strict impartiality towards the belligerent powers: for, should she favor one of the parties to the prejudice of the other, she cannot complain of being treated by him as an adherent and confederate of his enemy.

In honesty I would be more comfortable with their assessment if I didn’t think that the UN Charter is largely dead. You only have a rule of law when you don’t do something you want to do because it’s against the law. We’ve been engaging in acts of war in a dozen countries over the last 20 years without Security Council authorization which, too, is a violation of the charter. You can’t pick and choose and maintain a rule of law.