Mr. Hubbell, a No-Fly zone, as everyone I’ve read agrees, would mean American pilots shooting at Russian pilots. That seems a recipe for MAD (mutually assured destruction) so anyone in favor of the continuation of human life on earth should oppose it. I agree fully with you on that point.
Does that mean that a crazy dictator with nuclear weapons who threatens to use them can invade and take over any other weaker country that is not part of NATO? Put another way, is there no limit of what we will tolerate to stop a land hungry crazy dictator willing to make Armageddon use of nuclear weapons threats?
In the highly hypothetical eventuality that a group of Ukrainian pilots were able to get their hands on outdated and underperforming MIG25 jets, and took them into Ukrainian airspace to defend themselves against a crazy dictator, must we cow to the threats of said dictator and prevent the Ukrainian pilots to continue their hopeless battle for freedom?
———
On the inaction of Merrick Garland: thank you for explaining the situation so well. What can we do to let the Attorney General know about our distress at seeing a former wannabe gangster president get away with trying to overturn the Will Of The People?
As always, thank you for all your advice and encouragement to fight and do all we can to save our 234 year old democracy.
Thank you for your calming perspective as I call all Senators asking them to support Pres Biden as he rally’s NATO and the EU to crush Putin’s Russia. But I’m concerned about the 14billion package for this humanitarian crisis. If we witness Putin demolishing and occupying all of Ukraine, how and where will these funds be issued and used? To whom? I’m imagining a “slave “population of Ukrainians who were not able to exile, roughly 35 million people, who we need to support in occupied Ukraine. And there will continue to be military resistance to Putin’s occupation from within Ukraine. How can that aid work there?
Sent my weekly letter of support to President Biden. No advice. Just a thank you for his patient and masterful handling of the Putin crisis and for relying on experienced experts.
Also, some hope!
Just read this in the Guardian: Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say.
Actually, it was really, really helpful to remind all of us that we are not alone if feeling undone and depressed by Ukraine and rising fascist threats around the world. I have not and will not watch images of the war because, as an artist, images stay in my mind with horrifying intensity. Imagining the suffering is hard enough and we have to keep our sanity or we will have nothing to offer.
Escalating the conflict would be suicidal. Watching it unfold is demoralizing and dehumanizing. I am grappling with how to help and maybe just acknowledging the pain we are all feeling is a good place to begin.
As an artist, I cannot make grand gestures, but I am trying to think of small ways in which I can bring some brightness to others during this awful time. We need to reach out to each other now as never before. Isolation and fear are what dictators thrive on. Big hugs to everyone today.
Thank you Robert for being part of the solution and not the problem. Your thoughtful and measured posts and responses to the wide variety of comments are exactly what I need to remain sane in these most insane times. I echo the frustration expressed in so many of these comments, as I'm sure you do. The question is, when do we call Putin's bluff and what form will that take? This is not exactly the same as the Cuban missile crisis when the notions of short range tactical nuclear weapons and a winnable nuclear confrontation not did not exist. I still believe that the concept of a winnable nuclear confrontation is a bad bet. You have answered people's concern about our "standing on the outside" and "appeasement" correctly. I hardly think that the actions of the world against Russia (and yes that is mostly Russian people who can and are trying to put pressure on Putin) can be called appeasement. Putin's actions are unmitigated evil and yes the mounting Ukrainian casualties are horrendous and are driving us crazy, but so far, the options presented seem to promise exponentially higher casualties. Maybe our logic is too black and white and some have suggested that we need to be involved in somewhat more subtle engagement - food, water, weapons, etc. My sense is that this is all being done. There are organizations all over the world providing help and relief. Is it really the case that none of this is making it into Ukraine itself or is it mostly for refugees? I don't know. I can only hope that the intelligence and resources available to President Biden and his cabinet are infinitely more nuanced than that available to the press/media. So, thank you again Mr. Hubbell.
Hi, Jack. Thanks for your comment. I have added additional thoughts about charges of "appeasement." See my comments in Neil Rose's comment above. You raise a good point that I wish I had more time to discuss. Russia has 6,000 nuclear weapons, of which 2,000 are "tactical"--for battlefield use. If we give Putin an excuse to use those weapons, he will. We can't do that, for the sake of humanity. Once nuclear weapons start exploding, it will be impossible to stop the chain of events that will lead to all out nuclear war.
NATO (and I include the US in that organization) and the EU strategic thinkers keep stating that they don't want to apply massive war force to the Russin invaders in fear of starting WWIII. Who are they kidding. They are already in WWIII economically and the rest of the world (Australia, Korea, Japan, etc.) are with them. In the long run, economic warfare will have an impact on Russia. In the short term, not so much. Meanwhile, Ukraine is suffering brutally. The south and east of Ukraine are or soon will be decimated, cities in ruin, the citizens soon to be cut off out of food, water, and medical supplies. Do you really believe that Russian soldiers will provide humanitarian relieve to those who have been fighting against them? What will NATO and the EU do when Putin has total control of eastern Ukraine and declares a ceasefire, then a truce, then that this captured territory be seeded to Russia? The time to stop the Russian invasion is now while the world is with the Ukrainians. NATO must get into the fight or at least visibly show that they will be willing to get into the fight. Declare a NFZ, send NATO troops into the first 100 miles of Ukraine and tell the Russians that more will come unless they withdraw from Ukraine. The Russian generals have seen the resolve of the Ukrainians. They have seen their image of unbeatability broken. They now recognize their weakness. They need to rise up against Putin and take the off ramp that a NATO show of resolve will give them. Incremental resupply to a dwindling heroic Ukrainian army will not be enough. NATO needs to step up. NOW!
Hi, Robert. I disagree. When people say that they don't want to start WWIII, they mean a nuclear war. WE are not there yet, and hopefully will never cross that threshhold. The solution to saving some Ukrainians cannot be the death of all 40 million Ukrainians by starting a nuclear war in Ukraine. (Not to mention the death of hundreds of millions of Europeans, and the starvation of billions of people due to the nuclear winter that will eradicate the growing season for three years.
I appreciated your comments about Merrick Garland's frustrating inaction as I was yelling at my radio as I listened to the NPR interview. As my husband noted-- Garland is better suited to the role of Supreme Court justice than of the Attorney General. I urge readers to send comments to the AG through the DOJ's comment section at https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice. As always-- thank you for your daily thoughtful perspectives.
I hear that if you yell REALLY loudly, they will hear you at NPR's headquarters. AT least that is what I tell my wife when I yell at the radio. Thanks for providing the link tot he DOJ comment section.
Can there be nuclear weapons without destroying human life? A partial nuclear conflict doesn't seem possible to me. The Russians hit someplace in the west and then what? Are there little nuclear bombs that just take out a big building and go no farther?
Russia has what are known as low yield tactical nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use. But if Russia were to detonate two or three nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the radiation would poison tens of millions (or more) in Europe and Asia. Food supplies would become unsafe to eat; dairy products, fish, and water would be poisoned. Starvation and radiation sickness would decimate Europe and Asia (including Russia). There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.
Here's a link to a basic "app" where you can pick a target & size of bomb to see the immediate impact. It doesn't show wind drift or the actual horror.
Thanks. You make a very important point. The zone of destruction and immediate deaths say nothing about the effects of radiation poisoning and contamination of the food supply. Experts believe that a limited nuclear winter would eliminate the growing season on earth for 3 to 5 years. Billions would starve.
"Two years ago, Putin announced a doctrine that said Russia reserved the right to use nuclear deterrence in the case of 'aggression against Russia with conventional weapons.'" DETERRENCE?? No. That would be a nuclear attack and we need to call it out as such and not parrot Putin's euphemisms.
Aha! An interesting point here: "The sanctions threaten oligarchs with a kind of annihilation, similar to the phenomenon that sociologists describe as 'social death.' That is why Russian elites were so quick to gather up their expensive toys as soon as sanctions were announced, and why several have taken the extraordinary step of publicly begging Putin for a quick end to the war."
The new law to allow parents to be sued for child abuse is worse than disgusting. It is likely illegal, but if politicians want parents to be in charge, let them (the parents) be held accountable for illegal acts of their children. The parents of a sixteen year old who killed two peoplel and shot another in the irrational idea that this would protect a parking lot ought to be held responsible for what was done. I am almost 93 and may be considered an old person, but in earlier days parents were held accountable if their children misbehaved. Why not encourage anyone anywhere to sue any parent who fails to do his duty.
Agree! But to clarify, it is a not a new law (the Texas legislature refused to pass the law.) But the Texas ATtorney general issued an opinion that said existing laws meant that gender-affirming procedures constituted child abuse. Same result, but it is because of the actions of one man--Paxton.
Many readers here know I often post about the Lincoln Project and the great work they are doing. Here is a terrific ad that needs to be circulated widely in support of President Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2CD66cJzXE
While I am more grateful than ever that Joe Biden is our president--he IS the right man for the time- and am heartbroken, deeply distressed by the horrors unfolding in Ukraine, I cannot ignore how the mainstream news media and, frankly, this newsletter continue to suggest that the tragedy there is more significant--indeed is different/unique-- than what has happened to multiple predominantly middle Eastern and African countries at the hands of Russia AND the USA governments whose citizens are black and brown, mostly Muslim peoples (including Palestine). As a woman of color--as it should be for every human being--it is very, very upsetting (read: nauseating, infuriating).
In the past 20 years, Russia (with Syria' president) leveled Aleppo; our country--USA-- gutted Iraq and Libya. Where was the horror and outrage when these countries were being leveled? Where was the compassion and concern for the mothers, the children, families whose lives were--still are--being destroyed by the West in that part of the world? The behavior tells the tale: We can ignore the suffering there because those populations are "less than." White (especially White Christian) people are deemed more valuable than black, brown, Muslim, in some cases, Jewish, people of color--their suffering is real, valid and worthy of the world's attention because those (white, Christians) are real, valuable people.
However, I have been heartened to see that the media's double standard (regarding THIS subject) has been unmasked and in some cases, there seem to be attempts at self-reflection. (We'll see how long this lasts). It is so important to have diversity and multiple perspectives in newsrooms to increase empathy and, frankly, to help overcome bigotry and ignorance.
But, Mr. Hubbell, perhaps I missed your discussion or mention of this matter in the last few weeks. Forgive me if I did.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Crystal. Several other readers have made that point. The suffering of the Ukrainians is not unique, nor is the fact that it comes at the hands of Russia rather than the U.S. I believe that one reason that this conflict has captured the attention of the world is it threatens the post-Cold War structure for containing nuclear weapons. When the USSR dissolved, I believe that many people heaved a sigh of relief that for the first time in their lives, they could set aside worries about global destruction from nuclear weapons. That threat is back. The suffering in Ukraine and Iraq and Syria has been horrific, but it is nothing like the death of billions of people through starvation and radiation poisoning that would follow if the U.S. and or Russia inadvertently trips over a nuclear threshhold.
Agreed, very much agreed! The focus on the unjustified/unprovoked attacks and suffering of the Ukrainians does not negate the comparisons to the amount and (biased) quality of focus on other countries/peoples of the world who have experienced the same horrors. But you are right: if we past the tipping point (cross the nuclear threshold) all of this will be moot.
Mr. Hubbell, a No-Fly zone, as everyone I’ve read agrees, would mean American pilots shooting at Russian pilots. That seems a recipe for MAD (mutually assured destruction) so anyone in favor of the continuation of human life on earth should oppose it. I agree fully with you on that point.
Does that mean that a crazy dictator with nuclear weapons who threatens to use them can invade and take over any other weaker country that is not part of NATO? Put another way, is there no limit of what we will tolerate to stop a land hungry crazy dictator willing to make Armageddon use of nuclear weapons threats?
In the highly hypothetical eventuality that a group of Ukrainian pilots were able to get their hands on outdated and underperforming MIG25 jets, and took them into Ukrainian airspace to defend themselves against a crazy dictator, must we cow to the threats of said dictator and prevent the Ukrainian pilots to continue their hopeless battle for freedom?
———
On the inaction of Merrick Garland: thank you for explaining the situation so well. What can we do to let the Attorney General know about our distress at seeing a former wannabe gangster president get away with trying to overturn the Will Of The People?
As always, thank you for all your advice and encouragement to fight and do all we can to save our 234 year old democracy.
Thank you for your calming perspective as I call all Senators asking them to support Pres Biden as he rally’s NATO and the EU to crush Putin’s Russia. But I’m concerned about the 14billion package for this humanitarian crisis. If we witness Putin demolishing and occupying all of Ukraine, how and where will these funds be issued and used? To whom? I’m imagining a “slave “population of Ukrainians who were not able to exile, roughly 35 million people, who we need to support in occupied Ukraine. And there will continue to be military resistance to Putin’s occupation from within Ukraine. How can that aid work there?
Sent my weekly letter of support to President Biden. No advice. Just a thank you for his patient and masterful handling of the Putin crisis and for relying on experienced experts.
Also, some hope!
Just read this in the Guardian: Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/11/donald-trump-criminal-charges-capitol-attack-house-panel
Thank you for your steadfast sanity. Janet Shea
Actually, it was really, really helpful to remind all of us that we are not alone if feeling undone and depressed by Ukraine and rising fascist threats around the world. I have not and will not watch images of the war because, as an artist, images stay in my mind with horrifying intensity. Imagining the suffering is hard enough and we have to keep our sanity or we will have nothing to offer.
Escalating the conflict would be suicidal. Watching it unfold is demoralizing and dehumanizing. I am grappling with how to help and maybe just acknowledging the pain we are all feeling is a good place to begin.
As an artist, I cannot make grand gestures, but I am trying to think of small ways in which I can bring some brightness to others during this awful time. We need to reach out to each other now as never before. Isolation and fear are what dictators thrive on. Big hugs to everyone today.
Thank you Robert for being part of the solution and not the problem. Your thoughtful and measured posts and responses to the wide variety of comments are exactly what I need to remain sane in these most insane times. I echo the frustration expressed in so many of these comments, as I'm sure you do. The question is, when do we call Putin's bluff and what form will that take? This is not exactly the same as the Cuban missile crisis when the notions of short range tactical nuclear weapons and a winnable nuclear confrontation not did not exist. I still believe that the concept of a winnable nuclear confrontation is a bad bet. You have answered people's concern about our "standing on the outside" and "appeasement" correctly. I hardly think that the actions of the world against Russia (and yes that is mostly Russian people who can and are trying to put pressure on Putin) can be called appeasement. Putin's actions are unmitigated evil and yes the mounting Ukrainian casualties are horrendous and are driving us crazy, but so far, the options presented seem to promise exponentially higher casualties. Maybe our logic is too black and white and some have suggested that we need to be involved in somewhat more subtle engagement - food, water, weapons, etc. My sense is that this is all being done. There are organizations all over the world providing help and relief. Is it really the case that none of this is making it into Ukraine itself or is it mostly for refugees? I don't know. I can only hope that the intelligence and resources available to President Biden and his cabinet are infinitely more nuanced than that available to the press/media. So, thank you again Mr. Hubbell.
Hi, Jack. Thanks for your comment. I have added additional thoughts about charges of "appeasement." See my comments in Neil Rose's comment above. You raise a good point that I wish I had more time to discuss. Russia has 6,000 nuclear weapons, of which 2,000 are "tactical"--for battlefield use. If we give Putin an excuse to use those weapons, he will. We can't do that, for the sake of humanity. Once nuclear weapons start exploding, it will be impossible to stop the chain of events that will lead to all out nuclear war.
NATO (and I include the US in that organization) and the EU strategic thinkers keep stating that they don't want to apply massive war force to the Russin invaders in fear of starting WWIII. Who are they kidding. They are already in WWIII economically and the rest of the world (Australia, Korea, Japan, etc.) are with them. In the long run, economic warfare will have an impact on Russia. In the short term, not so much. Meanwhile, Ukraine is suffering brutally. The south and east of Ukraine are or soon will be decimated, cities in ruin, the citizens soon to be cut off out of food, water, and medical supplies. Do you really believe that Russian soldiers will provide humanitarian relieve to those who have been fighting against them? What will NATO and the EU do when Putin has total control of eastern Ukraine and declares a ceasefire, then a truce, then that this captured territory be seeded to Russia? The time to stop the Russian invasion is now while the world is with the Ukrainians. NATO must get into the fight or at least visibly show that they will be willing to get into the fight. Declare a NFZ, send NATO troops into the first 100 miles of Ukraine and tell the Russians that more will come unless they withdraw from Ukraine. The Russian generals have seen the resolve of the Ukrainians. They have seen their image of unbeatability broken. They now recognize their weakness. They need to rise up against Putin and take the off ramp that a NATO show of resolve will give them. Incremental resupply to a dwindling heroic Ukrainian army will not be enough. NATO needs to step up. NOW!
Hi, Robert. I disagree. When people say that they don't want to start WWIII, they mean a nuclear war. WE are not there yet, and hopefully will never cross that threshhold. The solution to saving some Ukrainians cannot be the death of all 40 million Ukrainians by starting a nuclear war in Ukraine. (Not to mention the death of hundreds of millions of Europeans, and the starvation of billions of people due to the nuclear winter that will eradicate the growing season for three years.
I appreciated your comments about Merrick Garland's frustrating inaction as I was yelling at my radio as I listened to the NPR interview. As my husband noted-- Garland is better suited to the role of Supreme Court justice than of the Attorney General. I urge readers to send comments to the AG through the DOJ's comment section at https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice. As always-- thank you for your daily thoughtful perspectives.
I hear that if you yell REALLY loudly, they will hear you at NPR's headquarters. AT least that is what I tell my wife when I yell at the radio. Thanks for providing the link tot he DOJ comment section.
Does anyone have an informed opinion about what a nuclear war started by Putin would look like? Seriously.
Robert described short term and long term effects of a nuclear war in two different comments today.
Can there be nuclear weapons without destroying human life? A partial nuclear conflict doesn't seem possible to me. The Russians hit someplace in the west and then what? Are there little nuclear bombs that just take out a big building and go no farther?
Russia has what are known as low yield tactical nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use. But if Russia were to detonate two or three nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the radiation would poison tens of millions (or more) in Europe and Asia. Food supplies would become unsafe to eat; dairy products, fish, and water would be poisoned. Starvation and radiation sickness would decimate Europe and Asia (including Russia). There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.
No one really talks about this.
Here's a link to a basic "app" where you can pick a target & size of bomb to see the immediate impact. It doesn't show wind drift or the actual horror.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Thanks. You make a very important point. The zone of destruction and immediate deaths say nothing about the effects of radiation poisoning and contamination of the food supply. Experts believe that a limited nuclear winter would eliminate the growing season on earth for 3 to 5 years. Billions would starve.
Every word of this article is true.
"Two years ago, Putin announced a doctrine that said Russia reserved the right to use nuclear deterrence in the case of 'aggression against Russia with conventional weapons.'" DETERRENCE?? No. That would be a nuclear attack and we need to call it out as such and not parrot Putin's euphemisms.
"The Russian Elite Can’t Stand the Sanctions"
The latest measures are far more effective than Western powers’ past efforts to target Russia’s elite.
By Brooke Harrington
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/russian-sanctions-oligarchs-offshore-wealth/623886/
Aha! An interesting point here: "The sanctions threaten oligarchs with a kind of annihilation, similar to the phenomenon that sociologists describe as 'social death.' That is why Russian elites were so quick to gather up their expensive toys as soon as sanctions were announced, and why several have taken the extraordinary step of publicly begging Putin for a quick end to the war."
The new law to allow parents to be sued for child abuse is worse than disgusting. It is likely illegal, but if politicians want parents to be in charge, let them (the parents) be held accountable for illegal acts of their children. The parents of a sixteen year old who killed two peoplel and shot another in the irrational idea that this would protect a parking lot ought to be held responsible for what was done. I am almost 93 and may be considered an old person, but in earlier days parents were held accountable if their children misbehaved. Why not encourage anyone anywhere to sue any parent who fails to do his duty.
Agree! But to clarify, it is a not a new law (the Texas legislature refused to pass the law.) But the Texas ATtorney general issued an opinion that said existing laws meant that gender-affirming procedures constituted child abuse. Same result, but it is because of the actions of one man--Paxton.
I am resting today so that I may more vigorously engage in the political fight tomorrow. Sometimes we just need to do that. Go to the quiet place.
Many readers here know I often post about the Lincoln Project and the great work they are doing. Here is a terrific ad that needs to be circulated widely in support of President Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2CD66cJzXE
While I am more grateful than ever that Joe Biden is our president--he IS the right man for the time- and am heartbroken, deeply distressed by the horrors unfolding in Ukraine, I cannot ignore how the mainstream news media and, frankly, this newsletter continue to suggest that the tragedy there is more significant--indeed is different/unique-- than what has happened to multiple predominantly middle Eastern and African countries at the hands of Russia AND the USA governments whose citizens are black and brown, mostly Muslim peoples (including Palestine). As a woman of color--as it should be for every human being--it is very, very upsetting (read: nauseating, infuriating).
In the past 20 years, Russia (with Syria' president) leveled Aleppo; our country--USA-- gutted Iraq and Libya. Where was the horror and outrage when these countries were being leveled? Where was the compassion and concern for the mothers, the children, families whose lives were--still are--being destroyed by the West in that part of the world? The behavior tells the tale: We can ignore the suffering there because those populations are "less than." White (especially White Christian) people are deemed more valuable than black, brown, Muslim, in some cases, Jewish, people of color--their suffering is real, valid and worthy of the world's attention because those (white, Christians) are real, valuable people.
However, I have been heartened to see that the media's double standard (regarding THIS subject) has been unmasked and in some cases, there seem to be attempts at self-reflection. (We'll see how long this lasts). It is so important to have diversity and multiple perspectives in newsrooms to increase empathy and, frankly, to help overcome bigotry and ignorance.
But, Mr. Hubbell, perhaps I missed your discussion or mention of this matter in the last few weeks. Forgive me if I did.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism
(Aljazeera is a good resource, but even it has admitted its biased coverage of events in Eastern Europe).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Crystal. Several other readers have made that point. The suffering of the Ukrainians is not unique, nor is the fact that it comes at the hands of Russia rather than the U.S. I believe that one reason that this conflict has captured the attention of the world is it threatens the post-Cold War structure for containing nuclear weapons. When the USSR dissolved, I believe that many people heaved a sigh of relief that for the first time in their lives, they could set aside worries about global destruction from nuclear weapons. That threat is back. The suffering in Ukraine and Iraq and Syria has been horrific, but it is nothing like the death of billions of people through starvation and radiation poisoning that would follow if the U.S. and or Russia inadvertently trips over a nuclear threshhold.
Agreed, very much agreed! The focus on the unjustified/unprovoked attacks and suffering of the Ukrainians does not negate the comparisons to the amount and (biased) quality of focus on other countries/peoples of the world who have experienced the same horrors. But you are right: if we past the tipping point (cross the nuclear threshold) all of this will be moot.