Democrats need to focus on young people, educating them in what the Democratic Party believes in and what their goals are for this country. Some of my voting age grandchildren will not register to vote. They don’t like the government. Period. I can’t get through to them. I am from a much different generation. Young Democrats need to work with their peers and try to show them that the Democratic Party is right for them and that they can make a difference. My grandchildren feel that their votes won’t make a difference.
You might point out to your grandchildren that SOMEONE is going to run the country after the election. It could be people who believe in modern medicine to fight a disease that has killed more than a million of their fellow citizens, or people who prefer to use horse-dewormer and other quack remedies. It could be people who believe that all people rally are equal, of those who think whites have a divine right to rule. One of the hardest, but most essential rules of politics is that the choice is often not between good and evil, but between not so good and worse. This year, however, the choices will generally be much less hard.
My 19-year-old grand lives in blood red Tx and is so disgusted she won’t talk politics with anyone. Told her you need to know where the truth lies. Of course, she hears “Christian” Fox blather non-stop. Maybe by this fall…
Tuck this bit from Rebecca Solnit in our pockets next to the Hubbell nuggets of rational optimism:
"Despair is a delusion of confidence that asserts it knows what’s coming, perhaps a tool of those who like to feel in control, even if just of the facts, when in reality, we can frame approximate parameters, but the surprises keep coming. Anyone who makes a definitive declaration about what the future will bring is not dealing in facts. The world we live in today was utterly unforeseen and unimaginable on many counts, the world that is coming is something we can work toward but not something we can foresee. We need to have confidence that surprise and uncertainty are unshakable principles, if we want to have confidence in something. And recognize that in that uncertainty is room to act, to try to shape a future that will be determined by what we do in the present."
Mar 8, 2022·edited Mar 8, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Why quote Putin? Why wonder what he thinks, what motivates him? 'It's the behavior, Stupid.' He is a vintage psychopath, essentially mean, viscerally hateful, fundamentally sadistic. In short, an archetype of evil. He is the exception to the rule of essential human goodness. Negotiation is pathetically, tragically counterproductive, resulting in bombs trained upon the innocent, by design. Pray that Biden is able to push every possible chip in on this, short of boots on the ground or in the air, and the nuclear option. We will be grieving the Ukrainians' losses and the limits on our ultimate capacity to intervene for a long time.
Hi Richard, everything you say about Putin may be correct. But it is also Possible that he is motivated for reasons that remain opaque to us. If it is possible that he is still a rational actor, we cannot forclose that possibility. As useless as negotiation seem, We have a moral obligation to negotiate until we reach a point of failure. That does not mean that we should not simultaneously resist Putin in every way possible short of starting World War III
Negotiations will be a vital part of letting the mad dog he is get out of the corner he's backed himself into (fingers crossed). I hope that the West will insist, among other things, on Russia accepting that Ukraine will join the EU and Nato at that point. I simply don't understand negotiations that send humans into killing fields, arguably by Putin's design. Perhaps someone in his vicinity has a modicum of rationality about them. I don't believe at this point that Putin is any more rationale than Hitler in the waning days of WWII. There is nothing rationale in the intentional slaughter of innocents, other than the mechanical act of pointing the cannon. Keep the faith, Robert.
Richard, We agree. He is a black hole, a threat to civilization. Putin must be stopped short of nuclear war on our part. As for the options, I don't know that I would limit them as you have.
Speaking of young people. . . we see high school students walking out of their classrooms in protest of the Florida "Don't Say Gay" legislation to be voted on today. Their chant "We say gay!" Couldn't be prouder.
I find Putin’s actions appalling, and the global pushback greatly encouraging. Although I don’t trust the Supremes as now constituted, I am encouraged that a committee is considering reform to the Court as now constituted (didn’t I read that somewhere this weekend?) The news in Pennsylvania and North Carolina looks somewhat better, but the best news is still that we have your common sense optimism to rely on.
Hi, Jim. The Supreme Court reform commission has delivered it's recommendations. It did not recommend enlarging the court. The few recommendations it did make require constitutional amendments. In other words, nothing will happen. The only viable option is to enlarge the court, which requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress – – and elimination of the filibuster.
Russia is now revealed to be a country with too much land, too few people, too small a GDP to support itself, too few friends in the world, infrastructure too expensive to serve its large landmass with too few people, an economy based on extractive resources (oil and gas) on a long term decline, a demoralized and inefficient military, and governed/controlled by a corrupt kleptocracy. In short, they are a mess. The Ukrainian invasion has revealed the soft underbelly of Russia and it is getting only worse for them as Putin continues to whip the horse harder in a race he is certain to lose in the long run. Sure, he may conquer Ukraine by destroying the country with his overwhelming military machine but at a cost he could not have imagined when this fiasco began. However, it is clear he will be unable to occupy a pacified Ukraine in even the intermediate-term. Ultimately he will likely be faced with the same withdrawal forced on Russia in Afghanistan. He will learn again the lesson the U.S. I hope has also learned in recent foreign military excursions, it is far easier to destroy a country militarily than to occupy and subjugate it. As his military brutalizes Ukraine it is only hardening the resolve of Ukrainians that they will not be peacefully occupied. He has also managed to unite many of the world's nations in opposition to Russia. Those countries collectively have the collective economic power to literally starve and destroy the Russian economy.
A good question to ask in any diplomatic discussions with Putin would be, "What do you think winning looks like? Because whatever you think that is, that destiny is further from your grasp each day this war continues."
A worthwhile read to understand the Potemkin Military characterization now of the Russian military:
Thanks. I appreciate the link, and agree with your description of Russia. The only salient fact you omitted is "and controls the world's largest nuclear arsenal." That fact should concern all of us. If they are maintaining their nuclear arsenal the way they are maintaining their armored personnel carriers, the likelihood of an accident is high. I recommend the excellent book "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser, which describes the challenges the US faces in maintaining its nuclear arsenal. Aging nuclear missiles require huge amounts of maintenance, but the division of the Air Force assigned to that task force is viewed as "a place where careers go to die." The Air Force has huge morale and training problems in the units that staff our nuclear missile installations in the US. Imagine what it is like in the frozen tundras of Russia to sit in freezing silos for 72 hour shifts with only one other person, both of whom have a pistol with a single bullet.
Thank you, especially for your last paragraph. Having looked at pictures of dead women, children, fathers, uncles, and on and on, I found it hard not to despair. It all seems so utterly senseless and criminal. The "for what?" keeps ringing in my head. So, a call to remember that things do change helps so much. It doesn't make the pictures any more vivid, but it does allow for some breath.
All this engineered death also brings to mind all those preventable Covid deaths due to deliberate misinformation. Again, "for what?".
I'm trying to focus on the many, many good people out there who are doing work to make the world a better place regardless.
thanks for the link. Here is an excerpt of the excellent article:
What had happened, I wondered? It was my kid sis who told me. Russia had begun to block Twitter. Its troll farms weren’t there stirring up the dark waters of rage and hate anymore. They weren’t there anymore. At least, not in the numbers they were before. And suddenly, for the first time in years, my Twitter feed was a gentler, smarter place. I’m not the only one to have noticed this, by the way — many have noticed that the bots aren’t swarming the way they used to.
for context, this is a link to a Russian soldier who says he was lied to about the purpose of his unit's movement into Ukraine. A very moving interview that has received millions of views.
Sending refugees into Russia is a ploy to gain hostages. While I have not seen reports on who set the land mines, it seems possible or even likely they are Ukrainian attempts to defend their country from invading armored vehicles. If so (or even if not so) the Russian "corridors" is an attempt to use civilian families to clear the land mines.
No one can tell us more clearly about what is happening in Ukraine than Hanna Hopko, a Ukrainian politician, former Member of Parliament and head of the committee on foreign affairs of Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. She appeared with Katy Tur today on msnbc. A link to that interview is below.
This is an incredible interview, thanks! It is all the more heartbreaking because of Hanna's plea for NATO for a no-fly zone. She claims that Putin does not have the courage to respond with nuclear deterrence. But as I have written before, the intelligence community clearly knows something we don't because NATO and the US are going way out of their way to assure Putin that we will not intervene and have no interest in starting a war. If they believed Putin is bluffing, they would call his bluff.
Robert, your point of view is most humane and thoughtful. I do not argue with it. My questions are, Is there no limit to evil? Do we have no way to stop him?
It is beginning to look like a DAY is an eternity, in both domestic and international politics. Current U.S. military intelligence estimates of Russian/Chechen dead in Ukraine are between 3-5,000. That is a third of the total loss in their Afghan incursion which, as you say, lasted ten years. Then, there is the influence of Russian oligarchs on U.S. politics, which is coming increasingly more to light.
Hi, Bob. Thanks for the link. I read most of the article, not all. I disagree with the author's analysis and comparison to the failures described in Halberstram's masterpiece regarding Vietnam. The author's thesis and basis for his criticism of US policy in Ukraine is this (and I am quoting here): "Ukraine does not constitute a vital U.S. security interest." That is exactly the argument that Ted Cruz and Josh Harley are making.
If you measure the legitimacy of U.S. actions regarding Ukraine solely on the basis of whether Ukraine is a vital U.S. security interest, it is easy to criticize what the U.S. is doing. But the war in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It is about the peace and stability of Europe--which is most definitely "a vital U.S. security interest."
If Russia invaded Mexico, we would view that as a threat to peace and stability in North America. That is how our European allies view the invasion of nation with which they share borders. We are full partners in the peace and security of those European nations through NATO. Unless the author is suggesting that we walk away from NATO, his thesis sets up a straw man argument that he can easily knock down--rather than address the real facts we face in Europe.
Under the rubric of "moral realism," the author essentially denies Ukraine's statehood and sovereignty. He writes, "While in some respects Putin's demands may be excessive, moral realism requires that Biden refrain from dismissing them out of hand." Excuse me? It is Ukraine that is dismissing Putin's demand that Ukraine cede 30% of its territory to Russia. The notion that it is Biden's decision is offensive to the sovereignty of Ukraine and recalls the shameful period preceding WWII when western powers threw sacrificial lambs to Hitler in the hope he would desist.
The author also says that Biden's intentions towards Ukraine "may not be benign." I am not certain what that means, but to the extent the author is suggesting that the U.S. intends to turn Ukraine into a U.S. vassal state, there is absolutely no basis for that suggestion, Vietnam notwithstanding.
As I said, I didn't finish reading the article because of statements like the above which I found disenguous.
Thank you, in turn, for your thoughts which I much appreciate. In this instance, however, not reading through Bacevich’s full-but-short article may have led to an interpretation which belies the author’s context and intent. In point of fact, Bacevich’s comment that ”Ukraine does not constitute a vital U.S. security interest” is in relationship to the geo-proximity of the U.S. in differentiation to how Putin views the U.S. intentions for Europe and NATO. Indeed, the author’s proposal for a neutralized Ukraine (modeled on the Cold War solution for Austria) addresses a means of ending the horror of the Russian incursion. Furthermore, in addition to a potentially rapid ending to the Russian atrocities being carried out on the Ukrainian people, neutralization has the benefit - - from Putin’s perspective - - of reducing the threat of NATO expansion.
And if I might venture to supplement the author’s initial idea of neutralization with my own expectation for a successful agreement, it would be to suggest that, If neutralization affords Ukraine the freedom to direct its own destiny, even if it be at the elimination of future NATO membership, such an agreement would certainly contain a quid pro quo for Russia to guarantee that the rest of Europe continue without the threat of further incursions.
Mar 8, 2022·edited Mar 8, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Bacevich is always worth attention. Ever since Vietnam, the U.S. has pretty much been on the side of the masters of war. Remember the "Fixin' to Die Rag"?
I do not believe that the U.S. is siding with "the masters of war" in this situation. Biden has explicitly and repeatedly said that the US will not intervene. And, yet, Putin continues to kill women and children.
No, it requires legislation from Congress. But you raise an intriguing possibility. Have you seen that suggestion discussed somewhere. While my reaction is legislation is required, I am struggling to find a basis for my belief. Is that requirement in the Constitution? Congress does set the size of subordinate courts (because it must fund them), but it also prescribes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Why is that so? Jon?
Jeez, I actually had to look at the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution is entirely clear, but the constitutional scheme is. In Article I, Congress is given the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court (the only court mentioned in the document), and as you mention, only Congress is able to appropriate money to fund the courts. In Art. II, the president has the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the power to appoint "all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." I think it's implicit--at least--in all of that that the president cannot monkey around with the number of justices that Congress may direct. Look at it this way: If the president could expand the court by executive order, could s/he reduce the number the same way? It's clear that the president could not remove a justice (they hold their positions during "good behavior"), but it would be possible in that case to order that upon the next vacancy the number of justices would be reduced. I believe that that would be inconceivable, so I conclude that only Congress (with the president's agreement or by overriding a veto) may increase the number of justices. That's my take, but feel free to disagree.
Mar 8, 2022·edited Mar 8, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I’m going to step in for Robert (although it’s his newsletter and he’s free to comment, of course). The short answer is no, he cannot. And would you really want him to? Imagine what T___p would have done with that power.
An NPR poll saw Biden’s approval jump 8 points to 47%. Depending on what happens in Ukraine and with gas prices/inflation, he may not be the albatross so many fear. Quite the contrary.
Democrats need to focus on young people, educating them in what the Democratic Party believes in and what their goals are for this country. Some of my voting age grandchildren will not register to vote. They don’t like the government. Period. I can’t get through to them. I am from a much different generation. Young Democrats need to work with their peers and try to show them that the Democratic Party is right for them and that they can make a difference. My grandchildren feel that their votes won’t make a difference.
You might point out to your grandchildren that SOMEONE is going to run the country after the election. It could be people who believe in modern medicine to fight a disease that has killed more than a million of their fellow citizens, or people who prefer to use horse-dewormer and other quack remedies. It could be people who believe that all people rally are equal, of those who think whites have a divine right to rule. One of the hardest, but most essential rules of politics is that the choice is often not between good and evil, but between not so good and worse. This year, however, the choices will generally be much less hard.
My 19-year-old grand lives in blood red Tx and is so disgusted she won’t talk politics with anyone. Told her you need to know where the truth lies. Of course, she hears “Christian” Fox blather non-stop. Maybe by this fall…
Tuck this bit from Rebecca Solnit in our pockets next to the Hubbell nuggets of rational optimism:
"Despair is a delusion of confidence that asserts it knows what’s coming, perhaps a tool of those who like to feel in control, even if just of the facts, when in reality, we can frame approximate parameters, but the surprises keep coming. Anyone who makes a definitive declaration about what the future will bring is not dealing in facts. The world we live in today was utterly unforeseen and unimaginable on many counts, the world that is coming is something we can work toward but not something we can foresee. We need to have confidence that surprise and uncertainty are unshakable principles, if we want to have confidence in something. And recognize that in that uncertainty is room to act, to try to shape a future that will be determined by what we do in the present."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/05/world-is-unpredictable-and-strange-climate-crisis-ukraine?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1646479532
(Thank you, HCR reader Penelope Simpson Adams.)
Love it!! Thanks for the link. I would add only that the world we live in today was unforeseen and unimaginable only three weeks ago . . .
Rebecca is always illuminating
Thanks for passing this along Ellie.
I can't seem to open the story once I've reached The Guardian. Ideas?
Sorry no time for a better response--emailed it to you.
Why quote Putin? Why wonder what he thinks, what motivates him? 'It's the behavior, Stupid.' He is a vintage psychopath, essentially mean, viscerally hateful, fundamentally sadistic. In short, an archetype of evil. He is the exception to the rule of essential human goodness. Negotiation is pathetically, tragically counterproductive, resulting in bombs trained upon the innocent, by design. Pray that Biden is able to push every possible chip in on this, short of boots on the ground or in the air, and the nuclear option. We will be grieving the Ukrainians' losses and the limits on our ultimate capacity to intervene for a long time.
Hi Richard, everything you say about Putin may be correct. But it is also Possible that he is motivated for reasons that remain opaque to us. If it is possible that he is still a rational actor, we cannot forclose that possibility. As useless as negotiation seem, We have a moral obligation to negotiate until we reach a point of failure. That does not mean that we should not simultaneously resist Putin in every way possible short of starting World War III
Negotiations will be a vital part of letting the mad dog he is get out of the corner he's backed himself into (fingers crossed). I hope that the West will insist, among other things, on Russia accepting that Ukraine will join the EU and Nato at that point. I simply don't understand negotiations that send humans into killing fields, arguably by Putin's design. Perhaps someone in his vicinity has a modicum of rationality about them. I don't believe at this point that Putin is any more rationale than Hitler in the waning days of WWII. There is nothing rationale in the intentional slaughter of innocents, other than the mechanical act of pointing the cannon. Keep the faith, Robert.
Richard, We agree. He is a black hole, a threat to civilization. Putin must be stopped short of nuclear war on our part. As for the options, I don't know that I would limit them as you have.
He is a runt with delusions of alpha. Animal packs don’t usually pick deluded runts as their alpha. Ye hear that Russia.
Speaking of young people. . . we see high school students walking out of their classrooms in protest of the Florida "Don't Say Gay" legislation to be voted on today. Their chant "We say gay!" Couldn't be prouder.
I find Putin’s actions appalling, and the global pushback greatly encouraging. Although I don’t trust the Supremes as now constituted, I am encouraged that a committee is considering reform to the Court as now constituted (didn’t I read that somewhere this weekend?) The news in Pennsylvania and North Carolina looks somewhat better, but the best news is still that we have your common sense optimism to rely on.
Hi, Jim. The Supreme Court reform commission has delivered it's recommendations. It did not recommend enlarging the court. The few recommendations it did make require constitutional amendments. In other words, nothing will happen. The only viable option is to enlarge the court, which requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress – – and elimination of the filibuster.
Thanks, Robert. No change without more Dems!
Russia is now revealed to be a country with too much land, too few people, too small a GDP to support itself, too few friends in the world, infrastructure too expensive to serve its large landmass with too few people, an economy based on extractive resources (oil and gas) on a long term decline, a demoralized and inefficient military, and governed/controlled by a corrupt kleptocracy. In short, they are a mess. The Ukrainian invasion has revealed the soft underbelly of Russia and it is getting only worse for them as Putin continues to whip the horse harder in a race he is certain to lose in the long run. Sure, he may conquer Ukraine by destroying the country with his overwhelming military machine but at a cost he could not have imagined when this fiasco began. However, it is clear he will be unable to occupy a pacified Ukraine in even the intermediate-term. Ultimately he will likely be faced with the same withdrawal forced on Russia in Afghanistan. He will learn again the lesson the U.S. I hope has also learned in recent foreign military excursions, it is far easier to destroy a country militarily than to occupy and subjugate it. As his military brutalizes Ukraine it is only hardening the resolve of Ukrainians that they will not be peacefully occupied. He has also managed to unite many of the world's nations in opposition to Russia. Those countries collectively have the collective economic power to literally starve and destroy the Russian economy.
A good question to ask in any diplomatic discussions with Putin would be, "What do you think winning looks like? Because whatever you think that is, that destiny is further from your grasp each day this war continues."
A worthwhile read to understand the Potemkin Military characterization now of the Russian military:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russian-military-weaker-than-expected-ukraine-resilience-by-daniel-gros-2022-03
The next time anyone refers to Putin's "genius," I suggest punching them in the face... well, at least metaphorically.
Thanks. I appreciate the link, and agree with your description of Russia. The only salient fact you omitted is "and controls the world's largest nuclear arsenal." That fact should concern all of us. If they are maintaining their nuclear arsenal the way they are maintaining their armored personnel carriers, the likelihood of an accident is high. I recommend the excellent book "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser, which describes the challenges the US faces in maintaining its nuclear arsenal. Aging nuclear missiles require huge amounts of maintenance, but the division of the Air Force assigned to that task force is viewed as "a place where careers go to die." The Air Force has huge morale and training problems in the units that staff our nuclear missile installations in the US. Imagine what it is like in the frozen tundras of Russia to sit in freezing silos for 72 hour shifts with only one other person, both of whom have a pistol with a single bullet.
I agree with your views on Russia’s nuclear arsenal and that is why I oppose the calls for declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Thank you, especially for your last paragraph. Having looked at pictures of dead women, children, fathers, uncles, and on and on, I found it hard not to despair. It all seems so utterly senseless and criminal. The "for what?" keeps ringing in my head. So, a call to remember that things do change helps so much. It doesn't make the pictures any more vivid, but it does allow for some breath.
All this engineered death also brings to mind all those preventable Covid deaths due to deliberate misinformation. Again, "for what?".
I'm trying to focus on the many, many good people out there who are doing work to make the world a better place regardless.
Thank you! apropos Russian disinformation: apparently Russian troll-bots are disappearing from Twitter because Twitter has shut down there. I don't know about Facebook etc. but that is good news if true. See: https://eand.co/the-west-is-finally-breaking-up-with-russia-and-its-long-overdue-d8717d3b220f
thanks for the link. Here is an excerpt of the excellent article:
What had happened, I wondered? It was my kid sis who told me. Russia had begun to block Twitter. Its troll farms weren’t there stirring up the dark waters of rage and hate anymore. They weren’t there anymore. At least, not in the numbers they were before. And suddenly, for the first time in years, my Twitter feed was a gentler, smarter place. I’m not the only one to have noticed this, by the way — many have noticed that the bots aren’t swarming the way they used to.
Thank you for that link. The author of that article brightened my day!
Hopefully you’ve all seen this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nAvV8jSEpVs
for context, this is a link to a Russian soldier who says he was lied to about the purpose of his unit's movement into Ukraine. A very moving interview that has received millions of views.
Sending refugees into Russia is a ploy to gain hostages. While I have not seen reports on who set the land mines, it seems possible or even likely they are Ukrainian attempts to defend their country from invading armored vehicles. If so (or even if not so) the Russian "corridors" is an attempt to use civilian families to clear the land mines.
ugh. You may be right. Despicable.
No one can tell us more clearly about what is happening in Ukraine than Hanna Hopko, a Ukrainian politician, former Member of Parliament and head of the committee on foreign affairs of Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. She appeared with Katy Tur today on msnbc. A link to that interview is below.
https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/-this-is-about-humanity-ukrainian-politician-on-why-ukraine-needs-a-no-fly-zone-134886469569
This is an incredible interview, thanks! It is all the more heartbreaking because of Hanna's plea for NATO for a no-fly zone. She claims that Putin does not have the courage to respond with nuclear deterrence. But as I have written before, the intelligence community clearly knows something we don't because NATO and the US are going way out of their way to assure Putin that we will not intervene and have no interest in starting a war. If they believed Putin is bluffing, they would call his bluff.
Robert, your point of view is most humane and thoughtful. I do not argue with it. My questions are, Is there no limit to evil? Do we have no way to stop him?
Robert’s indispensable reassurances keep me sane and determined.
It is beginning to look like a DAY is an eternity, in both domestic and international politics. Current U.S. military intelligence estimates of Russian/Chechen dead in Ukraine are between 3-5,000. That is a third of the total loss in their Afghan incursion which, as you say, lasted ten years. Then, there is the influence of Russian oligarchs on U.S. politics, which is coming increasingly more to light.
Rob, I found Andrew Bacevich Commonweal article compelling and would love your view: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/mournful-legacy
Hi, Bob. Thanks for the link. I read most of the article, not all. I disagree with the author's analysis and comparison to the failures described in Halberstram's masterpiece regarding Vietnam. The author's thesis and basis for his criticism of US policy in Ukraine is this (and I am quoting here): "Ukraine does not constitute a vital U.S. security interest." That is exactly the argument that Ted Cruz and Josh Harley are making.
If you measure the legitimacy of U.S. actions regarding Ukraine solely on the basis of whether Ukraine is a vital U.S. security interest, it is easy to criticize what the U.S. is doing. But the war in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It is about the peace and stability of Europe--which is most definitely "a vital U.S. security interest."
If Russia invaded Mexico, we would view that as a threat to peace and stability in North America. That is how our European allies view the invasion of nation with which they share borders. We are full partners in the peace and security of those European nations through NATO. Unless the author is suggesting that we walk away from NATO, his thesis sets up a straw man argument that he can easily knock down--rather than address the real facts we face in Europe.
Under the rubric of "moral realism," the author essentially denies Ukraine's statehood and sovereignty. He writes, "While in some respects Putin's demands may be excessive, moral realism requires that Biden refrain from dismissing them out of hand." Excuse me? It is Ukraine that is dismissing Putin's demand that Ukraine cede 30% of its territory to Russia. The notion that it is Biden's decision is offensive to the sovereignty of Ukraine and recalls the shameful period preceding WWII when western powers threw sacrificial lambs to Hitler in the hope he would desist.
The author also says that Biden's intentions towards Ukraine "may not be benign." I am not certain what that means, but to the extent the author is suggesting that the U.S. intends to turn Ukraine into a U.S. vassal state, there is absolutely no basis for that suggestion, Vietnam notwithstanding.
As I said, I didn't finish reading the article because of statements like the above which I found disenguous.
Rob,
Thank you, in turn, for your thoughts which I much appreciate. In this instance, however, not reading through Bacevich’s full-but-short article may have led to an interpretation which belies the author’s context and intent. In point of fact, Bacevich’s comment that ”Ukraine does not constitute a vital U.S. security interest” is in relationship to the geo-proximity of the U.S. in differentiation to how Putin views the U.S. intentions for Europe and NATO. Indeed, the author’s proposal for a neutralized Ukraine (modeled on the Cold War solution for Austria) addresses a means of ending the horror of the Russian incursion. Furthermore, in addition to a potentially rapid ending to the Russian atrocities being carried out on the Ukrainian people, neutralization has the benefit - - from Putin’s perspective - - of reducing the threat of NATO expansion.
And if I might venture to supplement the author’s initial idea of neutralization with my own expectation for a successful agreement, it would be to suggest that, If neutralization affords Ukraine the freedom to direct its own destiny, even if it be at the elimination of future NATO membership, such an agreement would certainly contain a quid pro quo for Russia to guarantee that the rest of Europe continue without the threat of further incursions.
Bob
Bacevich is always worth attention. Ever since Vietnam, the U.S. has pretty much been on the side of the masters of war. Remember the "Fixin' to Die Rag"?
I do not believe that the U.S. is siding with "the masters of war" in this situation. Biden has explicitly and repeatedly said that the US will not intervene. And, yet, Putin continues to kill women and children.
not in this situation. but in most others.
Robert, can Biden expand the court by EA?
No, it requires legislation from Congress. But you raise an intriguing possibility. Have you seen that suggestion discussed somewhere. While my reaction is legislation is required, I am struggling to find a basis for my belief. Is that requirement in the Constitution? Congress does set the size of subordinate courts (because it must fund them), but it also prescribes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Why is that so? Jon?
Jeez, I actually had to look at the Constitution. I don't think the Constitution is entirely clear, but the constitutional scheme is. In Article I, Congress is given the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court (the only court mentioned in the document), and as you mention, only Congress is able to appropriate money to fund the courts. In Art. II, the president has the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the power to appoint "all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." I think it's implicit--at least--in all of that that the president cannot monkey around with the number of justices that Congress may direct. Look at it this way: If the president could expand the court by executive order, could s/he reduce the number the same way? It's clear that the president could not remove a justice (they hold their positions during "good behavior"), but it would be possible in that case to order that upon the next vacancy the number of justices would be reduced. I believe that that would be inconceivable, so I conclude that only Congress (with the president's agreement or by overriding a veto) may increase the number of justices. That's my take, but feel free to disagree.
I’m going to step in for Robert (although it’s his newsletter and he’s free to comment, of course). The short answer is no, he cannot. And would you really want him to? Imagine what T___p would have done with that power.
Jon, thanks. See my musings above.
Thank you very much Jon for answering and that into perspective…of course that makes perfect sense now that you’ve pointed it out.
An NPR poll saw Biden’s approval jump 8 points to 47%. Depending on what happens in Ukraine and with gas prices/inflation, he may not be the albatross so many fear. Quite the contrary.
might in part be because Russian troll farms are now getting blocked from social media.
Excellent point.