The world is watching as a maniacal dictator methodically levels a country, displaces millions of citizens and attacks civilian infrastructure and lives. The Ukrainian response has been unexpected, effective and downright inspiring. To paraphrase JFK’s iconic remark in a 1963 speech in West Berlin, ich bin ein Berliner, we are all Ukrainians today.
By all accounts, the Russian military assault or war or
invasion has stalled. Their current ‘military’
strategy now appears to be that if you can’t occupy a Ukrainian city, then
destroy it. The ghastly footage is
reminiscent of newsreel footage from London in 1941, when the city was bombed
for months by another maniacal dictator. The entire world, except one country, is
aware of the deliberate targeting of maternity wards, schools, residential
neighborhoods and civilians. Of course,
the Russians deny all of this and maintain that they are liberating Ukraine
from genocide and other crimes.
The West, under the guidance of the American administration,
has responded superbly, certainly beyond expectations. Americans are united over this issue more
than any other issue in recent times. While
there are additional actions contemplated to support Ukraine and to isolate
Russia, we have generally hit all of the right notes, short of entering the
conflict directly. There are debates
over sending aircraft into Ukraine or cutting off the purchase of all Russian
energy.
Many counsel restraint so as not to escalate the situation
and risk a Russian response. But who is
the aggressor and the escalator here? Who
should be dictating the terms?
Should we hold back on certain actions because we fear the
unlawful and immoral aggressor might act out?
What will be the cost to free peoples if Ukraine is lost or
dismembered?
Does anyone maintain that if Ukraine is Russified, that
Putin’s appetite for expansion will have been satisfied?
Isn’t it easier and preferred to crush a bully sooner than
later? Had we responded differently in
2014 when Russia seized the Crimea, would we be in the current situation
now? I doubt it.
Of course, I don’t know the right answers here. I trust that seasoned professionals in a broad
coalition of nations are carefully weighing the risks and benefits of a variety of actions. But as a general principle,
I don’t support allowing a murderous aggressor to be limiting and confining our
actions to save millions of people who only seek to be free and to be left
alone. We should be restraining his actions.
Many years after the Rwandan genocide, President Bill
Clinton expressed regret for failing to respond. Years from now, will the world be issuing a similar
statement?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am posting a comment received from Berny3 opposing my view.
ReplyDeleteI just read your article about disinformation, and now I read this as an example of being taken in by the "news" on TV and internet. One major part of propaganda is not revealing important information. I would suggest that you might educate yourself about the history of the Ukraine since the fall of the USSR. Read about the Minsk Agreement, the Maiden Revolution, find out who Victoria Nuland is and her role in the overthrow of a democratically elected president. About the Azov Brigade and other neo-Nazis, their role over the past decade in the deaths of 14,000 ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass region. About why Mariupol was important as a target in this war. How the Russians have treated all the other cities, compared to how we, the U.S., treated Baghdad, Mosul and Idlib. You might remember the pot's opinion of the kettle. The way to deal with propaganda is to educate yourself.