"With the benefit of that classified information, the U.S. and NATO have gone way out of their way to signal to Putin that the U.S. and NATO do not seek a nuclear confrontation with Russia. I don’t believe any of us have the information to second-guess a judgment based on the best intelligence available about Putin’s state of mind." I am with you here. My particular confidence is with Joe Biden who has demonstrated the prudence and the steadfastness of a leader of a great nation. In this he is a real contrast to Marco Rubio (who will serve as a stand in for all of the Republican aspirants). I have been following The Boston Globe conversation about this issue. Rubio's defenders ask "What is it about the photos that identify the where Zelensky is?" Rubio's critics explain that technology is the problem. Distributing that screen shot by social media allows someone attempting to find Zelensky's whereabouts to follow the technological Zoom connections (I have no personal understanding of this, I have to admit) to locate Zelensky. If nothing else, Rubio's casual willingness to violate the request of the Ukrainian government demonstrates a lack of prudence and a lack of steadfastness which disqualifies him as a presidential contender and ought to disqualify him as a Senator to his Florida constituents.
Living in Orlando for 34 years, although now retired in the Texas Hill Country, I know Val Demings and her husband Gerry well. They are both outstanding public servants and I am hard pressed to think of anyone who could be better for Floridians to have represent them in the U.S. Senate. Even though now in Texas, I continue to support Val and her campaign.
My brother was in public administration in Florida and also knew her. He can't say enough good things about her and I, too, support her campaign when I can.
Born and raised in Miami, now in Northern VA but feel connected to my birth state. I supported her in her last election and donated as soon as I heard she was running for the senate. She was my 1st choice for VP but am thrilled with VP Harrison.
Actually I had several other unusable in polite conversation descriptive nouns in mind but will defer simply to the military and counter intelligence descriptor of useful idiot.
As so many including Robert, the Washington Post, NY Times, and the U.S. military and intelligence analysts have clearly stated a no fly zone over Ukraine at this time is a very bad idea with quite limited up side. It is far better for the U.S. and NATO to continue to supply anti-aircraft defenses and weaponry to Ukraine. These assets are inflicting significant costs on the Russian military even though the attacks by Russian aircraft and missiles are devastating Ukraine and terrorizing its civilian population. The risks of escalating this war to a nuclear conflict are simply too great. I submit that the idea of a “limited” nuclear conflict is a useless euphemism and unthinkable. There are no acceptable “limits” to a nuclear conflict.
While I agree with almost everything Robert has written tonight, I think his comparison of Putin's behavior to that of North Korea does a disservice--to North Korea. That isolated nation, while full of bluster and threats, has NOT invaded any of its neighbors in nearly 70 years. What Putin has done is without a direct parallel in post-WW II history and it too will live in infamy.
I don’t remember Garland himself saying anything about protecting the DOJ’s reputation. If he is in dereliction of his duty, shouldn’t he be replaced—or would that be too “political” a move on Biden’s part? I am mystified by Garland’s sluggishness.
I so appreciate your reminding us of the nuclear threat in Ukraine. The current crisis is about a hell of a lot more than newsprint, as those of us in our seventies and eighties can attest. We need to lean on diplomatic solutions while providing non-inflammatory aid to Zelensky.
When he was sworn in, Garland gave a speech in which he said he would "restore" the reputation of the DOJ. Since then, Garland said he would "not look back" in setting DOJ priorities and would not review the conduct and decisions of DOJ personnel under Trump. Instead, he is going to allow the DOJ Inspector General to do so -- an official who has no criminal investigatory function. We now know that the DOJ was up to its eyeballs in the coup in the person of Jeffrey Clark. And yet, if we take Merrick Garland's public comments at face value, Garland is not investigating Clark's efforts to overthrow the Constitution.
Robert, You mirror our stunned recognition of the merciless acts being committed by a human monster named Putin. Ukraine and our minds are blanketed with human and structural destruction, soot. guns, people running for cover, dead bodies and blood. I don't think that Putin was slow to know what was happening. My hunch is that he knew before the rest of us. His ill prepared military, with many soldiers not knowing where they were going, they were slow. Has this monumental embarrassment, exposed for the world to see, not inflamed him more? Putin's flames of annihilation are deep and readily turned on and up. You frequently point to the threat of nuclear war, Robert, if the no no-fly zone became a no-fly zone. (Side note, in my email to you I wrote that I would maintain the no-fly zone, mistakenly leaving out the 'no' before the no. Hope that is clear) Given all of our concern about the 'nuclear' possibility, you have given little if any attention to the nuclear plants in Ukraine. From today's Guardian, 'Staff at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant are being told what to do by the Russian military commander who seized the site last week, in violation of international safety protocols. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed “grave concern” at the situation at the six-reactor plant, the largest in Europe. The agency was told by the Ukrainian nuclear regulator that “any action of plant management – including measures related to the technical operation of the six reactor units – requires prior approval by the Russian commander”. There is no time and space for me to go into why this is so grave, but it is a subject that I would appreciate you addressing. In any analysis of the horrors which could emanate from this war, certainly the recklessness of Putin's military being in control of nuclear power plants must be considered. In addition, Ukraine needs planes and drones, and I do not know what else, but they do not have what they need.
Whoever thought that modernity would bear no resemblance to medieval times or the early 1940's -- actually who would have thought compare them? Evil will not be deterred. . .
As Putin contemplates how to direct the military authorities now seizing control of Ukraines nuclear power plants I suggest he check maps and prevailing wind directions in Ukraine and Russia carefully. It seems Ukraine being west of Russia is “upwind” of a significant portion of the Russian population. The experiences of Chernobyl should not be that far from his mind or at least what’s left of it.
I hope Americans are aware that the Republicans as a political party have not stood united behind Biden and the efforts of his administration to navigate the Ukrainian invasion by Russia and to keep the US out of a war. At the end of the day the Russian invasion has demonstrated to the world the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the fearless leadership of Zelensky and the value of an experienced President like Biden who has helped unite both NATO and the EU. Biden’s leadership is a threat to the Republican Party because they have no viable alternative . A simple question should be asked in an ad to all voters. “ In the current world crisis who would you rather have as President Donald Trump or Joe Biden? We need to remind people everyday.
A very balanced analysis. We as a nation have evaded discussion of the consequences of our continuing reliance on nuclear weapons, in part because the consequences of nuclear war are almost unimaginable for most of us.
You have the "no fly zone" problem right. It brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from H. L. Mencken:
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, clear and wrong."
Without disagreeing with your, I consider, correct analysis of the potential dangers of Imposing a no-fly, I believe you did not finish the construction….If not now, when?
How much loss of life, destruction of essential homes, institutions and services before we say enough? And, most importantly, how much appeasement of Putin before we say no more?
I believe Putin cares little of the economic hardships imposed on the Russian people. I also believe that he draws strength of purpose every time we, and NATO, allow him to dictate the terms of war by threatening use of nuclear weapons.
Therefore, after destroying Ukraine why not invade the Baltic nations, or Finland or Romania? If the West objects, just terrorize everyone with the threat of nuclear winter.
So, by all means continue to support Ukraine with weapons and humanitarian support, add in as many drones as possible. Ask citizens to endure higher gas and energy prices. Just recognize that at some point we will have to call an end to Putin’s madness, or the democratic world as we know it.
My view is the longer we wait, the more determined he becomes. At the same time, he becomes more dangerous and cornered as his conventional weapons inventory is depleted and economic distress increases. Biden has an impossibly difficult situation to navigate. We will just have to hope he will to make all the correct decisions.
As a final note, completely agree with you on the embarrassing disappearance of the DOJ and Garland. Thanks for keeping me up to date on the apologist’s point view and the legal issues.
Hi, Neil. Thanks for your question, "If not now, when?" I received that same question from other readers. The answer should be "Never." If there is a nuclear war with even a few dozen bombs, hundreds of millions will die from radiation and climatic effects. Europe will be an uninhabitable radiation zone; there will be no growing season for several years after a limited war, and there will be mass starvation. Nuclear war is not an answer, ever. So how much destruction must we tolerate? The answer is "Compared to what? To the destruction of the planet?" I understand the moral outrage, but avoiding nuclear war is the most important step Biden can take. Putin is becoming weaker by the day. We can outlast him. Will hundreds of thousands of innocents civilians suffer? Sadly, yes. But the alternative is that hundreds of millions of people will die.
I really have no good answer. Perhaps we are already at war? Not a Cold War, or a hot one on one shoot out. In the 21st century maybe this is what we get to avoid war between nuclear nations, a sous vide war, warm, long, slow cook. Both sides bring weapons and combatants. We just decided to subcontract out our death and destruction to Ukraine.
Right on Robert! Biden has lead a master team in our response to Russia and support of Ukraine. If they could support a no fly zone without escalating the situation they would. I wish people would consider the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and understand that any nuclear weapon Putin uses would be at least 100 times worse. It wouldn’t just affect the IUkrainians and Europe it would reach our shores easily. For all we know we would be the primary target.
Not only the idea of a no-fly zone not smart, but also, the idea of a "Yachts for Ukraine" bill is floating around Congress. I live in NY, and Chuck Schumer is one of my Senators. Here's my message to him yesterday, sent using https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck
Hi, I've read that there's interest in Congress for a "Yachts for Ukraine" bill. The idea is to seize Russian yachts and other assets, sell them, and give the proceeds to Ukraine.
I think this is a bad idea. It would give Putin a reason, perhaps, to claim that the U.S. had illegally confiscated Russian assets. He's a cornered rat. Who knows what he'll do as things worsen.
Don't poke at him.
Continue the sanctions, perhaps even stopping the purchase of Russian oil, and turn more towards renewable energy.
Support Ukraine vigorously with supplies of all sorts. And replenish the military aircraft that, say, Poland is giving to Ukraine. But do not give Putin a reason to escalate to, perhaps a tactical nuke or two.
Hi, Bob. I agree with you that the West must follow due process in seizing and disposing of assets that belong to Russian oligarchs. It would be a blatant violation of our Constitution to seize and sell property because of the owner's nationality or ethnicity. if the DOJ can prove that the assets were purchased with the proceeds of criminal activity, then sure, seize away! But those laws already exist--and provide an opportunity for the defendant to prove that the assets are not tainted by criminal activity.
Regarding Putin not being able to keep people from news, alas, I fear that isn't enough. In this country, half our citizens theoretically have access to the truth, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in it. Instead, they happily listen to Faux News or whatever version of alt-reality they prefer. I'm reading that Russians have no idea Putin has invaded Ukraine. I suspect that it's partly because many of them don't want to know or don't want to believe. Just like in this country. A further note: I'm appalled that I'm hearing news outlets refer to the "war" between Russia and Ukraine, as if both sides are at fault. This is not a war; it's a full-scale invasion--an assault. It's only a war in the sense that one side is defending itself against horrific aggression.
Good point about calling it a "war" between Russian and Ukraine. I try to refer to the conflict as "Putin's war." As to the refusal of people to believe the news, if 50% of Russians who heard the truth about Putin's war believed it, he would soon be deposed.
As we examine the pros and cons of a Ukrainian no fly zone consider the current plight and consequences of sanctions on Russian civil aviation. At present Russian civil aviation includes Russian airlines with a total of 980 passenger jets in service. Of course there are also a number, unknown at present dedicated exclusively to freight services. Of those 980 about two thirds or 515 are leased from foreign firms, the majority of those are Irish aircraft leasing companies. Under the present sanctions those aircraft are to be repossessed by March 28th. The repossession of those aircraft is an interesting logistical exercise. Additionally, the Russian lessor airlines will have great difficulty making lease payments due to sanctions on Russian banks. They also face sanctions banning the sale of aircraft maintenance services and parts to Russian airlines. This is quite likely to result in grounding a significant portion of the Russian aviation fleet even if the airlines were able to avoid repossession of the planes. Now consider the fact that Russia is the largest country in the world geographically stretching across 11 time zones. The loss of a significant portion of Russian air travel presents an entirely new challenge for Putin and Russia that will present him with another set of problems and heavily impact the Russian people and further challenge the Russian economy.
Maybe you already have explained this, but can the president - or Congress - direct the DOJ to pursue an investigation? Or is it entirely up to Garland to decide whether or not something should be handled by the DOJ?
In a properly functioning democracy, the norm is that neither the president nor Congress can direct the DOJ to commence an investigation. But Congress can "refer" matters to the DOJ for investigation if it finds evidence of criminal activity during its investigations. But that is a referral only. The DOJ can refuse to prosecute--as Barr is apparently declining to prosecute Mark Meadows for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. The AG should be independent of both the President and Congress. of course, under Trump, he directed Barr and Sessions to take politically motivated actions, and they complied. (E.g., dismissing charges against Flynn after he twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, appointing a special counsel to investigate the people who investigated Trump for cooperating with Russia, etc.
Thanks for the link to the information about Anonymous. Seems that hacker group is becoming a big player in what now feels like WWIII. If Putin keeps his promise to send protestors to the front, he just might inadvertently be strengthening Ukraine's army of volunteers. Why would they pick up arms against the very people whose destruction they are protesting?
I have enough background at this point to fully agree and see the logic of sticking with Biden and his advisers regarding the "no fly zone" idea. The more Putin has nothing to lose, the more likely he is to destroy far more just to "show us." It is a balancing act and it's quite clear he is ruthless. I agree with Robert's writing and view of this. During my first year at Ohio Wesleyan I was channeled into courses I hadn't selected. One was called "Comparative Political Systems." I knew nothing about any of it when I started the course. By the end, I had read "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" and went on to read more about the era after my course ended. Appeasement comes in many forms. Not having the no fly zone as a viable option is not appeasement. Keep up the great work, Robert. I just wish you weren't right about Garland. Darn.
The U.S. enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine is a bad idea. Putin wants to reestablish the Russian (or Soviet) empire. He is 69 years old. This is probably his last and only shot at doing something to approach that goal. So he will go for broke. He has threatened to use nuclear weapons. He has threatened war on the Unites States and NATO. When he tells us and then shows us who he is--a cruel, murderous, despot--we should believe him.
"With the benefit of that classified information, the U.S. and NATO have gone way out of their way to signal to Putin that the U.S. and NATO do not seek a nuclear confrontation with Russia. I don’t believe any of us have the information to second-guess a judgment based on the best intelligence available about Putin’s state of mind." I am with you here. My particular confidence is with Joe Biden who has demonstrated the prudence and the steadfastness of a leader of a great nation. In this he is a real contrast to Marco Rubio (who will serve as a stand in for all of the Republican aspirants). I have been following The Boston Globe conversation about this issue. Rubio's defenders ask "What is it about the photos that identify the where Zelensky is?" Rubio's critics explain that technology is the problem. Distributing that screen shot by social media allows someone attempting to find Zelensky's whereabouts to follow the technological Zoom connections (I have no personal understanding of this, I have to admit) to locate Zelensky. If nothing else, Rubio's casual willingness to violate the request of the Ukrainian government demonstrates a lack of prudence and a lack of steadfastness which disqualifies him as a presidential contender and ought to disqualify him as a Senator to his Florida constituents.
We need everyone to support Val Demings in her quest to unseat this moron. She actually has a fighting chance.
Living in Orlando for 34 years, although now retired in the Texas Hill Country, I know Val Demings and her husband Gerry well. They are both outstanding public servants and I am hard pressed to think of anyone who could be better for Floridians to have represent them in the U.S. Senate. Even though now in Texas, I continue to support Val and her campaign.
My brother was in public administration in Florida and also knew her. He can't say enough good things about her and I, too, support her campaign when I can.
Born and raised in Miami, now in Northern VA but feel connected to my birth state. I supported her in her last election and donated as soon as I heard she was running for the senate. She was my 1st choice for VP but am thrilled with VP Harrison.
Leonard, let’s not be shy about this: Marco Rubio is a creep.
Actually I had several other unusable in polite conversation descriptive nouns in mind but will defer simply to the military and counter intelligence descriptor of useful idiot.
That's a great expression. "Useful idiot" will now become part of my vocabulary. Thanks.
- Marco Rubio reflects all that is wrong with the GOP and Florida. Go, Val Demings!
- Robert, The no-fly-zone explanation is so helpful. Retired GA Senator Sam Nunn, a nuclear expert, reiterates in a great 20 minute conversation: https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/02/28/political-rewind-former-sen-sam-nunn-talks-about-ukraine-ukrainians-in-ga-weigh
- DOJ’s lack of action emboldens Trump and his devotees.
As so many including Robert, the Washington Post, NY Times, and the U.S. military and intelligence analysts have clearly stated a no fly zone over Ukraine at this time is a very bad idea with quite limited up side. It is far better for the U.S. and NATO to continue to supply anti-aircraft defenses and weaponry to Ukraine. These assets are inflicting significant costs on the Russian military even though the attacks by Russian aircraft and missiles are devastating Ukraine and terrorizing its civilian population. The risks of escalating this war to a nuclear conflict are simply too great. I submit that the idea of a “limited” nuclear conflict is a useless euphemism and unthinkable. There are no acceptable “limits” to a nuclear conflict.
While I agree with almost everything Robert has written tonight, I think his comparison of Putin's behavior to that of North Korea does a disservice--to North Korea. That isolated nation, while full of bluster and threats, has NOT invaded any of its neighbors in nearly 70 years. What Putin has done is without a direct parallel in post-WW II history and it too will live in infamy.
Good point.
I don’t remember Garland himself saying anything about protecting the DOJ’s reputation. If he is in dereliction of his duty, shouldn’t he be replaced—or would that be too “political” a move on Biden’s part? I am mystified by Garland’s sluggishness.
I so appreciate your reminding us of the nuclear threat in Ukraine. The current crisis is about a hell of a lot more than newsprint, as those of us in our seventies and eighties can attest. We need to lean on diplomatic solutions while providing non-inflammatory aid to Zelensky.
When he was sworn in, Garland gave a speech in which he said he would "restore" the reputation of the DOJ. Since then, Garland said he would "not look back" in setting DOJ priorities and would not review the conduct and decisions of DOJ personnel under Trump. Instead, he is going to allow the DOJ Inspector General to do so -- an official who has no criminal investigatory function. We now know that the DOJ was up to its eyeballs in the coup in the person of Jeffrey Clark. And yet, if we take Merrick Garland's public comments at face value, Garland is not investigating Clark's efforts to overthrow the Constitution.
Thank you, Robert, that’s worse than I thought. I do wish he could be replaced.
Robert, You mirror our stunned recognition of the merciless acts being committed by a human monster named Putin. Ukraine and our minds are blanketed with human and structural destruction, soot. guns, people running for cover, dead bodies and blood. I don't think that Putin was slow to know what was happening. My hunch is that he knew before the rest of us. His ill prepared military, with many soldiers not knowing where they were going, they were slow. Has this monumental embarrassment, exposed for the world to see, not inflamed him more? Putin's flames of annihilation are deep and readily turned on and up. You frequently point to the threat of nuclear war, Robert, if the no no-fly zone became a no-fly zone. (Side note, in my email to you I wrote that I would maintain the no-fly zone, mistakenly leaving out the 'no' before the no. Hope that is clear) Given all of our concern about the 'nuclear' possibility, you have given little if any attention to the nuclear plants in Ukraine. From today's Guardian, 'Staff at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant are being told what to do by the Russian military commander who seized the site last week, in violation of international safety protocols. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed “grave concern” at the situation at the six-reactor plant, the largest in Europe. The agency was told by the Ukrainian nuclear regulator that “any action of plant management – including measures related to the technical operation of the six reactor units – requires prior approval by the Russian commander”. There is no time and space for me to go into why this is so grave, but it is a subject that I would appreciate you addressing. In any analysis of the horrors which could emanate from this war, certainly the recklessness of Putin's military being in control of nuclear power plants must be considered. In addition, Ukraine needs planes and drones, and I do not know what else, but they do not have what they need.
Whoever thought that modernity would bear no resemblance to medieval times or the early 1940's -- actually who would have thought compare them? Evil will not be deterred. . .
As Putin contemplates how to direct the military authorities now seizing control of Ukraines nuclear power plants I suggest he check maps and prevailing wind directions in Ukraine and Russia carefully. It seems Ukraine being west of Russia is “upwind” of a significant portion of the Russian population. The experiences of Chernobyl should not be that far from his mind or at least what’s left of it.
I hope Americans are aware that the Republicans as a political party have not stood united behind Biden and the efforts of his administration to navigate the Ukrainian invasion by Russia and to keep the US out of a war. At the end of the day the Russian invasion has demonstrated to the world the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the fearless leadership of Zelensky and the value of an experienced President like Biden who has helped unite both NATO and the EU. Biden’s leadership is a threat to the Republican Party because they have no viable alternative . A simple question should be asked in an ad to all voters. “ In the current world crisis who would you rather have as President Donald Trump or Joe Biden? We need to remind people everyday.
Given that Liz Cheney has said that "The Republican party is the party of Putin", I think we have the answer to that simple question.
A very balanced analysis. We as a nation have evaded discussion of the consequences of our continuing reliance on nuclear weapons, in part because the consequences of nuclear war are almost unimaginable for most of us.
You have the "no fly zone" problem right. It brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from H. L. Mencken:
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, clear and wrong."
Hi Robert,
Without disagreeing with your, I consider, correct analysis of the potential dangers of Imposing a no-fly, I believe you did not finish the construction….If not now, when?
How much loss of life, destruction of essential homes, institutions and services before we say enough? And, most importantly, how much appeasement of Putin before we say no more?
I believe Putin cares little of the economic hardships imposed on the Russian people. I also believe that he draws strength of purpose every time we, and NATO, allow him to dictate the terms of war by threatening use of nuclear weapons.
Therefore, after destroying Ukraine why not invade the Baltic nations, or Finland or Romania? If the West objects, just terrorize everyone with the threat of nuclear winter.
So, by all means continue to support Ukraine with weapons and humanitarian support, add in as many drones as possible. Ask citizens to endure higher gas and energy prices. Just recognize that at some point we will have to call an end to Putin’s madness, or the democratic world as we know it.
My view is the longer we wait, the more determined he becomes. At the same time, he becomes more dangerous and cornered as his conventional weapons inventory is depleted and economic distress increases. Biden has an impossibly difficult situation to navigate. We will just have to hope he will to make all the correct decisions.
As a final note, completely agree with you on the embarrassing disappearance of the DOJ and Garland. Thanks for keeping me up to date on the apologist’s point view and the legal issues.
Hi, Neil. Thanks for your question, "If not now, when?" I received that same question from other readers. The answer should be "Never." If there is a nuclear war with even a few dozen bombs, hundreds of millions will die from radiation and climatic effects. Europe will be an uninhabitable radiation zone; there will be no growing season for several years after a limited war, and there will be mass starvation. Nuclear war is not an answer, ever. So how much destruction must we tolerate? The answer is "Compared to what? To the destruction of the planet?" I understand the moral outrage, but avoiding nuclear war is the most important step Biden can take. Putin is becoming weaker by the day. We can outlast him. Will hundreds of thousands of innocents civilians suffer? Sadly, yes. But the alternative is that hundreds of millions of people will die.
What are the odds of us being at war with Russia? I now see it as a distinct possibility.
Hi Fern,
I really have no good answer. Perhaps we are already at war? Not a Cold War, or a hot one on one shoot out. In the 21st century maybe this is what we get to avoid war between nuclear nations, a sous vide war, warm, long, slow cook. Both sides bring weapons and combatants. We just decided to subcontract out our death and destruction to Ukraine.
Right on Robert! Biden has lead a master team in our response to Russia and support of Ukraine. If they could support a no fly zone without escalating the situation they would. I wish people would consider the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and understand that any nuclear weapon Putin uses would be at least 100 times worse. It wouldn’t just affect the IUkrainians and Europe it would reach our shores easily. For all we know we would be the primary target.
Hi,
Not only the idea of a no-fly zone not smart, but also, the idea of a "Yachts for Ukraine" bill is floating around Congress. I live in NY, and Chuck Schumer is one of my Senators. Here's my message to him yesterday, sent using https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck
Hi, I've read that there's interest in Congress for a "Yachts for Ukraine" bill. The idea is to seize Russian yachts and other assets, sell them, and give the proceeds to Ukraine.
I think this is a bad idea. It would give Putin a reason, perhaps, to claim that the U.S. had illegally confiscated Russian assets. He's a cornered rat. Who knows what he'll do as things worsen.
Don't poke at him.
Continue the sanctions, perhaps even stopping the purchase of Russian oil, and turn more towards renewable energy.
Support Ukraine vigorously with supplies of all sorts. And replenish the military aircraft that, say, Poland is giving to Ukraine. But do not give Putin a reason to escalate to, perhaps a tactical nuke or two.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Stromberg, Round Lake, NY
Hi, Bob. I agree with you that the West must follow due process in seizing and disposing of assets that belong to Russian oligarchs. It would be a blatant violation of our Constitution to seize and sell property because of the owner's nationality or ethnicity. if the DOJ can prove that the assets were purchased with the proceeds of criminal activity, then sure, seize away! But those laws already exist--and provide an opportunity for the defendant to prove that the assets are not tainted by criminal activity.
Regarding Putin not being able to keep people from news, alas, I fear that isn't enough. In this country, half our citizens theoretically have access to the truth, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in it. Instead, they happily listen to Faux News or whatever version of alt-reality they prefer. I'm reading that Russians have no idea Putin has invaded Ukraine. I suspect that it's partly because many of them don't want to know or don't want to believe. Just like in this country. A further note: I'm appalled that I'm hearing news outlets refer to the "war" between Russia and Ukraine, as if both sides are at fault. This is not a war; it's a full-scale invasion--an assault. It's only a war in the sense that one side is defending itself against horrific aggression.
Good point about calling it a "war" between Russian and Ukraine. I try to refer to the conflict as "Putin's war." As to the refusal of people to believe the news, if 50% of Russians who heard the truth about Putin's war believed it, he would soon be deposed.
As we examine the pros and cons of a Ukrainian no fly zone consider the current plight and consequences of sanctions on Russian civil aviation. At present Russian civil aviation includes Russian airlines with a total of 980 passenger jets in service. Of course there are also a number, unknown at present dedicated exclusively to freight services. Of those 980 about two thirds or 515 are leased from foreign firms, the majority of those are Irish aircraft leasing companies. Under the present sanctions those aircraft are to be repossessed by March 28th. The repossession of those aircraft is an interesting logistical exercise. Additionally, the Russian lessor airlines will have great difficulty making lease payments due to sanctions on Russian banks. They also face sanctions banning the sale of aircraft maintenance services and parts to Russian airlines. This is quite likely to result in grounding a significant portion of the Russian aviation fleet even if the airlines were able to avoid repossession of the planes. Now consider the fact that Russia is the largest country in the world geographically stretching across 11 time zones. The loss of a significant portion of Russian air travel presents an entirely new challenge for Putin and Russia that will present him with another set of problems and heavily impact the Russian people and further challenge the Russian economy.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/hundreds-russia-plane-leases-be-axed-after-eu-sanctions-2022-02-28/
Very interesting. Thanks for the information.
Maybe you already have explained this, but can the president - or Congress - direct the DOJ to pursue an investigation? Or is it entirely up to Garland to decide whether or not something should be handled by the DOJ?
In a properly functioning democracy, the norm is that neither the president nor Congress can direct the DOJ to commence an investigation. But Congress can "refer" matters to the DOJ for investigation if it finds evidence of criminal activity during its investigations. But that is a referral only. The DOJ can refuse to prosecute--as Barr is apparently declining to prosecute Mark Meadows for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. The AG should be independent of both the President and Congress. of course, under Trump, he directed Barr and Sessions to take politically motivated actions, and they complied. (E.g., dismissing charges against Flynn after he twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, appointing a special counsel to investigate the people who investigated Trump for cooperating with Russia, etc.
Do you mean as Garland instead of Barr is declining to
Thanks for the link to the information about Anonymous. Seems that hacker group is becoming a big player in what now feels like WWIII. If Putin keeps his promise to send protestors to the front, he just might inadvertently be strengthening Ukraine's army of volunteers. Why would they pick up arms against the very people whose destruction they are protesting?
Good point! Seems like Putin has not thought that through.
I have enough background at this point to fully agree and see the logic of sticking with Biden and his advisers regarding the "no fly zone" idea. The more Putin has nothing to lose, the more likely he is to destroy far more just to "show us." It is a balancing act and it's quite clear he is ruthless. I agree with Robert's writing and view of this. During my first year at Ohio Wesleyan I was channeled into courses I hadn't selected. One was called "Comparative Political Systems." I knew nothing about any of it when I started the course. By the end, I had read "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" and went on to read more about the era after my course ended. Appeasement comes in many forms. Not having the no fly zone as a viable option is not appeasement. Keep up the great work, Robert. I just wish you weren't right about Garland. Darn.
The U.S. enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine is a bad idea. Putin wants to reestablish the Russian (or Soviet) empire. He is 69 years old. This is probably his last and only shot at doing something to approach that goal. So he will go for broke. He has threatened to use nuclear weapons. He has threatened war on the Unites States and NATO. When he tells us and then shows us who he is--a cruel, murderous, despot--we should believe him.