It will make crystal clear that Ukraine was never simply "a part of Russia", but has its own unique and fascinating history; it's a deep dive (23 50-minute lectures) but provides endless fascinating detail of the history of Eastern Europe from before the Byzantine Empire right up to today. Snyder is probably the foremost expert on Ukranian history, and like Heather Cox Richardson he deeply understands history and makes it come alive in rare and delightful form. Worth the time and effort.
Robert, just want to add my thanks to others here for your work to promote Field Team 6. I joined Field Team 6 in 2020 and wrote postcards to voters. I was widowed in 2020, wanted to do “something” but couldn’t face door knocking. (Lifetime environmental activist here. Door knocking is damn hard work - as you’ve noted!)
Field Team 6 does great work on its own - and coordinates extremely well with like-minded orgs. Tomorrow, thanks to a notice from FT6, I’m joining a team with the St. Paul Indivisible group to write postcards to Wisconsin voters about the importance of the upcoming election for Wisconsin Supreme Court. MAGA donors have just put $20m into the coffers of the MAGA Republican judge candidate and the TV ads they created are atrocious. We have our work cut out for us.
Thank you for all that you do to keep us informed and working to defend democracy.
I wish to make it clear, that I fully support President Biden, and more, believe his handling of the Ukraine struggle for freedom and autonomy is sober, mature, and sophisticated given the complexities of consequences needing to be deliberated upon. My self-inquiry is just that, a personal line of questioning that is baffling and confusing and disturbing me because of its lack of forthright action and honesty regarding the importance of clear and decisive action.
As a peace advocate, I have wondered (without expressing out loud these thoughts) why the initiation of an illegal war against an autonomous, democratic nation by a world 'super power' is not categorically considered an unacceptable act of aggression for which an immediate and overwhelming response is not called for? Certainly, political considerations demand we evaluate the potential of an 'all-out' response and the risk of nuclear conflict. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of combatants and innocent civilians could easily have been predicted to die in and from battle (as they have), place the lasting existence of Ukraine into question, inflict years of suffering and infrastructure rebuilding at untold trillions of dollars, and still leave the question of "is there ever a legitimate red line" unanswered.
Is this not already a World War? Its 'containment', as such, is now drawing Poland and Slovakia into the fray as Ukraine prepares to defend itself against a Spring Offensive. How many countries are the minimum numbers to declare enough? Contrary to the argument that Ukraine should settle this war at the bargaining (not really a negotiating) table, I wonder if Russia can sustain any kind of conflagration of scope. It is already a failing economy - at last estimate the 13th largest in the world after Italy - its resources would be scrapped in short shrift. The maniacal man at the head of Russia would, in my humble estimation, be taken down at first opportunity and never given a chance to press the nuclear button. We would be doing the Russian population a favor. Russia's citizenry do not support its government.
Again, do not think me off-handed. These decisions are critical. But, do we fail ourselves as the world leader, by allowing a third-rate blow-hard despot who has one tool in his tool box to reign supreme? My question remains then, what is really at the core of this conundrum? How much hurt and damage and death must there be before we act as rational players participating in what, at best, is a scaled down third world war?
Please remember before you respond suggesting I am war mongering, that I am questioning myself in the presence of your good graces.
This is a safe place to think out loud and ask hard questions.
There are no easy answers here. What do we do with the small risk that Putin will use tatical nuclear weapons? What would our response be? And we should recognize that tactical nuclear weapons may have a limited impact in terms of scale, but an impact that will last hundreds or thousands of years in terms of duration. So, I don't think it is as easy as decided that we want to overwhelm Russia with a response. I think the hard question is how much risk akre we willing to tolerate that the confrontation turns nuclear. In my view, we need to keep that risk at zero.
Robert, you are absolutely right. We must continue to support Ukraine in any way we can, for as long as we can. Appeasement allowed Hitler to murder 6 million innocent people, thousands of troops and civilians and Putin is another Hitler. Ukraine is the canary in the mine. If we allow it to die, by not recognizing the danger it is supposed to alert us to, we are eventually going to have to face Putin closer to the USA. We and NATO countries must stop him now!
Registering voters as Democrats is probably the best thing all of us could do. Between now and Election Day there are hundreds of thousands high school students who will be eligible to vote and we need to get them registered. A young person who has their future ahead of them and cares about this country, it’s people and the environment should have no problem registering to vote. Another major focus has to be registering college students who can vote in the state where they attend college. One way to beat gerrymandering is to register new voters in those local counties as well as new out of state residences. At the end of the day voter turnout is what really matters.
I write to speak on behalf of a growing number of peace activists, who, on one hand, maintain the U.S. should not cease in providing aid to Ukraine and, on the other, believe that someone has to be calling for ceasefire and serious negotiations.
In their view, one need only listen, for example, to Quincy Institute experts on Ukraine of the consequences were there no attempt at ending the bloodshed now—thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians and Russians displaced and/or killed. Hence, though they’re not sure how a current negotiation would go nor who the parties would be—UN, US, Ukraine, Russia, China, Turkey???—they’re committed to bringing together the requisite parties to sit at the table with the devil — Putin— and to seeing they apply all the pressure the international community can muster to bring about a negotiated settlement.
If Russia agreea to return the Crimea, leave all other occupied parts of Ukraine, return all prisoners and the thousands of children they kidnapped, turn over soldiers who committed heinous acts against civilians and prisoners of war, and turn over frozen monies to help rebuild Ukraine, then sure, open peace talks.
The only way this is likely to happen is if Putin is ousted in a putsch by Russians who are fed up with living in an impoverished society feeding the wallets and egos of the oligarchs. It's happened before and it can happen again.
Marsha, Notwithstanding my intent to speak for peace activists I highly respect, I’ve been hesitant to press at this moment for a negotiated settlement. To be clear, while I believe that movement to common security is the only reason the Ukrainians continue to fight, the same cannot be said of Russia. I justify this judgement because Russia, at any moment, could call for an end to hostilities, her borders remaining intact. To the contrary, were the Ukrainians to agree to a ceasefire as a show of good faith, or possibly to avoid risking a larger conflict, said move plausibly would end Ukraine, and also likely would end badly more broadly.
While, admittedly, I don’t have a ready solution to offer, some amount of parity between the two parties does strike me as a necessary, possibly sufficient, precondition for any meaningful negotiation. Along said lines, I would note that Ukraine’s recent advances into Crimea could be part of a plan to position herself to have something to trade.
Fast-forwarding to the past few days, friends and colleagues who hold the perspective I outlined in my original comment have noted there is wisdom in my position. Accordingly, I chose to use this platform to afford them the same recognition.
The US not standing up to a dictatorial fascist is what got a ship full of children dead during the Holocaust. It’s easy to sit in the US and play armchair quarterback. Allowing fascists like Putin to continue to destroy countries is just plain wrong. No one should be bothsidingism this.
Erica, “[B]othsidingism” is hardly the term I would use to portray NATO’s engagement meant to ensure, in a confrontation with Russia, that Ukraine, at minimum, would be strong enough never to lose even were she too weak ever to win. Sustaining this impasse is a likely strategy that could lead to a negotiated settlement, invariably a compromise, wherein each side would have to trade something, maybe Crimea for sovereign and secure borders. Admittedly, a solution, neither ideal nor one to be rejected outright, given the alternative could be endless war— or worse.
Ukraine just received new fighter jets and more arms and are gearing up for spring. What Russia needs is a way to save face with a negotiated settlement to make the sacrifice of thousands of Russians not the tragedy it is.
Barbara, I am curious about these phrases, "some amount of parity between the two parties does strike me as a necessary, possibly sufficient, precondition for any meaningful negotiation. Along said lines, I would note that Ukraine’s recent advances into Crimea could be part of a plan to position herself to have something to trade." I don't understand what would be "parity between the two parties". Can you provide an example? At the same time I don't think - at this point - that Ukraine is going to use the Crimea to bargain. Why should they? Russia has mounted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Where is the parity? Maybe I am naive but I can't see it.
Kate, Thank you for your reply. To clarify, parity, in this case, would be an acknowledgement by both parties that each is just strong enough never to lose and just weak enough never to win. As stated in my comment, I view recognition of such an impasse as essential for any meaningful negotiation.
As for Ukraine possibly having to give up Crimea, because any negotiation entails compromise, each side must have something it is willing to trade. In this case, it could mean Crimea for sovereign, secure borders. As a final point, I would note history has shown, with rare exceptions, that the alternative to a negotiated settlement likely is endless war—or worse.
I want to commend Barbara and all of the participants in this thread. These are hard issues and you have engaged in a vigorous dialog in good faith. We can't ask for more from one another.
To over-simplify, such moves are underway. Genocide, war crimes, and complaints of unilateral aggression have been submitted to the UN and (I believe) the Hague where a tribunal may be organized against Putin.* The problem, as I see it, is the crass aggression practiced by so many world leaders. Their word is law unto themselves. (Trump tried that ploy, encouraged by other authoritarian henchmen. It failed when democracy prevailed but he is still determined.)
Nations of the Middle East, China, North Korea and most definitely Russia, and even a few African nations, thumb their noses at international organizations such as the UN, because their powerful rulers are intensely militant and don't give a moment's care about sending their citizens to their death by war, or despair and starvation, or their own infamy,
While Russia is our near enemy, the world's enemy is autocracy and greed by so many leaders.
I think there may be another approach that could produce results. Have you read this letter from Diane Francis yesterday? "Russia Collapses": https://substack.com/inbox/post/97145787
I think that the financial woes of Russia are snowballing and there is a group of very rich men who are very unhappy. Perhaps with a little very quiet encouragement, the Oligarchs who have enabled Putin will eventually topple him. He is causing them much pain. That outreach and a redoubling of sanctions and other efforts Diane suggests could tip the balance. Russia is teetering.
Bill, Thank you for the link. While your argument, indeed, is promising, my principal concern rests with the extent China, in particular, could help resuscitate Russia’s economy. Hence, I continue to bank on the West to ensure Ukraine is too strong ever to lose, even were she too weak ever to win. I view creation of such an impasse as critical to achieving a negotiated settlement vs. endless war—or worse.
Thanks, Bill. Either way, may justice be served, and either way will reflect Putin's behavior toward his own people and others. (But oh those other oily-garchs are just as bad.)
What I’m saying is today Russia is not interested in a negotiated settlement but if they were thinking about one they would need to save face with their own people and the world. It would be perceived as a defeat. There is no basis for a settlement today unless the sanctions become unbearable which I’m not sure they are. With China meeting with Russia the hope for any settlement is not on the table. What you are doing is admirable but we are a long way from any resolution I’m afraid.
Stephen, Thank you for the clarification, which, indeed, has merit. Nonetheless, I would note, were both parties to recognize they were just strong enough never to lose and just weak enough never to win, said realization could induce incentive for a negotiated settlement vs. endless war— or worse. Meantime, I remain mindful of three critical factors 1) Ukraine’s immeasurable fortitude, 2) geopolitical interests, particularly relative to China, and 3) the fissures within the GOP that I fear could prolong the war.
Which is one reason why Russia will work extra hard to influence our elections this next time. I hope our relevant experts are adequately prepared and entirely on the side of fair elections free of foreign influence.
Ukraine represents the David of the Goliath story. A truce for Ukraine must include reparations for the damage Russia did to innocent people and infrastructure and Putin needs to come out looking like a winner. I think he is on weak ground because many Russian Oligarchs are hurting. If a truce was possible Biden would be all over it. The risks we have is people will get tired of the war and Republicans attacks.
There is much to applaud in today's Newsletter, but responding to the sincere peace activists, I believe, is critically important. Virtually everyone yearns for "peace," in Ukraine, Russia and throughout the world, but that yearning begs the questions of (1) whether cessation of armed fighting would constitute the "peace" for which we yearn and (2) whether the cost or consequences of sudden major hostility cessation, particularly in Ukraine, would be more dangerous to more people than the current fighting is. I find the historical writings and current reporting of Yale Professor Timothy Snyder on the Ukraine situation both quite informative and persuasive; he argues that the Ukrainians are engaged in a "just war" for the long-term benefit of themselves, the other Europeans and the rest of the world too, including particularly the United States. I have heard the Ukrainian President and the the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States say the same thing. I am grateful to the Ukrainians and all the governments and people who are supporting them for their courageous efforts to "hold the fort."
A normal news day: Poland sending fighter jets to Ukraine; another bank "rescue"; Dr Fauci did not invent Covid; Axios further down the drain; grand jurors speaking to the press 😵💫; more voter ID laws; Field Team 6 on a roll -- all "under the leadership of a strong US president committed to defending global security and managing the US economy with rational policies and a steady hand." Kinda reassuring. Methinks.
Robert, to repeat what I seem to say every time I leave a comment, THANK YOU SO MUCH. Your efforts lift the spirits and strengthen democracy in so many ways. I would ask you to run for president except that we would then lose your cogent and elegant and battle ready missives!! Thank you again.
"I sometimes receive notes from readers who object to any aid to Ukraine on the ground that it only serves to prolong the war and increase suffering. They argue that the US should cease aid and require Ukraine to enter peace talks."
I didn't know drooling inbred morons too stupid to understand polysyllabic words, who really should reconsider their decision not to take the remedial class in reading comprehension, could actually read a Today's Edition post.
"Jack Smith is reportedly asking a federal judge for an order to compel Trump’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, to testify regarding a false affidavit provided to the FBI declaring that all classified documents had been returned."
Does this mean that we're going to have to wait another year or even two while this case winds its way before the Seditious Majority-led Supreme Court before Jack Smith indicts Trump for a federal crime that any other federal employee would be already in jail for? (By the way, Trump was just that - a federal employee paid with our tax dollar (grrrrr!!!))
No, probably not. there is an expedited process to handle assertions of privilege before a grand jury. They go straight to the chief judge for decision. If Corcoran is granted limited immunity, I don't think there is any grounds for an appeal.
I was so very proud to see you on FT6 all-day Zoom conference yesterday, Robert. In the chat, I referred to you as our "calm captain." And that you are indeed! Wondering now how many of those viewers have now signed up for your newsletter? . . . And here I thought your current 70,000 was amazing! Truth and Hope. . .every day. We thank you.
I jumped on the Field Team Six Register Democrats 2023 Summit yesterday when I could and the energy, brain power, enthusiasm and “can do” spirit including your own talk Robert was a welcome balm ! Thank you as always!!
I highly-recommend listening to the Ukraine Lectures by Timothy Snyder, available free on youtube:https://www.google.com/search?q=Timothy+Snyder+Ukraine+Lectures&oq=Timothy&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i59l3j35i39j69i61l3.15941j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It will make crystal clear that Ukraine was never simply "a part of Russia", but has its own unique and fascinating history; it's a deep dive (23 50-minute lectures) but provides endless fascinating detail of the history of Eastern Europe from before the Byzantine Empire right up to today. Snyder is probably the foremost expert on Ukranian history, and like Heather Cox Richardson he deeply understands history and makes it come alive in rare and delightful form. Worth the time and effort.
I am about halfway through the lectures. They are superb!
✅ What Tom Keefe says
Robert, just want to add my thanks to others here for your work to promote Field Team 6. I joined Field Team 6 in 2020 and wrote postcards to voters. I was widowed in 2020, wanted to do “something” but couldn’t face door knocking. (Lifetime environmental activist here. Door knocking is damn hard work - as you’ve noted!)
Field Team 6 does great work on its own - and coordinates extremely well with like-minded orgs. Tomorrow, thanks to a notice from FT6, I’m joining a team with the St. Paul Indivisible group to write postcards to Wisconsin voters about the importance of the upcoming election for Wisconsin Supreme Court. MAGA donors have just put $20m into the coffers of the MAGA Republican judge candidate and the TV ads they created are atrocious. We have our work cut out for us.
Thank you for all that you do to keep us informed and working to defend democracy.
thanks for all you do!
Field Team 6 rocks! I have supported them for years. It's a great place to put your political dollars.
I wish to make it clear, that I fully support President Biden, and more, believe his handling of the Ukraine struggle for freedom and autonomy is sober, mature, and sophisticated given the complexities of consequences needing to be deliberated upon. My self-inquiry is just that, a personal line of questioning that is baffling and confusing and disturbing me because of its lack of forthright action and honesty regarding the importance of clear and decisive action.
As a peace advocate, I have wondered (without expressing out loud these thoughts) why the initiation of an illegal war against an autonomous, democratic nation by a world 'super power' is not categorically considered an unacceptable act of aggression for which an immediate and overwhelming response is not called for? Certainly, political considerations demand we evaluate the potential of an 'all-out' response and the risk of nuclear conflict. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of combatants and innocent civilians could easily have been predicted to die in and from battle (as they have), place the lasting existence of Ukraine into question, inflict years of suffering and infrastructure rebuilding at untold trillions of dollars, and still leave the question of "is there ever a legitimate red line" unanswered.
Is this not already a World War? Its 'containment', as such, is now drawing Poland and Slovakia into the fray as Ukraine prepares to defend itself against a Spring Offensive. How many countries are the minimum numbers to declare enough? Contrary to the argument that Ukraine should settle this war at the bargaining (not really a negotiating) table, I wonder if Russia can sustain any kind of conflagration of scope. It is already a failing economy - at last estimate the 13th largest in the world after Italy - its resources would be scrapped in short shrift. The maniacal man at the head of Russia would, in my humble estimation, be taken down at first opportunity and never given a chance to press the nuclear button. We would be doing the Russian population a favor. Russia's citizenry do not support its government.
Again, do not think me off-handed. These decisions are critical. But, do we fail ourselves as the world leader, by allowing a third-rate blow-hard despot who has one tool in his tool box to reign supreme? My question remains then, what is really at the core of this conundrum? How much hurt and damage and death must there be before we act as rational players participating in what, at best, is a scaled down third world war?
Please remember before you respond suggesting I am war mongering, that I am questioning myself in the presence of your good graces.
This is a safe place to think out loud and ask hard questions.
There are no easy answers here. What do we do with the small risk that Putin will use tatical nuclear weapons? What would our response be? And we should recognize that tactical nuclear weapons may have a limited impact in terms of scale, but an impact that will last hundreds or thousands of years in terms of duration. So, I don't think it is as easy as decided that we want to overwhelm Russia with a response. I think the hard question is how much risk akre we willing to tolerate that the confrontation turns nuclear. In my view, we need to keep that risk at zero.
Robert, you are absolutely right. We must continue to support Ukraine in any way we can, for as long as we can. Appeasement allowed Hitler to murder 6 million innocent people, thousands of troops and civilians and Putin is another Hitler. Ukraine is the canary in the mine. If we allow it to die, by not recognizing the danger it is supposed to alert us to, we are eventually going to have to face Putin closer to the USA. We and NATO countries must stop him now!
Registering voters as Democrats is probably the best thing all of us could do. Between now and Election Day there are hundreds of thousands high school students who will be eligible to vote and we need to get them registered. A young person who has their future ahead of them and cares about this country, it’s people and the environment should have no problem registering to vote. Another major focus has to be registering college students who can vote in the state where they attend college. One way to beat gerrymandering is to register new voters in those local counties as well as new out of state residences. At the end of the day voter turnout is what really matters.
I write to speak on behalf of a growing number of peace activists, who, on one hand, maintain the U.S. should not cease in providing aid to Ukraine and, on the other, believe that someone has to be calling for ceasefire and serious negotiations.
In their view, one need only listen, for example, to Quincy Institute experts on Ukraine of the consequences were there no attempt at ending the bloodshed now—thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians and Russians displaced and/or killed. Hence, though they’re not sure how a current negotiation would go nor who the parties would be—UN, US, Ukraine, Russia, China, Turkey???—they’re committed to bringing together the requisite parties to sit at the table with the devil — Putin— and to seeing they apply all the pressure the international community can muster to bring about a negotiated settlement.
If Russia agreea to return the Crimea, leave all other occupied parts of Ukraine, return all prisoners and the thousands of children they kidnapped, turn over soldiers who committed heinous acts against civilians and prisoners of war, and turn over frozen monies to help rebuild Ukraine, then sure, open peace talks.
Thank you, Marsha. Might I add, that Russia agree to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine to its pre-invasion condition.
The only way this is likely to happen is if Putin is ousted in a putsch by Russians who are fed up with living in an impoverished society feeding the wallets and egos of the oligarchs. It's happened before and it can happen again.
Marsha, Notwithstanding my intent to speak for peace activists I highly respect, I’ve been hesitant to press at this moment for a negotiated settlement. To be clear, while I believe that movement to common security is the only reason the Ukrainians continue to fight, the same cannot be said of Russia. I justify this judgement because Russia, at any moment, could call for an end to hostilities, her borders remaining intact. To the contrary, were the Ukrainians to agree to a ceasefire as a show of good faith, or possibly to avoid risking a larger conflict, said move plausibly would end Ukraine, and also likely would end badly more broadly.
While, admittedly, I don’t have a ready solution to offer, some amount of parity between the two parties does strike me as a necessary, possibly sufficient, precondition for any meaningful negotiation. Along said lines, I would note that Ukraine’s recent advances into Crimea could be part of a plan to position herself to have something to trade.
Fast-forwarding to the past few days, friends and colleagues who hold the perspective I outlined in my original comment have noted there is wisdom in my position. Accordingly, I chose to use this platform to afford them the same recognition.
The US not standing up to a dictatorial fascist is what got a ship full of children dead during the Holocaust. It’s easy to sit in the US and play armchair quarterback. Allowing fascists like Putin to continue to destroy countries is just plain wrong. No one should be bothsidingism this.
Erica, “[B]othsidingism” is hardly the term I would use to portray NATO’s engagement meant to ensure, in a confrontation with Russia, that Ukraine, at minimum, would be strong enough never to lose even were she too weak ever to win. Sustaining this impasse is a likely strategy that could lead to a negotiated settlement, invariably a compromise, wherein each side would have to trade something, maybe Crimea for sovereign and secure borders. Admittedly, a solution, neither ideal nor one to be rejected outright, given the alternative could be endless war— or worse.
Ukraine just received new fighter jets and more arms and are gearing up for spring. What Russia needs is a way to save face with a negotiated settlement to make the sacrifice of thousands of Russians not the tragedy it is.
Stephen, If you’re right, then Ukraine, against all odds, notwithstanding NATO’s support, has achieved a monumental outcome.
Barbara, I am curious about these phrases, "some amount of parity between the two parties does strike me as a necessary, possibly sufficient, precondition for any meaningful negotiation. Along said lines, I would note that Ukraine’s recent advances into Crimea could be part of a plan to position herself to have something to trade." I don't understand what would be "parity between the two parties". Can you provide an example? At the same time I don't think - at this point - that Ukraine is going to use the Crimea to bargain. Why should they? Russia has mounted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Where is the parity? Maybe I am naive but I can't see it.
Kate, Thank you for your reply. To clarify, parity, in this case, would be an acknowledgement by both parties that each is just strong enough never to lose and just weak enough never to win. As stated in my comment, I view recognition of such an impasse as essential for any meaningful negotiation.
As for Ukraine possibly having to give up Crimea, because any negotiation entails compromise, each side must have something it is willing to trade. In this case, it could mean Crimea for sovereign, secure borders. As a final point, I would note history has shown, with rare exceptions, that the alternative to a negotiated settlement likely is endless war—or worse.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64985009
I want to commend Barbara and all of the participants in this thread. These are hard issues and you have engaged in a vigorous dialog in good faith. We can't ask for more from one another.
To over-simplify, such moves are underway. Genocide, war crimes, and complaints of unilateral aggression have been submitted to the UN and (I believe) the Hague where a tribunal may be organized against Putin.* The problem, as I see it, is the crass aggression practiced by so many world leaders. Their word is law unto themselves. (Trump tried that ploy, encouraged by other authoritarian henchmen. It failed when democracy prevailed but he is still determined.)
Nations of the Middle East, China, North Korea and most definitely Russia, and even a few African nations, thumb their noses at international organizations such as the UN, because their powerful rulers are intensely militant and don't give a moment's care about sending their citizens to their death by war, or despair and starvation, or their own infamy,
While Russia is our near enemy, the world's enemy is autocracy and greed by so many leaders.
*Yes! Just in! From the NYT: Daily Briefing: War in Ukraine International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant for Putin!!
Yes, indeed. Not that he will leave Russia to be tried, but an important step.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-news?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20230317&instance_id=87985&nl=from-the-times®i_id=1298553&segment_id=128061&te=1&user_id=e912b1d291edb93259a521f9da21135c
Well said.
I think there may be another approach that could produce results. Have you read this letter from Diane Francis yesterday? "Russia Collapses": https://substack.com/inbox/post/97145787
I think that the financial woes of Russia are snowballing and there is a group of very rich men who are very unhappy. Perhaps with a little very quiet encouragement, the Oligarchs who have enabled Putin will eventually topple him. He is causing them much pain. That outreach and a redoubling of sanctions and other efforts Diane suggests could tip the balance. Russia is teetering.
Bill, Thank you for the link. While your argument, indeed, is promising, my principal concern rests with the extent China, in particular, could help resuscitate Russia’s economy. Hence, I continue to bank on the West to ensure Ukraine is too strong ever to lose, even were she too weak ever to win. I view creation of such an impasse as critical to achieving a negotiated settlement vs. endless war—or worse.
Thanks, Bill. Either way, may justice be served, and either way will reflect Putin's behavior toward his own people and others. (But oh those other oily-garchs are just as bad.)
Russia has no over riding reason to negotiate. There is nothing in it for them.
Stephen, Three minutes later, you wrote, “What Russia needs is a way to save face with a negotiated settlement…”. Which is it?
What I’m saying is today Russia is not interested in a negotiated settlement but if they were thinking about one they would need to save face with their own people and the world. It would be perceived as a defeat. There is no basis for a settlement today unless the sanctions become unbearable which I’m not sure they are. With China meeting with Russia the hope for any settlement is not on the table. What you are doing is admirable but we are a long way from any resolution I’m afraid.
Stephen, Thank you for the clarification, which, indeed, has merit. Nonetheless, I would note, were both parties to recognize they were just strong enough never to lose and just weak enough never to win, said realization could induce incentive for a negotiated settlement vs. endless war— or worse. Meantime, I remain mindful of three critical factors 1) Ukraine’s immeasurable fortitude, 2) geopolitical interests, particularly relative to China, and 3) the fissures within the GOP that I fear could prolong the war.
If Trump or DeSantis get in the WH they will pull us out of Ukraine
Which is one reason why Russia will work extra hard to influence our elections this next time. I hope our relevant experts are adequately prepared and entirely on the side of fair elections free of foreign influence.
Stephen, Quick note to let you know, because I found my last reply to you inadequate, I just expanded it. You might want to have a look.
Ukraine represents the David of the Goliath story. A truce for Ukraine must include reparations for the damage Russia did to innocent people and infrastructure and Putin needs to come out looking like a winner. I think he is on weak ground because many Russian Oligarchs are hurting. If a truce was possible Biden would be all over it. The risks we have is people will get tired of the war and Republicans attacks.
Thanks will don later tonight.
Superb edition, Robert - Your "normal" excellence!
There is much to applaud in today's Newsletter, but responding to the sincere peace activists, I believe, is critically important. Virtually everyone yearns for "peace," in Ukraine, Russia and throughout the world, but that yearning begs the questions of (1) whether cessation of armed fighting would constitute the "peace" for which we yearn and (2) whether the cost or consequences of sudden major hostility cessation, particularly in Ukraine, would be more dangerous to more people than the current fighting is. I find the historical writings and current reporting of Yale Professor Timothy Snyder on the Ukraine situation both quite informative and persuasive; he argues that the Ukrainians are engaged in a "just war" for the long-term benefit of themselves, the other Europeans and the rest of the world too, including particularly the United States. I have heard the Ukrainian President and the the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States say the same thing. I am grateful to the Ukrainians and all the governments and people who are supporting them for their courageous efforts to "hold the fort."
A normal news day: Poland sending fighter jets to Ukraine; another bank "rescue"; Dr Fauci did not invent Covid; Axios further down the drain; grand jurors speaking to the press 😵💫; more voter ID laws; Field Team 6 on a roll -- all "under the leadership of a strong US president committed to defending global security and managing the US economy with rational policies and a steady hand." Kinda reassuring. Methinks.
Thank you for the hard work you do for keeping the complex nature of “the truth” before our eyes every day, Robert.
Robert, to repeat what I seem to say every time I leave a comment, THANK YOU SO MUCH. Your efforts lift the spirits and strengthen democracy in so many ways. I would ask you to run for president except that we would then lose your cogent and elegant and battle ready missives!! Thank you again.
Re: possible indictments of tfg - I would like to see all the possible indictments happen on the same day.
Today would be good.
"I sometimes receive notes from readers who object to any aid to Ukraine on the ground that it only serves to prolong the war and increase suffering. They argue that the US should cease aid and require Ukraine to enter peace talks."
I didn't know drooling inbred morons too stupid to understand polysyllabic words, who really should reconsider their decision not to take the remedial class in reading comprehension, could actually read a Today's Edition post.
"Jack Smith is reportedly asking a federal judge for an order to compel Trump’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, to testify regarding a false affidavit provided to the FBI declaring that all classified documents had been returned."
Does this mean that we're going to have to wait another year or even two while this case winds its way before the Seditious Majority-led Supreme Court before Jack Smith indicts Trump for a federal crime that any other federal employee would be already in jail for? (By the way, Trump was just that - a federal employee paid with our tax dollar (grrrrr!!!))
No, probably not. there is an expedited process to handle assertions of privilege before a grand jury. They go straight to the chief judge for decision. If Corcoran is granted limited immunity, I don't think there is any grounds for an appeal.
Is “asking” the same as issuing a subpoena?
I am not an attorney but I would think a “special prosecutor “ would have the guts to demand......
Isn’t the law on his side.
J Smith is a cream puff?
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
I was so very proud to see you on FT6 all-day Zoom conference yesterday, Robert. In the chat, I referred to you as our "calm captain." And that you are indeed! Wondering now how many of those viewers have now signed up for your newsletter? . . . And here I thought your current 70,000 was amazing! Truth and Hope. . .every day. We thank you.
I jumped on the Field Team Six Register Democrats 2023 Summit yesterday when I could and the energy, brain power, enthusiasm and “can do” spirit including your own talk Robert was a welcome balm ! Thank you as always!!