A baseball break.

April 5, 2022

[No audio edition for this newsletter]

          Note: I usually publish the newsletter in the late evening. I learned during the prior presidency that the morning’s news can be stale by evening, so later is better in the newsletter business. But today, my Managing Editor and I are doing something we haven’t done in two years—we are attending a major-league baseball game! (We will watch the Los Angeles Angels beat the L.A. Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. Dodger fans can send rebuttal comments to “idontcare@whatyouthink.com”) Accordingly, I prepared this newsletter early in the day on Monday and set it up for “auto-send” at 10:30 PM Pacific. Apologies if I have missed any late breaking developments. I will use this opportunity to catch up on readers comments about yesterday’s newsletter.

Putin’s Genocide?

          A surprising number of readers sent notes saying that I should have not referred to the events in Ukraine as a “genocide” by Putin. Some readers felt that labeling the events as genocide would make it more difficult for Ukrainians to achieve a negotiated settlement with Putin. That might be true, but I took the title of the newsletter from a comment made by President Zelenskyy that “This is genocide” intended to “exterminate” the Ukrainian people. Business Insider, Zelensky: ‘This is genocide’.

          Other readers said that events in Ukraine do not fit the internationally recognized definition of genocide. (“Acts . . . committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”) One such reader is a scholar of genocide studies, who believed that to accuse Putin of genocide under international law, there must be evidence that Putin ordered the killings. As she noted, the killings may have been the actions of rogue troops. But after researching the issue, I noted another expert in genocide studies who concluded that the actions in Bucha constitute genocide. Dr. Eugene Finkel tweeted as follows:

          As a genocide scholar I am an empiricist, I usually dismiss rhetoric. I also take genocide claims with a truckload of salt because activists apply it almost everywhere now. Not now. There are actions, there is intent. It's as genocide as it gets. Pure, simple and for all to see.

          Moreover, recall that before the invasion occurred, the U.S. State Department disclosed the Putin had “kill lists” of civilians to be targeted in the invasion. Per a CNN report on February 21st, the U.S. said that it possessed “credible information” that Russian forces identified Ukrainians “to be killed or sent to camps” if Russia invaded Ukraine. The U.S. sent a letter to the United Nations before the invasion, stating:

          Disturbing information recently obtained by the United States indicates that human rights violations and abuses in the aftermath of a further invasion are being planned. . . These acts, which in past Russian operations have included targeted killings . . . would likely target . . .  journalists and anti-corruption activists, and vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons.

          So, Putin planned targeted killings of civilians before the invasion began. Was the massacre in Bucha part of those targeted killings? One reader believes so. (Read his comments in the next section.)

          Why does it matter if the killings in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine are labeled as genocide? Because nations such as China, Saudi Arabia, and UAE are lining up to support Putin. See NYTimes, Bristling Against the West, China Rallies Domestic Sympathy for Russia. If the international community recognizes Russia’s actions in Ukraine as genocide, that designation could help unify the world against nations enabling Russia’s genocidal campaign.

          Genocide or not, the evidence is clear that Russian troops engaged in mass killings in Bucha. Satellite imagery proves that bodies lay in the streets of Bucha before Russian troops withdrew—disproving Russia’s claim that the killings were part of a Ukrainian “false flag” operation. See NYTimes, Satellite Images Rebut Russia’s Denial of Its Role in Bucha Deaths.

A different view on Ukraine.

          I have strong views about how the U.S. and NATO should be assisting Ukraine—and how they should avoid escalating the war. That said, I recognize that my views are limited by what I read; I have no military or government experience. A reader of this newsletter with a career at the top levels of U.S. defense and foreign policy (and deep experience with Russia and Ukraine) reached out to share his views about how the U.S. and NATO should respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Note: despite the description of the reader’s background, the reader is not Alexander Vindman.)

          In general, the reader believes the Biden administration has a narrow window to defeat Putin in Ukraine because Russia can outlast Ukraine despite the military setbacks and economic sanctions. The reader says the Biden administration should act with urgency to provide Ukraine everything it needs ASAP. The reader also wanted to convey that the battle for Ukraine will be a long-term challenge to the global order. He believes that Putin was emboldened by the U.S. response to the invasion of Crimea and a decade’s long over-emphasis on the perceived threats from China to the detriment of containing Russia. He believes Putin saw weakness in the West because of Brexit, January 6th, disunity in NATO, and a shaky U.S. economy.

          As to the massacre in Bucha, the reader reminded me that Antony Blinken and others warned before the start of the invasion that Russia had “hit lists” of civilians. He believes that some of the killings in Bucha were targeted and that we should expect much more of the same. See CNN (2/21/2022), Russian forces are identifying Ukrainians 'to be killed' in potential invasion, US says.

          The reader said he would manage the situation more aggressively on three axes. First, he would ramp up sanctions to maximum effect, stopping short of cutting off oil and gas to Europe. Second, he would be undeterred by Putin’s threats of escalation and provide aircraft, drones, missiles, and air defense systems to allow the Ukrainian Army to continue the battle for the long term. Finally, he would make a concerted effort to “supercharge” the international criminal prosecution of Putin while aggressively re-supplying Ukraine with humanitarian aid (food, medical supplies) in plainly marked aircraft and convoys. (He acknowledged that it might be difficult to find a sponsoring agency willing to take on that risk, but he believes it is a moral imperative.)

          Given my consistent call to exercise restraint and avoid escalation at all costs (which remains unchanged), I share this reader’s views with you as a proxy for the many readers who have disagreed with my views as being too deferential to Putin’s threat of escalation if NATO intervenes directly in the war.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson headed for confirmation.

          Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to oppose the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. But she nonetheless has support from three Republican Senators and will be confirmed on the Senate floor. See Talking Points Memo, Committee Ties On Jackson, Who Is Still On Track To Be Confirmed. The behavior of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee continues to be beyond the pale—and will be recognized by future historians a dying paroxysm of the Old South.

Trump’s brand is fraying at the edges. Good.

          Trump endorsed Sarah Palin in her surprise bid for a congressional seat, but took the opportunity to trash Senator John McCain. See The Independent, Donald Trump attacks John McCain while endorsing Sarah Palin’s bid for Congress. Who does that? Who is classless and crass enough to taunt a deceased American patriot who cannot defend himself? In attacking McCain, Trump has confirmed that he is a small, petty, insecure man who seeks to inflate his fragile ego by attacking those who cannot defend themselves.

          As Trump took the time to trash talk a deceased American patriot, his social media app, Truth Social, is imploding. How bad is Truth Social doing? Its executives are quitting en masse and Trump is reluctant to post on the app because it already has the stench of failure. See Forbes, Executives At Trump’s Truth Social Reportedly Quit As Company’s SPAC Stock Drops.

          And at the annual Gridiron dinner in Washington, D.C., New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu said what many Republicans are thinking about Trump—that his mental condition and cognitive abilities are deteriorating. See CNN, Chris Sununu, New Hampshire's Republican governor, calls Trump 'crazy'. I won’t repeat Sununu’s comments because they include language offensive to people suffering from mental health issues. But, as the CNN article says,

          In short: While Sununu was, ostensibly, joking, it's not really a laughing matter. There are lots and lots of Republicans—including many who are publicly supportive of Trump -- who privately wonder about his mental state and what it means for the party going forward. We should all be worried about what it means for the country going forward.

Concluding Thoughts.

         Ukrainians are engaged in an existential struggle to defend their freedom and democracy. Their struggle reminds us that our freedom was hard won at great cost, redeemed with the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans over two centuries. We should never take our freedom for granted. We must be smart, disciplined, and clear-eyed in making judgments about when to call on American men and women to lay their lives on the line to preserve our freedom. Those judgments are never easy and always capable of being second-guessed.

          Biden continues to do an excellent job in a fluid and maddeningly complex situation in Ukraine. He is speaking plainly about Putin’s war crimes. He is continually ratcheting up sanctions on Russia, sending the message that he remains resolute despite political blowback and economic reverberations in the U.S. If we had not helped Biden to victory in 2020, our present difficulties would pale in comparison. Could he do more? Could he revise the U.S. strategy? Those are reasonable questions that should be the basis for discussion about the appropriate strategy, not the basis for criticism—at least by his supporters. We are all on the same side, even if we have different views about how to achieve our common goals.

          Talk to you tomorrow!