At Britain’s iNews Georgina Littlejohn reports that Ukraine’s president has asked NATO to impose a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for allies to help enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine and said his country is being left to fend for itself.

The UK and US have ruled out the move as they are seeking to avoid direct conflict with Russia.

But Mr Ellwood, who chairs the Commons Defence Committee, has said there are “many ways” Ukraine can be assisted other than “putting in boots on the ground”.

Speaking to ITV News, he said: “We need to reconsider this no-fly zone, let’s say west of the Dnieper River, because that would change the optics here.

“If we don’t stand our ground now, where will this go? And don’t forget there are other adversaries around the world, namely China, watching very carefully how the West reacts here.”

He said if the West is seen to be “timid” or “risk-averse” then China “will take full advantage of that weakness too”.

Vadym Prystaiko, the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, has asked Nato for a “no-fly zone” over the country amid the Russian invasion.

Speaking from London, Mr Prystaiko said his request was “something only Nato can provide”.

Just before writing this post I heard an American legislator giving his support to the idea, claiming that NATO has air supremacy.

I can hardly think of anything more foolhardy than this. That our involvement would stop with a “no-fly zone” even if we were able to enforce one is not credible. I believe that our direct military involvement with the war in the Ukraine should be limited to negative reciprocity with respect to nuclear weapons.

As an acquaintance of mine once put it, don’t tell me your priorities—tell me your relative priorities. In the coming hours and days we will see what various countries’ including the United States’s relative priorities are. At present Germany depends on Russia for natural gas and unless things change that will increasingly be the case since the country is phasing out both nuclear and coal-fired power generation. It continues to block the shipment of arms to Ukraine. Germany is Russia’s fourth most important trading

Shockingly, the U. S. imports more gasoline from Russia than any other country and the ending or suspension of gas and oil imports from Russia are not yet included in the sanctions the U. S. has imposed Russia.

China has imposed no sanctions on Russia and is Russia’s most important trading partner both for imports, on which Russia is far less dependent than the United States, and exports on which it is more dependent than the U. S.

As is no surprise the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine failed. Russia vetoed it. The Joint Statement Following a Vote on a UN Security Council Resolution on Russia’s Aggression Toward Ukraine says (complete text):

This afternoon, the Security Council voted on a resolution to hold Russia accountable for its aggression against Ukraine, to protect civilians, including children, and call for the facilitation of rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian assistance to those in need.

This resolution was vital and straightforward. Fundamentally, it was about whether the countries on the Security Council – charged with maintaining international peace and security – believe in upholding the UN Charter.

The UN Charter was written with the express purpose of preventing a war like the one President Putin just started. This war has brought, in just its first days, devastating losses of life – and Russia alone is accountable.

President Putin chose to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty. President Putin chose to violate international law. President Putin chose to violate the UN Charter. President Putin chose to drop bombs on Kyiv, to force families to stuff their lives into backpacks and shelter in subway stations. President Putin is the aggressor here. There is no middle ground.

We believe we have a particular responsibility to stand up to this violation of the UN Charter because Russia is a Permanent Member of the Security Council who is culpable. Those of us standing here today continue to believe in the Security Council’s solemn duty and highest purpose – to prevent conflict and avert the scourge of war.

Russia has abused its power today to veto our strong resolution. But Russia cannot veto our voices. Russia cannot veto the Ukrainian people. Russia cannot veto their own people protesting this war in the streets. Russia cannot veto the UN Charter. Russia cannot, and will not, veto accountability.

We thank the Member States who signed on as co-sponsors of this resolution for standing with Ukraine and with the UN Charter today.

We will be taking this matter to the General Assembly, where the Russian veto does not apply and the nations of the world will continue to hold Russia accountable.

and I agree with it. China abstained from the vote. I also agree with the statement of our ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, to the effect that it was our responsibility to condemn the invasion as well as Russia’s veto of the resolution. I will link to the statement when I find its text online.

As the resolution says the primary purpose of the United Nations was to prevent wars “like the one President Putin just started”. The situation with respect to our invasion of Iraq is not precisely analogous since, to the best of my knowledge, no resolution condemning the invasion was ever brought to the Security Council. In this case a resolution has been brought and vetoed by a permanent member of the council.

The UN has failed in its primary purpose. As we are learning to our sorrow, its charter assumed the continuing benign hegemony of the United States and that is becoming less the case nearly with every passing day. In theory the UN could still be useful is a forum for cooperating on issues but the presence of egregious human rights violators on the commission for human rights and other examples too numerous to mention call that into question as well.

The video above was linked to in comments by a frequent commenter. It’s a lengthy talk by John Mearsheimer and I materially agree with a substantial part of what Dr. Mearsheimer has to say. It’s a lengthy talk, more than an hour long so listening to it requires a significant commitment of time.

I don’t agree with everything he says. For example, I don’t think that Germany considers the U. S. a “benign hegemon”. Either Dr. Mearsheimer hasn’t spent much time in Germany, he doesn’t speak German, or he does speak German and the Germans discreetly refrain from speaking frankly when he’s around. I believe the Germans think we’re dopes. When I was working in Germany I kept the extent of my knowledge of the German language secret, avoiding speaking German to the greatest degree possible. It’s amazing what people will say in front of you when they don’t know you can understand them.

Key quote:

The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and Ukraine is going to get wrecked.

He advocates our encouraging Ukraine to maintain neutrality while it builds itself up economically.

Is Dr. Mearsheimer still right that the Russians don’t intend to reconstitute a Greater Russia and that their strategy is to wreck Ukraine to prevent it from allying with the West? I have no idea.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Robert C. O’Brien and Alexander B. Gray present what they call a “Hardheaded Guide to Deterring Russia and China”. Their proposals are:

First, key European partners like Poland, Romania and the Baltic states have requested significant military hardware that remains unapproved or stuck in the U.S. bureaucracy. We have been calling for approval of the Abrams Main Battle Tank sale to Poland for more than a year and commend Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken for approving the deal last week. The administration should expedite all similar requests.

Second, Finland and Sweden are highly concerned about Russian adventurism. Both maintain capable militaries and defense industrial bases, along with impressive intelligence services. Washington should support the growing sentiment in Helsinki and Stockholm to seek NATO membership. They would strengthen the alliance’s northern flank, including in the critical Arctic area.

Third, the U.S. should reassess legacy basing in Germany. Berlin has shown itself unwilling to undertake a leadership role throughout the Ukraine crisis. This development shouldn’t come as a surprise given the German industrial elite’s dependence on Russian gas and the Chinese export market. With NATO having moved east, Germany is no longer a frontline state. U.S. forces there, other than those manning hospital facilities and airbases, should be repositioned to outposts in Poland and the Baltics and bases in the Indo-Pacific.

Fourth, the Biden administration energy policy requires urgent re-examination. Oil at $100 a barrel not only hurts U.S. consumers, it puts billions into Mr. Putin’s war machine and Iran’s nuclear program. Appeasing Russia and Germany by reversing the Trump administration’s policy on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline clearly failed. It is time to stop Nord Stream 2 once and for all. Further, the U.S. must restore its energy leadership. Finishing the Keystone XL pipeline would send Russia and the world a potent message that America is committed to energy independence.

Fifth, NATO must show its adversaries unwavering resolve. Allies that fail to increase defense spending to the required 2% of gross domestic product within three years shouldn’t play a leading role in NATO. During Donald Trump’s presidency, the alliance’s defense spending commitment grew by nearly $400 billion through 2029, but American taxpayers still carry a disproportionate burden for defending Europe. Under such circumstances it makes sense for only countries that pay 2% of their GDP for defense to enjoy full voting privileges in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s main decision-making body.

Finally, Russia needs to face real consequences for deterrence to work. The West threatened sanctions but exacted no real penalties when Moscow annexed Crimea and set up a proxy government in Donbas. The Biden administration’s sanctions in response to the assertion that parts of Ukraine are “independent” were welcomed but proved insufficient to dissuade Mr. Putin from further action. The free world must make clear to Mr. Putin that Russia’s economy will be fully cut off if he doesn’t de-escalate forthwith. That means, at a minimum, removing Russia’s banks from the Swift system and seizing all oligarch assets world-wide.

Further, Russia should be made to understand that Ukraine’s current government would be recognized in exile by the U.S., NATO and most of the world. All diplomatic property and seats at the United Nations and multilateral organizations would be controlled by the legitimate government of Ukraine, not a Putin-installed puppet regime.

I see several major problems with their proposals. First, I do not believe that these measures if put in place severally or entirely, would change anything respecting Ukraine.

Second, can anyone thing of any example anywhere in the world in which economic sanctions have actually induced any major power to do things they saw as being contrary to their national interest? I can’t. Indeed, one of the few examples I can think of in which sanctions were effective was South Africa and I believe that was widely misunderstood. In particular how successful can sanctions be if the target’s major trading partner didn’t participate?

Third, would additional given or sold to Poland make Poland more secure or just put it in greater risk? I don’t honestly know.

While I think that some of their proposals have merit, I think they’re confusing what works with minor countries with what would be effective with major powers. Sadly, there’s no ready alternative to absolute military and economic superiority which would require a major course change by the United States.

Today’s award for comedy writing goes to Walter Russell Mead for this passage from his most recent Wall Street Journal column:

President Biden must use the shock and horror of Russian aggression in Ukraine to build an allied and domestic consensus for a reinvigorated foreign policy. Many of the strategies come from Ronald Reagan’s playbook. We can massively outspend Russia on defense and cyber capabilities. We can marginalize Russia diplomatically while attacking its oil income and limiting its access to technology. We must solidify our alliances while degrading Russian influence everywhere from Syria and Libya to Venezuela, Cuba and beyond.

Mr. Putin is a gifted leader, and we must expect more surprises. But even with the addition of Ukraine, Russia is weaker than the Soviet Union was. If the American response is purposeful, creative and wise, Mr. Putin’s campaign against the world order will ultimately fail.

While I sympathize with his first paragraph, the highlighted passage is the one to which I refer.

What is it about American foreign policy over the period of the last 60 years that convinces Dr. Mead that we are still capable of being “purposeful, creative and wise”?

Less argumentatively, other than the measures in the first paragraph quoted, what does Dr. Mead see as the purposeful, creative and wise course? And is it politically possible for President Biden?

I agree with the opening observation in David Ignatius’s most recent Washington Post column:

When Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his all-out invasion of Ukraine on Thursday, he effectively ended the post-Cold War era. A new architecture for global relations must be built, and its shape will depend on whether Putin’s brutal campaign succeeds or fails.

but not with a great deal else. The reason I can’t agree with most of his other observations is contained within another passage with which I agree:

Putin’s attack awakened the ghosts of war that had haunted Europe for a century. The world watched in horror as a massive assault force attacked Ukraine from three sides with missiles, bombs, tanks and the electronic wizardry of cyberwarfare. Scores of nations condemned the invasion. But the gut-wrenching fact is that Ukraine is fighting Putin by itself.

Can anyone imagine a circumstance under which Ukraine would not be “fighting Putin by itself”? Can anyone imagine the U. S. entering directly into the conflict with its own troops that did not metastasize into nuclear war? That leaves the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Poland, and, perhaps, a few others. Can you imagine any of them using their own troops in Ukraine? I can’t.

And that’s why I think his conclusion is a fantasy:

If Putin loses his battle to subjugate Ukraine, the new order will have a solid and promising foundation.

It’s not actually a new new world order. It’s the old world order in which might makes right. The liberal world order has fallen off its wall and you can’t put it back together again. That is what should have been expected when major powers, whether global superpowers or regional ones like Russia, “go rogue” and do whatever they want whenever they want to. We need to acknowledge reality, think fondly of the liberal world order, identify our desired role in that old world order, and do what we need to do to assume it.

Some time between 7:00am and 9:30am CST this morning the rumor that had been reported by multiple sources was confirmed by the White House:

Since Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, President Biden has conducted a rigorous process to identify his replacement. President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law. And the President sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.

That is why the President nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Judge Jackson is one of our nation’s brightest legal minds and has an unusual breadth of experience in our legal system, giving her the perspective to be an exceptional Justice.

I realize I’m whistling past a graveyard with my next remark but I think that, unless some seriously disqualifying flaw in her is discovered, Judge Jackson should be confirmed by the Senate with all due speed and with bipartisan support.

That’s a return to norms that we need. That used to be the way it was with appointments to the Supreme Court and should be again.

One last point. To believe in a liberal world order means to believe in the rule of law and that includes treaties to which we are a signatory. By their very nature treaties limit a country’s freedom of action.

We cannot coherently do whatever we care to whenever we care to do it in violation of our treaty obligations, condemn Russia for doing the same thing, and claim to believe in a liberal world order. IMO that is the belief that the United States has special privileges. That is not just American exceptionalism it is what’s called “Americanism” and I think it is ruining the liberal world order our fathers and grandfathers bled to establish.