OK, Tucker Carlson and Fox News, I get it: How can the U. S. have as a priority the defense of the sovereignty of Ukraine and its borders when we can’t find a way to protect our own borders? Good point. I see the cognitive dissonance here and I condemn the Biden administration for its dereliction of duty on our southern border, but that doesn’t reduce the responsibility of the leader of the free world from its role as the leading guardian of world order, and it is no excuse for opposition to policy confirming that responsibility. So pardon me if my neo-conservatism is showing, but America has its national interest at stake here in preventing if possible the takeover of a fledgling democracy by a thuggish, criminal, dictatorial regime. President Biden’s decision to put 8,500 U. S. troops on alert in Eastern Europe was a good move, hopefully not too little or too late to send a message. Much more needs to be done, however, beyond diplomacy and expanded sanctions, starting with a major airlift of armaments and equipment to Ukraine to shore up its defense, with or without Germany’s and the EU’s approval. Even though Ukraine is not a member, troops should be deployed to NATO frontline states as well, not to fight in or for Ukraine, but as a deterrent, for Ukrainians deserve the means to defend themselves.
Vladimir Putin is making a bold gamble to try and rectify what he believes was the major catastrophe of the 20th century–the defeat and breakup of the Soviet Union–and he thinks that America and the West have neither the political will, resolve, nor competence to prevent it. There are reasons to understand how he might be willing to take such a risk–think the Afghanistan pullout fiasco, the “red line” in Syria, etc.–and our response means a lot for the credibility of NATO and America, because if we fold here the next confrontation will be worse, and China and Iran, among others, are watching closely. Is Biden up to it?
Jim,
The short answer is, no; Biden is not up to it.
“But she [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She knows well that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world” — Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821
This is dangerous ground upon which to step. Is American blood and treasurer a just price for us to pay for the protection of European countries?
Germany will not help owing to her selfish interests. She is abdicating her role as the leader of the EU. Why should we take the tough job that she is unwilling to do?
What is the end game? What does victory look like in such a conflict? Is it a reclamation of Crimea? Perhaps you presume a standoff. As in Korea, and later Vietnam, total victory is possible without major damage and injury. How would we exit? When? How many decades shall we keep troops stationed there?
I am not a political dove, nor am I a hawk. But prudence is essential here and I am not persuaded one drop of American blood is a price worth paying in this contest.
Russia does not like having her foes close to her borders any more than would we. Would we allow Russia to send troops into Mexico? We shoved her out of Cuba decades ago.
Why don’t we secure our own border before we worry over the border at Ukraine?
Respectfully yours,
Economic sanctions will have to do.
Wisdom speaks.
NOPE !
Jim,
I would not categorize your approach as that of a neo-conservative. One with that approach seems to want to involve America in wars too quickly. And with troops. Yours is a more strategic approach although placing troops anywhere near a war zone carries risks.
We have likely missed the window for my approach which would have been, beginning many years prior, to provide Ukraine with massive amounts of equipment AND at an earlier crossing of a red line SHOW the world our military capabilities without troops with massive, massive, massive firepower. The A-bomb worked to deter their use again for 70 years. If the world saw a demonstration of our capabilities and will they would not threaten our interests.
A sticky wicket with solid points by all. Unfortunately, with a $30 trillion, plus or minus, national debt and an incapable leadership on all fronts, we man need to recognize that for the time being, we need to get our ship in shape before taking on further responsibilities beyond our capacity.
Jim is right, but the comments of others are also spot on. A sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. Suffice it to say, sadly, the law of holes has come to our Country. Time to stop digging and repair the damage of the last 50 years of creeping progressivism
The law of holes has been here for most of my life, and I am no longer young.
Good comments by everyone. I think we should agree that if Trump was president this would be a disaster. He would not want to cross his friend Putin and any decision or comments he made would be second guessed by everyone but Tucker Carlson. We need someone like Truman or Eisenhower.
Disagree. Harken the words of Eisenhower, “beware the military industrial complex” which has now been extended to include all of the federal HHS and media.
Who knows what the coordinator of the s–t show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue even thinks, much less might do.
I disagree completely with david redford about Trump. You ignore 4 years of foreign policy. Putin in not his friend except in your indoctrinated mind.
Perhaps you, david, disremember that Truman did not allow MacArthur to invade China when the communist takeover was a mere three or five years old, and China was an industrial weakling that used its men as cannon fodder?
And that Ike stopped Britain and France from re-taking Suez and so gifting that which they had built to Nasser?
David, Dr. Tom is right. No need to bring up Trump just because you support Pres. Biden. Results talk.
This is a very interesting situation and test and raises several interesting questions we need to answer:
1. Is NATO still relevant and needed?
2. Why can’t the EU stand up on its own?
3. Could this be a “wag the dog” shiny ball diversion by current admin?
4. Why not an equal emphasis on defending Taiwan from the Chinese?
5. Is it worth US blood and treasure to start yet another war, given our abject failure in Afghanistan?
I encourage everyone to read “The Real Dr. Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. And, yes, the Ann Frank comment was stupid, but don’t kill the messenger, simply read and form your own conclusions. Well researched and documented.
No doubt all of these questions need continuing careful thought and discussion, but are not decisive in determining the immediate U. S. response to threatened aggression by Russia on Ukraine. Like it or not, we are the indispensable nation–there is no other “world order”. Was it in our interest to support and supply Britain with the “lend-lease” program prior to the Pearl Harbor attack? Absolutely, but America First thought otherwise–instructive.
Well! These are the most interesting and divest comments that the Pilgrim has produced! First, it’s unfortunate that the Politicians at end of WWII, wouldn’t agree to let Patton go for the USSR.
Now, my thoughts are that Biden should sit down with James Baker III to review how he handled this years ago. He artfully avoided putting the promise re no NATO membership in writing.
But, have none of us hear of the Monroe Doctrine and how it has been used in our backyard, including Cuba?
There are other ways to avoid this mess, hopefully without giving China a Carte Blanche to go after Taiwan.
I agree with Jim’s take that moving troops to Poland was a good first step. America (since Osama Bin Laden was killed) has lost interest in foreign affairs in general and peacekeeping in particular. But, that’s a dangerous posture in a world that is increasingly dominated by autocrats.
After Hitler invaded Poland, the America First crowd anted to avoid involvement in another European war and “take care of the problems here.” But, too often the world’s problems land on our doorstep regardless of whether or not we want want them.
What this situation needs more than troops or military assets is leadership. Obama, Trump and now Biden lacked the wherewithal or interest in providing leadership internationally. The leadership style of Ronald Reagan is lacking today!
How might Reagan have reacted? First, he wouldn’t let a NATO member leader like Viktor Orban appear at the Russian dictator’s side while the latter tries to justify invading a neighboring democracy. Reagan would have shores up the west’s ability to ensure gas supplies to Germany. (Even if it meant subsidizing LNG exports or additional production from the North Sea.) Reagan would have communicated in a clear way to Americans of all demographic groups, parties, religions, etc that we share a common interest in protecting democracy. If not the US, then who is the protector of classical liberal values in the world?
The neo-con adventures of the Bush admin may have revealed the limits of trying to force our values on other cultures; but the Ukraine desires to join the democratic west and has embraced classical liberal values. Are we to again abandon allies (as with the Kurds) who have given all they can when they need our help the most?
America is still the global hegemon with the only military in the world that can project massive land, air and sea power in any corner of the world. While that is expensive to maintain, it also has allowed us to comfortably live while having huge twin deficits (fiscal and trade). What happens to the dollar (and American’s savings and assets) when we retreat from our post WWII global power posture? My guess is that it would be a disaster for America and the world as the world economy would collapse.
I’m NOT saying that failure in this particular moment will lead to Armageddon. I am saying the head in the sand crowd that believes America could just quietly retreat from world affairs and the world economy would just hum along with no disruption ignores the reality of how crucial our strength (military and economic) is like believing in unicorns. Massive economic collapse in a world dominated by nuclear armed autocrats…well you don’t have to have a great sense of history to think about what recipe that would set up. So, Ukraine is a skirmish in a bigger war that must be won. What is needed is leadership. The only country that can provide that leadership is the US.
Pardon any typos…in using my phone!
Some excellent points, Bob. I am reminded of George W. Bush’s quote: “We can’t pick our wars, we can only pick whose side we’re on”.
You choose peace or war?