Ukraine wants NATO to protect its skies -- something the alliance, up to this point, has refused to do. We really are caught between a rock and a hard place. Glen Pearson writes:
The problem with Ukraine is Putin’s threat to use tactical nuclear warheads. It changes everything. Do you protect airspace to safeguard humanitarian supply chains, knowing that any encounter in the air with Russia could set off something unimaginable? Or do you keep attempting other methods of funnelling supplies into Ukraine? A debate ensues in the rest of the world that becomes more complicated the longer the fight continues.
As the fight continues, the situation grows more and more dire:
Women and children are increasingly falling victim to this conflict. Ukrainian men and even boys use whatever weapons they can find, and their casualty rate will grow as the weeks, months, and years ensue. In a war of attrition like this, a decision will have to be made: allow Putin to continue the civilian carnage or risk the nuclear option by protecting civilians caught in the mayhem.
Sometime this coming week, the number of Ukrainians fleeing the country and becoming refugees will reach 1.5 million. Of those, over half a million will be children. This is ever the way with senseless war. As Gandhi once put it: “If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.” Conflict becomes senseless when we no longer heed that lesson.
Many kids will lose their fathers, grandfathers, and sometimes their mothers forever. Whenever this kind of conflict rears its ugly head, parents seek to get their children to someplace safe, just as the English did in World War Two. We aren’t even two weeks into the conflict, and Ukrainian children are now traumatized, surrounded by mortality, and increasingly facing a future without a father, a mother, or both.
As this conflict wears on and Russia inevitably gains the upper hand, images of the carnage will play much more on the western mind than they do at present. When enough children perish, pressure will mount for someone to do something, likely starting with creating open skies. Critics will continually point out that doing so risks the use of nuclear weapons, and they won’t be wrong.
So here we are: neither outcome is acceptable. But, inevitably, we will have to choose.
Image: progressive.org
26 comments:
A no-fly zone?
Glen Pearson is a failed politician who (like many) has not thought this through.
Better just to declare war and get on with it.
And as to this:
"The problem with Ukraine is Putin’s threat to use tactical nuclear warheads. It changes everything. "
"Some of us who were paying attention, watched virtually all the late 20th century Nuclear Arms deal lapse. Not one media outlet mentioned that last weak when Poutine** puts his nukes on alert." (I reposted this snippet from my comment at Mound's site.)
If we choose to go to war, PoV, the death and the destruction will be hard to quantify.
So let me see if I follow the consensus logic here: Putin is a mad-man bent on conquest with a powerful army and thousands of nuclear war-heads. He warned us again and again not to consider making Ukraine a part of the anti-Russian NATO alliance. We ignored the madman with the nuclear weapons and his paranoid fears about Ukraine-in-NATO.
Because that's what you do when there's a powerful crazy person screaming at you not to do something.
And now Putin has invaded the Ukraine and children are dying. And now our choice is to risk nuclear war or have the deaths of those innocents on our consciences?
I know this makes me sound like a cynical bastard, but we all seemed able to live with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands upon thousands of Syrians and Libyans. And we never got too worked-up about the starvation of millions of Yemenis. And we don't seem too concerned about Biden seizing the money of the starving people of Afghanistan.
Also, this Glen Pearson fellow seems to neglect the option of diplomatic negotiation. Perhaps that should be considered before raving about risking a nuclear holocaust?
We ignored Putin for too long, thwap. And, as is the case with any problem you ignore, the cost of dealing with it goes up with each passing day.
Yes. We ignored Putin when he said not to threaten to put the Ukraine in NATO. Denying that that is the reason he invaded is important. Because portraying him as a madman bent on conquest removes the alternative about trying to negotiate and thereby avoid the possibility of nuclear war.
I'll retire to Bedlam.
Thumbs up for thawp's post ;-)
btw, as a diversion, but also a historical counterpoint to our whole discussion, there is a new Netflix film based on the Robert Harris (one of my favourite authors) novel 'Munich'.
"The Edge of War" paints Chamberlain in a different light to the view from the straight-jacket of conventional history.
True, thwap. But those who know Putin -- there are several interviews from a broadcast called The Putin File -- suggest that Putin is not a negotiator.
Worth a look, PoV. But, like Putin, Hitler was not a negotiator.
Northern PoV - sorry, but your opinion of Pearson is way off base.
As for nuclear war, go away. Amazingly, Ukraine is standing up to Putin quite well. They are exposing the many weaknesses in Russia’s military. Russia, it appears, is not what we have been fearing. But, they still have nukes!
UU
Nuclear winter or the Ukraine?
NATO was so sure it bet Kyivs' testicles.
Winter or a turnip patch?
Wouldn't even be a question except
This is the worst kind of aggression
The kind that is against people that look like us!
AND
It is only wrong when others do it
According to Kelly and Laycock's book, the United States has invaded or fought in 84 of the 193 countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved with 191 of 193 – a staggering 98 percent. Sept 2, 2021
I heard David Frum suggest today that the way to solve this impasse is for Putin's army to dissolve, UU. They are -- Frum says -- poorly trained and being paid in rubles -- which are worth nothing.
When it comes to power and its abuse, lungta, examples are everywhere.
I read on another thread yesterday that folks who have either previously travelled to Ukraine or know of people who operate small businesses, esp. b&b's or similar types of business are booking - say - a one week stay in their accommodation (but, of course, not going there personally) but it gives them a chance to send money DIRECT to the people and not some of $$$ off into a black hole.
On this one, I have to go with the view that, however much we try to avoid it, white supremacy really is part and parcel of the world today. Not that what is happening in Ukraine is good, but it is exactly what happened in Grozny and Aleppo, where we did nothing, and in places like Fallujah and Beirut, where we (Canadians) did even less than nothing, and if we want to make it about “the West”, were actually the ones responsible. Hell, look at what is happening in Yemen right now, and we're still happily supplying the weapons to keep it happening. The only reason Ukraine is different is because the people suffering look a lot more like we (well, some of “we”) do. I mean, why do we have to choose here and now when we didn’t all those other times? The answer is sadly obvious, and really the racism in the coverage has been rather blatant, which more than a few people have pointed out.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/03/certain-neighborhoods
https://www.juancole.com/2022/02/americans-shocked-ukrainians.html
We should do no more than we are already doing. Help the Ukrainians, certainly, both in humanitarian means by accepting refugees and delivering aid (and how easily we accept doing that for them compared to others is also a pretty blatant statement), as well as providing them the weapons they need to continue the fight, but not escalate to a wider war. All that will do is make the suffering we see in Ukraine get replicated across even more countries.
If we risk nuclear conflict anyway, let's make sure the right people get nuked. I say we put Chinese flags on American F-22s, which by the way China copied, then bomb the s**t out of Russia. And then we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.
Now that's how to bait the bear, folks. That's genius-level thinking right there, no puppet. What could possibly go wrong?
Cap
That's an interesting strategy, Lulymay. It gives new meaning to the phrase "direct deposit."
We have certainly been selective in choosing the people we help, BJ. But it has always been true that you have to -- or should -- choose your battles.
Trump has a solution for everything, Cap. And we know how those proposals turn out.
"Northern PoV - sorry, but your opinion of Pearson is way off base."
UU: He didn't even qualify for the MPs pension. Is he back to fire-fighting?
Cap - you appear to be equating people with their government. That works in democracies, not in totalitarian states.
UU
Owen - wait for the Russian army to dissolve? That appears unlikely. But, there are many factors that may not be a good sign for Putin continuing. Maybe, his oligarchs will remove him from power. Maybe the Russian people will rise up after having so many of the young men killed for no good reason.
UU
If the army meets resistance -- they may suffer heavy casualties -- Frum suggested that they may desert, UU.
I'll let UU respond, PoV
I'll let Cap respond, UU.
Putin is a maniac. We saw that from the outset when he trashed the Chechnya capital, Grozny. His war with Georgia eight years later showed that any pro-Russia breakaway faction could count on Putin to deploy Russian military power, in the process making off with South Ossetia and Ablhazia. Then he grabbed Crimea and thumbed his nose at the world. He also aided despot Lukashenko to brutally put down the democracy movement in Belarus. Now he's repeating his success in Georgia by recognizing pro-Russian groups in Donbas and Donetzk as independent.
What most troubles me is Putin's nuclear threat that means "no first use" is off the table.
The US, meanwhile, is brokering a deal for Poland to deliver some or most of its 36 Mig-29 fighters to Ukraine to be replaced with American F-16s. Would Putin retaliate militarily against Poland, thus triggering Article 5 of the NATO charter?
I wouldn't put it past him, Mound. Clearly, cost-benefit analyses don't have any effect on Putin.
Post a Comment