Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Berkowitz's avatar

Although I don't know what the proper action is on Ukraine, I'm not surprised to see a former State Department official arguing for... inaction. He may be correct, but I doubt it, and in my limited experience 'State doesn't have a great track record on either its moral stances or it predictions. At the very least, I don't share the author's confidence that the Ukranians will be better off if America stays out of this, or that Putin will scale back his future aggressions to devote his resources to consolidating rule over Ukraine. One has to wonder, too, at taking Putin at his word that he feels NATO to be an "existential threat". Were NATO run by Putin or Xi, maybe, but does anybody really expect that France or the US is tempted to attack Russia, regardless of proximity?

Expand full comment
Moderately Well Informed's avatar

I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…

More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union, albeit without the socialist veneer. Appeasement in Ukraine will only whet his appetite for the Baltics, with whom the US has a defense treaty. If we walk away from the Baltics, NATO is effectively dead. Does the author advocate the dissolution of NATO? More broadly, the world has been well-served by the norm established after WWII that countries should not alter their boundaries through warfare. That norm is hugely beneficial to the US middle class in that it provides stability for commerce and diminishes the risk of sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Putin is challenging that norm and, if successful, China will not be far behind.

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts