Listening to the podcast today, I couldn't help but chime in on the Clarence Thomas issue. The argument right now seems to be about whether or not Thomas' decisions on the court were influenced by a desire to protect his wife. Amanda Carpenter argues, convincingly, that it is almost impossible to think that he didn't know about his wife's deranged adherence to conspiracies and that he was almost certainly compromised. Will was actually being a bit sympathetic to Thomas, citing how difficult it must be to publicly deal with having a mentally ill wife.
What I think we may be ignoring here is the possibility that Thomas actually buys into some of this nonsense himself.
If that seems far fetched to some, consider one possibility for why Ginni Thomas's actions in the past didn't receive more outraged scrutiny than they did. Personally, I had heard about his wife's "activism" before, but paid little attention - because it hardly struck me as surprising. To me, the idea of a compromised Clarence Thomas seems nearly indistinguishable from an uncompromised one.
Think of all of the split decisions we've seen where one or more justices vote against partisan expectations. Who is the justice you *least* expect to go against form? If there is an 8-1 decision where the liberal justices are among the eight, I don't hesitate to guess who the "1" is, and I can't remember a time where I've been wrong. If it's a 7-2 decision, it's almost a guarantee that the "2" are Thomas and Alito. I'd be open to being proven wrong on this one, but I'd also be surprised.
The point is, unless my perception is very skewed, Clarence Thomas is easily the most partisan conservative on the court, the most likely to vote in a manner which benefits the Republican Party, regardless of whether it involves being judicially conservative or judicially activist. He always seems to be the one to come up with bizarre interpretations and theories - not a terrible thing per se, if it weren't the case that they always seem to be in service of advancing Republican political goals. If some of these batshit-insane Republican lawsuits had actually made it to the Supreme Court, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see Thomas find some rationalization for supporting them.
So simply put, I see no reason to discount the possibility that Clarence Thomas not only knew about his wife's crackpottery, and tried to protect it from exposure and accountability, but that he also partially or fully supports it himself. We've seen plenty of supposedly sane and reasonable conservatives sell their souls in recent years - some without obvious political motivations and thus seemingly for the sake of their cultural standing in Republican circles. Do we really expect Clarence Thomas to be immune to this?
DO WE NEVER LEARN????? Zelenskyy is absolutely accurate here!
As for Biden's honest, exhausted, heart-felt remark: He simply spoke for EVERY SANE HUMAN ON THE PLANET! So he "said the quiet part out loud". SO WHAT?!!? It is what every single one of us is thinking! Not "I'm gonna kill him" or "We seek regime change" or even "The world would be better off if he were dead," but, simply "That monster cannot be allowed to keep the power of life and death over everyone on the planet."
Analogies are high and narrow bridges, lacking railings, and it's easy to fall off of them. I used mine only to say that we have to be the adults in this situation, and Russia is unstable, unpredictable, and behaving dangerously.
Is highly doubting that Ukraine would "win" a case of defeatism? Or realism? Even with Ukraine's surprising resistance and Russia's surprising ineptitude, Russia is tightening its grip on the southeastern part of Ukraine where they have the most interests and some populace support, and It's hard for me to imagine any scenario where Ukrainian forces could push Russia out of that part of the country once they are there. I don't believe there are sufficient Ukrainians trained in flying various planes, or even operating our most modern tanks, even if we supplied them to Ukraine. So we could give Ukraine virtually every weapons system they have requested and it's STILL doubtful that they could eject Russia from their country even if Crimea is left out of that for now. That's the unfortunate reality that the West has to deal with, I think. I certainly support supplying what Ukraine needs to maintain a sort of stalemate, which IS realistic.
Putting aside the regime change nonsense, I'm interested in the compiled critique of the "west's" (assuming that includes NATO and U.S.) response thus far. I'm seeing lots of critique with very little explanation of what else, or in addition, should be done. Can we get some focus and analysis on that going forward? Because shouting "somebody do something" is getting just as stale as some of the bromides that the "west" has been offering.
Agreed. A lot of MAGA comments I see at The Hill seesaw between the invasion would never happen under Trump (he'd just hand Zelensky over to Putin) and Biden isn't strong enough. Not one (and this includes non-MAGAs) ever say what they would/could do.
"So the choice was: Rattle Putin or discredit and weaken the President of the United States. And we know what they chose."
I've been a semi-lefty Democrat since about 1971. Dems were rather tough cookies back than and for a couple of decades thereafter. But this party has transmogrified into a bunch of milquetoasts over recent years. Afraid of Trump. Kowtowed to the left. Panties in a bunch over Putin. They've become a lazy party. All words and highfalutin speeches. Easily intimidated. Afraid of laying cards on the table and calling the bluff. Putin knows this. He's calling our bluff. And we've got zilch.
In some degree weakness plays a part but I really don't think it's the Left's fault completely. We had the last 2 decades of war...and nobody is really excited about going at it again with Russia. That being said...we are giving Putin a lot of rope to hang himself. We and the world will react, but it will never seem soon enough.
Americans are officially afraid to take on bullies who butcher innocents by the thousands because we don't believe in ourselves anymore. Our fellow citizens are SCARED SHITLESS of fighting wars against anyone who could possibly be considered a near-peer military. The Greatest Generation ought to be rolling in their graves right now. Do we think people like Putin will just melt away in the years ahead if we don't go in and break his nose open in front of the whole world? What WORLD are these people living in? By dodging this fight now, we're guaranteed to kick the fight down the road to our children. That's what pissing in your pants does. It passes the buck onto somebody else at some other place and time. I am *embarrassed* to consider myself an American right now. This country is full of decadent bed-wetters who couldn't be bothered with making personal sacrifices on behalf of democracy-preservation. No wonder we don't have a draft anymore. Decadence killed duty decades ago and it's showing now even more than in the post-9/11 space when we relied on recycling combat veterans to fight the same war over and over again for 20 years because all the able-bodied men were off getting laid in college and not thinking about things like national duty and societal sacrifice. It's the same now. We haven't changed at all since 9/11. We're still a very decadent nation when it comes to fighting. The fact that our military runs on a contract system you can't un-volunteer from shows you just how hard it is to pull people into the military and retain them there. Nobody in America wants to serve. Nobody in America wants to fight. Putin LOVES that dynamic. It's where his blank check on war-criming comes from: our decadent softness and general war-aversion.
After decades of believing I was a pacifist, I've been finding myself changing my position for a number of years. Maybe because I've been reading/writing a little about WW2 resistance to Hitler. Iraq was a godawful mistake that should never have happened (and I thought as much back then), but getting rid of the Taliban wasn't. During Vietnam, I was a hawk that turned pacifist as the war continued. I'm a woman, so the draft back then was never an issue for me. And I was glad the US got rid of it. But, as you said, times have changed. Americans did grow weak (woke culture is one example and both sides do it!), so weak that a fake man like Trump could take over, and is still in control of his party. Now, I find myself on the side of re-instituting the draft for military or something like Peace Corps service, as other countries do for men AND women. Are there problems in the military? God, yes. But if the politicians insist on starting wars and refusing to have Americans pay for it (in taxes, blood, commitment, sacrifice of any kind - the horror of our gas going up because the oil companies want to gouge us, so do something!) How many of you think our current population would be fighting as the Ukrainians are doing? Remember, a few weeks ago, Kiev and the other cities were no different from OUR cities. MAGAs complain about BLM and riots - but Russia invading the Ukraine - they shrug.
I've gone back and forth myself, having been mostly anti-war after Iraq/Afghanistan, but Ukraine is a very different kind of conflict from those ones in principle, practice, and potential fallout. This time around I see a greater cost in our inaction than in our action, the irony is that our over-reaction to 9/11 is what has drained us of the necessary political capital to support a new war elsewhere. Putin knew this sentiment was there and that he could capitalize on it. He was ultimately right in the end and the proof is in the national distancing from any new conflicts save for us getting attacked again I guess. This precedent will create more enemies and make them bolder in the future once they sense weakness in the air the way a shark sniffs out blood. That's how folks like Trump and Putin wait for "their moment" when the water is nice and warm and the men are nice and weak. When they know in advance that they'll get away with it because they have nukes or because the west is soft or whatever. "When you're a star they let you do it." This is how *predators* in general think, and this is how they apply leverage and alleviate risk when they need to to get what they want.
I don't think US overreacted to 9/11 as much as Bush overreached by pulling out of A'stan before the job was done, to go after Saddam in Iraq because he wanted to (speaking of regime change). That set the costly bloody failures over there. And it wasn't as though we couldn't see it coming, cuz it was easy to see if you looked. Just like it is easy to see now if you are willing to look. Nation of Ostrich? (BTW, we got Trump because, in part, the GOP spent decades dumbing down public education, removing Civics classes, not teaching the basics even, and Dems wanted school to be about social justice instead of STEM apparently. I guess servant classes don't need much edumacation.)
I'd say that the outcome of *any* conflict is unknown from the start, but the same could be said in the direction of *inaction*. Wouldn't we be *assuming* that our stance of inaction wouldn't cause some unknown horrors to happen in the future? I'd say it's just as dangerous to get rather imaginative in one direction and rather unimaginative in the other.
What I *do* know is the nature of bullies and people comfortable with levels of violence that others are not. I have grown up and lived in that environment, and I have seen the costs of setting weak precedents that seem small at first and come to be the first domino in something much larger. "The appetite grows with the eating" as the Russian saying goes. Give a mouse a cookie today, who knows how tall that glass of milk will be tomorrow. This doesn't end with Ukraine or even Europe because this is about what The West is willing to do/not do and what kind of blood that puts in the water for the men who will follow in Putin's shoes. We live in the world we create folks.
I served for 30 years in the military. I don't agree with you at all.
What we're afraid of is an unnecessary thermo-nuclear war...and we should be. What we are doing is bleeding Putin dry while maintaining a coalition of countries against Putin/Russia.
It may very well turn into a nuclear showdown...and that's where I think this heading...but I'm not in favor of hurrying to this conflict.
Kuwait '91ing all of Putin's forces inside of Ukraine does not necessitate a nuclear showdown, and deterrence works both ways. Did we end up in a "nuclear showdown" when we wasted 400 Russian Vagner mercs in Syria? No. You can have conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed powers without any such "nuclear showdowns" ever taking place--see Pakistan & India constantly shooting it out over Kashmir among other areas.
How many other bloodthirsty dictators are going to be clammering to get their hands on nuclear weapons once Putin has showed the world exactly what one can get away with simply for possessing nukes? The risk-aversion for conventional conflict against a nuclear-armed actor is going to do *wonders* for nuclear proliferation in the future, and it will be because we incentivized it today, here, now. When the next guy who is less-rational than Putin gets a new nuclear arms program, it'll be because we showed them how scared we were today, remember that.
You are comparing Syria to what is occurring in Ukraine? Syria was in the Middle East as opposed to Russia's doorstep. In Syria, Putin never made the proclamation he made with Ukraine...that he was going to invade and topple a sovereign country. With Ukraine, we have 100,000+ Russian soldiers involved...not a handful of Mercs. With Syria...it was initially started by the Arab Spring and became an internal civil war that ended up spreading across the region.
In short, I find very little to be analogous about the 2 separate conflicts. Further, to use Syria as an example of why it's OK for nuclear armed countries to be in a conventional weapon conflict is on the edge of being dangerously reckless in your logic.
Yes...it sucks....but it could suck a lot worse and I'm afraid you would be pushing the US to find this out and quickly regret not being more patient.
It wasn't a comparison, just an example of how nuclear-armed adversaries can go kinetic without going nuclear. As the list of countries with nuclear weapons grow, more and more examples of them going kinetic without going nuclear abound. Pakistan-India was the other example I cited, and they go kinetic against each other *constantly* and they live next to each other. Want to address that aspect of the argument?
Why is it that some nuclear-armed nations can go kinetic without going nuclear but somehow US/Russia *must* go nuclear if it ever went kinetic. The history of nuclear-on-nuclear state conflicts speaks otherwise. In fact, it's only ever been nuclear-armed nations using them against unarmed ones according to the history (we're the only ones who've used them).
I'm sorry and not trying to be contrarian for contrarian's sake...
If you give me examples...I take that as comparisons....but whatever you wish to call it...I'll respond:
Pakistan - India...if one of them declared that they intended to invade and takeover the other....and lined up 100,000 soldiers with thousands of tracked vehicles on the border...ready to invade...
Do you not think that that is an ENTIRELY different situation vs. skirmishes about Kashmir or whatever?
If you want apples-to-apples...that's the equivalent scenario.
I gave you examples of nuclear-armed nations going kinetic without going nuclear, then you countered by stating that it's apples-to-oranges with Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia. I agree. Not the same at all. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. Maybe don't compare nuclear vs nuclear nation conflicts to nuclear vs non-nuclear nation conflict I guess? Like, what's Ukraine going to escalate to? We were talking about US v Russia *within* the context of the Ukraine fight remember? That's nuclear power vs nuclear power. Ukraine vs Russia is not.
Is Iran *more* likely or *less* likely to seek nukes now that we've shown them how timid we are with nuclear-armed nations after we just went in and wasted the head of the Iranian IRGC while he was visiting Iraq?
Because we're actively telling them that we don't touch nuclear-armed Putin for X while simultaneously telling them that we'll kill whoever in their government we want to because they don't have nukes. That's the message we're sending them *right now*.
Currently...it might be a "pro" but if we continue to ratchet up sanctions and if they lead to Putin's downfall because his country revolts...then they might be a "con".
I'm all for defeating Putin, but I think it's wise to not fast-track it to a pure NATO/West military response for many sound reasons having to do with gaining more unity, allowing Putin to further prove how much a pariah he is to the world and seeing how effective the non-kinetics can be...when his oligarchs are included in the pain.
Not perfect I know...but the risk is real if we get ahead of ourselves on this and an "accident" happens triggering a really bad situation...that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a minor incident.
1) I assure you that I've been closer to death than you have, and there are things other than radiation that can linger on the battlefield long after even conventional conflicts end (ask me about digging up American-made DPICMs and anti-tank mines in Iraq). Just think about how many Ukrainian kids will be stepping on cluster munitions and landmines for decades to come the longer the Ukrainian conflict goes on.
2) We firebombed over 50% of some 60+ Japanese cities--intentionally targeting civilians and selecting incendiary munitions over traditional ones because Japanese homes were made of wood--and created "firestorms" on the ground that engulfed hundreds of thousands in single nights (100k+ dead in Tokyo in a singular bombing for example). By the time we wasted the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki we were sparing lives, not taking more than what would have already been lost by other more costly means for both sides. The way we saw it, we were done trading American lives for Japanese ones. It was time for them to throw in the towel, and that's the message Hirohito took away after we sent him that message wasn't it? So weird how speaking violently to violent actors tends to deliver a message. Just took us a good long time and a lot of people dead to finally get there. Wonder how long it will take this time.
Thanks for this Charlie. I was dismayed by the walk back. As I am dismayed, disheartened and discouraged by all the NATO countries pussy-footing around Putin. Scared to piss him off. Well, you know what?!? I AM PISSED OFF! We all should be!
Zelensky is correct: We are ALREADY in the beginning of WW3... Just look at the news. It has begun.
If Putin is deranged enough to drop a nuke later, then he's deranged enough to drop it now. He is a rabid dog and needs to be put down either by dying, or by arresting, or by a violent overthrow by the Russian people.
I wish to God Biden's WH had not tried to tiptoe backwards out of the room. When Biden makes a "gaffe" it's usually because he's telling the truth, in an unpolitic way.
Biden was correct in the first place: Putin must not be allowed to remain in power. It's time we go into Ukraine to protect the innocent, and be as brave as the Ukrainian people. Putin is why the world cannot have nice things.
BTW... giving in to the demands of a psychopath only encourages them... it does NOT stop their bad behavior.
NATO is trying to sacrifice Ukraine to keep themselves safe. But it won't work. They need to go in en masse and put an end to the slaughter. Shame on us for trying to use the Ukrainian people as a shield. We are sacrificing them on the altar of fear.
I'm frustrated too, but I think saying that NATO is using Ukraine as a shield is not completely accurate. In order to get a coaltion of countries together in a meaningful way takes time and cooperation. If you go too fast and too soon....you risk losing the coalation.
I'm guessing that there's coming a time where Putin ups the ante with an egregious use of WMD's or just out-an-out firing squads killing Ukrainians or something...and the world is going to say "enough!" and will start issuing Putin some ultimatums. The coalition will be strong and unified and if he doesn't back down at that point...then the world will do something about it...with the US and NATO leading the charge.
Okay. But it appears that the Ukrainian people and Pres. Zelensky are the only ones fighting and dying for Democracy. I find that morally questionable at best. And I think to tiptoe around a bully is the surest way to piss him off, which is what leads to escalation. Punching him roundly will make the bully back off... Didn't you ever watch any popular teen movies? (that was rhetorical) Who knows what will happen? Probably not even Putin.
The sanctions are probably a bigger punch then you are giving them credit for...especially if it starts impacting his oligarchs. There's already been some rumbling about them not being too happy with this invasion.
As someone who is interested in language and words and their power of communication among ourselves, and therefore a proponent for naming things properly, the recent descriptions of Vladimir Putin as "the world's bloodiest terrorist" are, I think, absolutely 100% spot on correct. Technically, he is indeed a "head of state". But in reality (and more importantly) his actions in Ukraine are in my opinion concrete evidence of the validity of the "terrorist" appellation. And going forward, that is how he should be thought of. He may indeed be the top political dog and the "leader" in Russia, but Osama bin Laden was the top dog and leader of Al-Qaeda. And while the details of their motivations for their actions may differ, the only other substantial difference between them is that Putin has the resources of a large country, a large standing army and nuclear weapons at his disposal, and bin-Laden did not. Beyond the direct military-on-military actions Putin's forces are engaging in in Ukraine, not one thing they are doing there can properly be considered as war-making. It is terrorism. State conducted terrorism. Not military action. Not war. Terrorism. Period.
So, let's start calling this slaughter and bloodshed what it is. And the man who is propagating it what he is. And let's quit agonizing over the fact that the leader of the United States said out loud what all have been too timid to say up until that point. Does anyone really, truly believe that Putin doesn't already know - and has known for a very long time - that if the West had a button connected to some magical weapon that could remove him from power without the risk of a huge conflagration ensuing that there wouldn't be a dog fight to see who could get their finger on that button first? And does anyone believe he isn't perfectly cognizant of the deterrent effect of his nuclear arsenal? And does anyone actually believe that he felt more threatened the day after those words were spoken than the day before? I guess some do. And there are no doubt cadres of experts continuing to consider that very question as I write this. But from where I sit, as an admitted non-expert on statecraft or geopolitics, this is all bullshit. And the sooner we gather it up and dump it in the compost pile where it belongs, the better. Are you listening, CNN et al? Of course not. Wouldn't be good for ratings, would it?
We can argue all day long about what should or shouldn't be done to defend - or at least help to defend - Ukraine from what has now become an act of state directed terrorism in furtherance of a political goal. We can debate what has been done rightly, and what has been done wrongly. But let's flush this debate about Biden's words down the toilet where it belongs. Let those words stand as the expression of what all of us who believe in and cherish freedom and liberty - wherever in the world we live - are truly thinking in our heart of hearts, regardless of our views on tactics or levels of involvement of our respective governments and countries. Because by doing so we can say that if nothing else, we at least got that right.
All these stars at the Oscars are SHOCKED SHOCKED at Will Smith's slap and cursing of Chris Rock? Have they noticed the behavior of their peers when the cameras aren't rolling, the fancy dresses and jewels are sent back to wardrobe? And the Academy doesn't condone violence? It's apparently ok in the films they promote, just not ok when they're on camera being "normal people" in an audience.
Establish a no-fly zone in stages. First stage, any Russian plane west of (an easily definable boundary just west of where the farthest western advance of Russian ground forces are) will be shot down. Move in allied operated air defense systems up to this boundary. Allied combat air patrols orbit the western part of Ukraine. Allied ground and logistics units take up positions in western Ukraine. See what happens.
Your warning to the West is exactly right. Ukraine has battled the "mighty" Russian military to a stalemate with minimal defense against attack from the air and sea. If it loses the war, this commenter, a life-long Democrat, will no longer be able to support Joe Biden. I am sure many other Democrats, already deeply unhappy about the manner of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, are likely to abandon him, too. Give Zelenski the d___n planes already! That's just for a start. Anne Applebaum says correctly that our side needs to focus on the objective, which is that Ukraine wins.
That's fine, Nancy. But if you would trade a Joe Biden you're disappointed in for a Trump who will kill you as soon as look at you a la Putin, and finish off the Republic for a lifetime authoritariansim, I think that's a wrong choice. Just my 2 cents.
Lay the blame for the Afghanistan withdrawal where it belongs - Trump for selling out to the Taliban, Trump for gutting the special visa program that included Afghanis who helped the US, Trump who decided that Muslims and the like were persona non grata in the US, Afghanis who, unlike the Ukrainians, refused to fight, and American idiots who were told to leave months before and still stayed there. I'm sorry, but Biden was handed a bad hand and did the best he could. And if you don't support/vote for him, then you can kiss the US goodbye for a very long time.
Agree with everything in your comment. Except for the last sentence. If Ukraine doesn't win--if Putin is allowed to destroy democracy there and to do it by getting away with genocide--we can kiss our country good-bye.
Russia has already lost the war. They will not take Kiev. Karkiev also seems out of reach. An assault on Odessa is unlikely at this point. Russia reached the high water mark of its invasion weeks ago. They are making few advances and are being pushed back from Kiev.
The Russian military is hemorrhaging men and equipment at an astounding rate. Per Oryx (@oryxspioenkop) Russia has lost at least 2200 vehicles and other pieces of heavy military equipment. The true number is higher as Oryx only uses video confirmation to compile it's numbers.
How bad is it? Well, just this morning I saw pictures of "technicals" with white Z's painted on them. For those who don't know, a technical is a small pick-up truck with a heavy gun mounted in the bed. These are typically seen in use by rebel groups with few resources.
NATO places the Russian casulties at 40,000. This undoubtedly includes many deserters. I've seen reports that Russia is pulling units back into Russia and Belorussia due to their taking heavy losses. One unit reportedly drove an armored vehicle over its commander after it lost many men in action Morale has to be very low.
Putin, if he is getting accurate information, has to know he cannot take all of Ukraine. He knows he cannot remove Zalinksky from power. These were the original goals. If the Russian army does not collapse in the field (Not likely, but not impossible either) the strategy now is to try to finish taking Mariupol and then consolidate Russian holdings in Southeast Ukraine.
What then? Maybe Putin declares victory and spins this whole disaster into a success for the Russian people. Does Ukraine and the West accept this loss of territory as a price to stop the bombing of civilians?
If so, do the sanctions continue? Despite the criticism, they will wreak havoc on the Russian economy. Does Putin ever have to answer for his war crimes? Does he get to stay in power? These are issues in play as the war winds down.
So, probably, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. (ok at least partly tongue in cheek). Seriously, the only off ramp I can see is giving up Donbas and Crimea. But I am wondering how much of Russia's failing "war" is due to Russian soldiers just not fighting, or walking away. It seems they were lied to and not happy about it. It could be a fair percentage, on top of poor training and the fact that generals apparently skimmed the cash for new equipment etc. and bought themselves yachts.
I think its time for Biden to say something like - "If Putin uses chemical or nuclear weapons, the U.S. will designate him a state terrorist along with any government officials complicit in such action and will use all resources at our disposal to eliminate them as we have done with other terrorists in the past." The only way to potentially deter WMD based war crimes is to make it clear that Russian leaders will pay the ultimate personal price. If Putin, or anyone in his regime, is on the fence about using WMDs then a powerful stance that is clear about the consequences has a chance of preventing them. Also, I can't imagine a scenario where such a statement would be the escalation that would cause Putin to use them, so I believe its a fairly safe ploy in terms of not triggering WWIII. Thoughts?
Even though it's not that reasonable at this point, the hangover from the middle east in the US and other NATO countries continues. Putin knows this because he's done quite a bit to help nurse it. I'm not sure what the answer here is, but it's going to take a while to break the delusion that countries the West can be for protectionism and isolation with everything else staying the same.
Listening to the podcast today, I couldn't help but chime in on the Clarence Thomas issue. The argument right now seems to be about whether or not Thomas' decisions on the court were influenced by a desire to protect his wife. Amanda Carpenter argues, convincingly, that it is almost impossible to think that he didn't know about his wife's deranged adherence to conspiracies and that he was almost certainly compromised. Will was actually being a bit sympathetic to Thomas, citing how difficult it must be to publicly deal with having a mentally ill wife.
What I think we may be ignoring here is the possibility that Thomas actually buys into some of this nonsense himself.
If that seems far fetched to some, consider one possibility for why Ginni Thomas's actions in the past didn't receive more outraged scrutiny than they did. Personally, I had heard about his wife's "activism" before, but paid little attention - because it hardly struck me as surprising. To me, the idea of a compromised Clarence Thomas seems nearly indistinguishable from an uncompromised one.
Think of all of the split decisions we've seen where one or more justices vote against partisan expectations. Who is the justice you *least* expect to go against form? If there is an 8-1 decision where the liberal justices are among the eight, I don't hesitate to guess who the "1" is, and I can't remember a time where I've been wrong. If it's a 7-2 decision, it's almost a guarantee that the "2" are Thomas and Alito. I'd be open to being proven wrong on this one, but I'd also be surprised.
The point is, unless my perception is very skewed, Clarence Thomas is easily the most partisan conservative on the court, the most likely to vote in a manner which benefits the Republican Party, regardless of whether it involves being judicially conservative or judicially activist. He always seems to be the one to come up with bizarre interpretations and theories - not a terrible thing per se, if it weren't the case that they always seem to be in service of advancing Republican political goals. If some of these batshit-insane Republican lawsuits had actually made it to the Supreme Court, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see Thomas find some rationalization for supporting them.
So simply put, I see no reason to discount the possibility that Clarence Thomas not only knew about his wife's crackpottery, and tried to protect it from exposure and accountability, but that he also partially or fully supports it himself. We've seen plenty of supposedly sane and reasonable conservatives sell their souls in recent years - some without obvious political motivations and thus seemingly for the sake of their cultural standing in Republican circles. Do we really expect Clarence Thomas to be immune to this?
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
DO WE NEVER LEARN????? Zelenskyy is absolutely accurate here!
As for Biden's honest, exhausted, heart-felt remark: He simply spoke for EVERY SANE HUMAN ON THE PLANET! So he "said the quiet part out loud". SO WHAT?!!? It is what every single one of us is thinking! Not "I'm gonna kill him" or "We seek regime change" or even "The world would be better off if he were dead," but, simply "That monster cannot be allowed to keep the power of life and death over everyone on the planet."
Analogies are high and narrow bridges, lacking railings, and it's easy to fall off of them. I used mine only to say that we have to be the adults in this situation, and Russia is unstable, unpredictable, and behaving dangerously.
Is highly doubting that Ukraine would "win" a case of defeatism? Or realism? Even with Ukraine's surprising resistance and Russia's surprising ineptitude, Russia is tightening its grip on the southeastern part of Ukraine where they have the most interests and some populace support, and It's hard for me to imagine any scenario where Ukrainian forces could push Russia out of that part of the country once they are there. I don't believe there are sufficient Ukrainians trained in flying various planes, or even operating our most modern tanks, even if we supplied them to Ukraine. So we could give Ukraine virtually every weapons system they have requested and it's STILL doubtful that they could eject Russia from their country even if Crimea is left out of that for now. That's the unfortunate reality that the West has to deal with, I think. I certainly support supplying what Ukraine needs to maintain a sort of stalemate, which IS realistic.
Putting aside the regime change nonsense, I'm interested in the compiled critique of the "west's" (assuming that includes NATO and U.S.) response thus far. I'm seeing lots of critique with very little explanation of what else, or in addition, should be done. Can we get some focus and analysis on that going forward? Because shouting "somebody do something" is getting just as stale as some of the bromides that the "west" has been offering.
Agreed. A lot of MAGA comments I see at The Hill seesaw between the invasion would never happen under Trump (he'd just hand Zelensky over to Putin) and Biden isn't strong enough. Not one (and this includes non-MAGAs) ever say what they would/could do.
"So the choice was: Rattle Putin or discredit and weaken the President of the United States. And we know what they chose."
I've been a semi-lefty Democrat since about 1971. Dems were rather tough cookies back than and for a couple of decades thereafter. But this party has transmogrified into a bunch of milquetoasts over recent years. Afraid of Trump. Kowtowed to the left. Panties in a bunch over Putin. They've become a lazy party. All words and highfalutin speeches. Easily intimidated. Afraid of laying cards on the table and calling the bluff. Putin knows this. He's calling our bluff. And we've got zilch.
Meanwhile in Ukraine......
In some degree weakness plays a part but I really don't think it's the Left's fault completely. We had the last 2 decades of war...and nobody is really excited about going at it again with Russia. That being said...we are giving Putin a lot of rope to hang himself. We and the world will react, but it will never seem soon enough.
Americans are officially afraid to take on bullies who butcher innocents by the thousands because we don't believe in ourselves anymore. Our fellow citizens are SCARED SHITLESS of fighting wars against anyone who could possibly be considered a near-peer military. The Greatest Generation ought to be rolling in their graves right now. Do we think people like Putin will just melt away in the years ahead if we don't go in and break his nose open in front of the whole world? What WORLD are these people living in? By dodging this fight now, we're guaranteed to kick the fight down the road to our children. That's what pissing in your pants does. It passes the buck onto somebody else at some other place and time. I am *embarrassed* to consider myself an American right now. This country is full of decadent bed-wetters who couldn't be bothered with making personal sacrifices on behalf of democracy-preservation. No wonder we don't have a draft anymore. Decadence killed duty decades ago and it's showing now even more than in the post-9/11 space when we relied on recycling combat veterans to fight the same war over and over again for 20 years because all the able-bodied men were off getting laid in college and not thinking about things like national duty and societal sacrifice. It's the same now. We haven't changed at all since 9/11. We're still a very decadent nation when it comes to fighting. The fact that our military runs on a contract system you can't un-volunteer from shows you just how hard it is to pull people into the military and retain them there. Nobody in America wants to serve. Nobody in America wants to fight. Putin LOVES that dynamic. It's where his blank check on war-criming comes from: our decadent softness and general war-aversion.
After decades of believing I was a pacifist, I've been finding myself changing my position for a number of years. Maybe because I've been reading/writing a little about WW2 resistance to Hitler. Iraq was a godawful mistake that should never have happened (and I thought as much back then), but getting rid of the Taliban wasn't. During Vietnam, I was a hawk that turned pacifist as the war continued. I'm a woman, so the draft back then was never an issue for me. And I was glad the US got rid of it. But, as you said, times have changed. Americans did grow weak (woke culture is one example and both sides do it!), so weak that a fake man like Trump could take over, and is still in control of his party. Now, I find myself on the side of re-instituting the draft for military or something like Peace Corps service, as other countries do for men AND women. Are there problems in the military? God, yes. But if the politicians insist on starting wars and refusing to have Americans pay for it (in taxes, blood, commitment, sacrifice of any kind - the horror of our gas going up because the oil companies want to gouge us, so do something!) How many of you think our current population would be fighting as the Ukrainians are doing? Remember, a few weeks ago, Kiev and the other cities were no different from OUR cities. MAGAs complain about BLM and riots - but Russia invading the Ukraine - they shrug.
I've gone back and forth myself, having been mostly anti-war after Iraq/Afghanistan, but Ukraine is a very different kind of conflict from those ones in principle, practice, and potential fallout. This time around I see a greater cost in our inaction than in our action, the irony is that our over-reaction to 9/11 is what has drained us of the necessary political capital to support a new war elsewhere. Putin knew this sentiment was there and that he could capitalize on it. He was ultimately right in the end and the proof is in the national distancing from any new conflicts save for us getting attacked again I guess. This precedent will create more enemies and make them bolder in the future once they sense weakness in the air the way a shark sniffs out blood. That's how folks like Trump and Putin wait for "their moment" when the water is nice and warm and the men are nice and weak. When they know in advance that they'll get away with it because they have nukes or because the west is soft or whatever. "When you're a star they let you do it." This is how *predators* in general think, and this is how they apply leverage and alleviate risk when they need to to get what they want.
I don't think US overreacted to 9/11 as much as Bush overreached by pulling out of A'stan before the job was done, to go after Saddam in Iraq because he wanted to (speaking of regime change). That set the costly bloody failures over there. And it wasn't as though we couldn't see it coming, cuz it was easy to see if you looked. Just like it is easy to see now if you are willing to look. Nation of Ostrich? (BTW, we got Trump because, in part, the GOP spent decades dumbing down public education, removing Civics classes, not teaching the basics even, and Dems wanted school to be about social justice instead of STEM apparently. I guess servant classes don't need much edumacation.)
Travis I don't disagree with anything you wrote on this post, but I will mention that the outcome of this current conflict is unknown.
What if we find out that a coalition of countries and economies can cause more damage to Russia than beating them militarily in Ukraine?
I feel like you are espousing that we've already lost because we're playing the long game. Are you so sure of the outcome of a short-game strategy?
I'd say that the outcome of *any* conflict is unknown from the start, but the same could be said in the direction of *inaction*. Wouldn't we be *assuming* that our stance of inaction wouldn't cause some unknown horrors to happen in the future? I'd say it's just as dangerous to get rather imaginative in one direction and rather unimaginative in the other.
What I *do* know is the nature of bullies and people comfortable with levels of violence that others are not. I have grown up and lived in that environment, and I have seen the costs of setting weak precedents that seem small at first and come to be the first domino in something much larger. "The appetite grows with the eating" as the Russian saying goes. Give a mouse a cookie today, who knows how tall that glass of milk will be tomorrow. This doesn't end with Ukraine or even Europe because this is about what The West is willing to do/not do and what kind of blood that puts in the water for the men who will follow in Putin's shoes. We live in the world we create folks.
Don't you think that's why Biden is working so hard to firm the line in the sand at NATO borders? Ukraine is kind of a sacrifice?
I served for 30 years in the military. I don't agree with you at all.
What we're afraid of is an unnecessary thermo-nuclear war...and we should be. What we are doing is bleeding Putin dry while maintaining a coalition of countries against Putin/Russia.
It may very well turn into a nuclear showdown...and that's where I think this heading...but I'm not in favor of hurrying to this conflict.
Kuwait '91ing all of Putin's forces inside of Ukraine does not necessitate a nuclear showdown, and deterrence works both ways. Did we end up in a "nuclear showdown" when we wasted 400 Russian Vagner mercs in Syria? No. You can have conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed powers without any such "nuclear showdowns" ever taking place--see Pakistan & India constantly shooting it out over Kashmir among other areas.
How many other bloodthirsty dictators are going to be clammering to get their hands on nuclear weapons once Putin has showed the world exactly what one can get away with simply for possessing nukes? The risk-aversion for conventional conflict against a nuclear-armed actor is going to do *wonders* for nuclear proliferation in the future, and it will be because we incentivized it today, here, now. When the next guy who is less-rational than Putin gets a new nuclear arms program, it'll be because we showed them how scared we were today, remember that.
That's a really good point. Scary.
You are comparing Syria to what is occurring in Ukraine? Syria was in the Middle East as opposed to Russia's doorstep. In Syria, Putin never made the proclamation he made with Ukraine...that he was going to invade and topple a sovereign country. With Ukraine, we have 100,000+ Russian soldiers involved...not a handful of Mercs. With Syria...it was initially started by the Arab Spring and became an internal civil war that ended up spreading across the region.
In short, I find very little to be analogous about the 2 separate conflicts. Further, to use Syria as an example of why it's OK for nuclear armed countries to be in a conventional weapon conflict is on the edge of being dangerously reckless in your logic.
Yes...it sucks....but it could suck a lot worse and I'm afraid you would be pushing the US to find this out and quickly regret not being more patient.
It wasn't a comparison, just an example of how nuclear-armed adversaries can go kinetic without going nuclear. As the list of countries with nuclear weapons grow, more and more examples of them going kinetic without going nuclear abound. Pakistan-India was the other example I cited, and they go kinetic against each other *constantly* and they live next to each other. Want to address that aspect of the argument?
Why is it that some nuclear-armed nations can go kinetic without going nuclear but somehow US/Russia *must* go nuclear if it ever went kinetic. The history of nuclear-on-nuclear state conflicts speaks otherwise. In fact, it's only ever been nuclear-armed nations using them against unarmed ones according to the history (we're the only ones who've used them).
I'm sorry and not trying to be contrarian for contrarian's sake...
If you give me examples...I take that as comparisons....but whatever you wish to call it...I'll respond:
Pakistan - India...if one of them declared that they intended to invade and takeover the other....and lined up 100,000 soldiers with thousands of tracked vehicles on the border...ready to invade...
Do you not think that that is an ENTIRELY different situation vs. skirmishes about Kashmir or whatever?
If you want apples-to-apples...that's the equivalent scenario.
I gave you examples of nuclear-armed nations going kinetic without going nuclear, then you countered by stating that it's apples-to-oranges with Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia. I agree. Not the same at all. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. Maybe don't compare nuclear vs nuclear nation conflicts to nuclear vs non-nuclear nation conflict I guess? Like, what's Ukraine going to escalate to? We were talking about US v Russia *within* the context of the Ukraine fight remember? That's nuclear power vs nuclear power. Ukraine vs Russia is not.
That's why Kim has his nukes.
Yes it is, but stating that fact, doesn't resolve it. We are actively attempting to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
The point remains...possessing Nukes is a factor in our thinking when considering militarily engagements against these countries.
Why wouldn't it be? It seems foolish to not have this as a consideration and as a moderating factor in our responses to them.
Is Iran *more* likely or *less* likely to seek nukes now that we've shown them how timid we are with nuclear-armed nations after we just went in and wasted the head of the Iranian IRGC while he was visiting Iraq?
Because we're actively telling them that we don't touch nuclear-armed Putin for X while simultaneously telling them that we'll kill whoever in their government we want to because they don't have nukes. That's the message we're sending them *right now*.
Currently...it might be a "pro" but if we continue to ratchet up sanctions and if they lead to Putin's downfall because his country revolts...then they might be a "con".
I'm all for defeating Putin, but I think it's wise to not fast-track it to a pure NATO/West military response for many sound reasons having to do with gaining more unity, allowing Putin to further prove how much a pariah he is to the world and seeing how effective the non-kinetics can be...when his oligarchs are included in the pain.
Not perfect I know...but the risk is real if we get ahead of ourselves on this and an "accident" happens triggering a really bad situation...that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a minor incident.
The main topic of conversation this morning is if it is okay for one multi-millionaire to slap another multi-millionaire in public. That's decadence.
1) I assure you that I've been closer to death than you have, and there are things other than radiation that can linger on the battlefield long after even conventional conflicts end (ask me about digging up American-made DPICMs and anti-tank mines in Iraq). Just think about how many Ukrainian kids will be stepping on cluster munitions and landmines for decades to come the longer the Ukrainian conflict goes on.
2) We firebombed over 50% of some 60+ Japanese cities--intentionally targeting civilians and selecting incendiary munitions over traditional ones because Japanese homes were made of wood--and created "firestorms" on the ground that engulfed hundreds of thousands in single nights (100k+ dead in Tokyo in a singular bombing for example). By the time we wasted the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki we were sparing lives, not taking more than what would have already been lost by other more costly means for both sides. The way we saw it, we were done trading American lives for Japanese ones. It was time for them to throw in the towel, and that's the message Hirohito took away after we sent him that message wasn't it? So weird how speaking violently to violent actors tends to deliver a message. Just took us a good long time and a lot of people dead to finally get there. Wonder how long it will take this time.
Thanks for this Charlie. I was dismayed by the walk back. As I am dismayed, disheartened and discouraged by all the NATO countries pussy-footing around Putin. Scared to piss him off. Well, you know what?!? I AM PISSED OFF! We all should be!
Zelensky is correct: We are ALREADY in the beginning of WW3... Just look at the news. It has begun.
If Putin is deranged enough to drop a nuke later, then he's deranged enough to drop it now. He is a rabid dog and needs to be put down either by dying, or by arresting, or by a violent overthrow by the Russian people.
I wish to God Biden's WH had not tried to tiptoe backwards out of the room. When Biden makes a "gaffe" it's usually because he's telling the truth, in an unpolitic way.
Biden was correct in the first place: Putin must not be allowed to remain in power. It's time we go into Ukraine to protect the innocent, and be as brave as the Ukrainian people. Putin is why the world cannot have nice things.
BTW... giving in to the demands of a psychopath only encourages them... it does NOT stop their bad behavior.
NATO is trying to sacrifice Ukraine to keep themselves safe. But it won't work. They need to go in en masse and put an end to the slaughter. Shame on us for trying to use the Ukrainian people as a shield. We are sacrificing them on the altar of fear.
I'm frustrated too, but I think saying that NATO is using Ukraine as a shield is not completely accurate. In order to get a coaltion of countries together in a meaningful way takes time and cooperation. If you go too fast and too soon....you risk losing the coalation.
I'm guessing that there's coming a time where Putin ups the ante with an egregious use of WMD's or just out-an-out firing squads killing Ukrainians or something...and the world is going to say "enough!" and will start issuing Putin some ultimatums. The coalition will be strong and unified and if he doesn't back down at that point...then the world will do something about it...with the US and NATO leading the charge.
Okay. But it appears that the Ukrainian people and Pres. Zelensky are the only ones fighting and dying for Democracy. I find that morally questionable at best. And I think to tiptoe around a bully is the surest way to piss him off, which is what leads to escalation. Punching him roundly will make the bully back off... Didn't you ever watch any popular teen movies? (that was rhetorical) Who knows what will happen? Probably not even Putin.
The sanctions are probably a bigger punch then you are giving them credit for...especially if it starts impacting his oligarchs. There's already been some rumbling about them not being too happy with this invasion.
I hope they find a way to remove him from power.
As someone who is interested in language and words and their power of communication among ourselves, and therefore a proponent for naming things properly, the recent descriptions of Vladimir Putin as "the world's bloodiest terrorist" are, I think, absolutely 100% spot on correct. Technically, he is indeed a "head of state". But in reality (and more importantly) his actions in Ukraine are in my opinion concrete evidence of the validity of the "terrorist" appellation. And going forward, that is how he should be thought of. He may indeed be the top political dog and the "leader" in Russia, but Osama bin Laden was the top dog and leader of Al-Qaeda. And while the details of their motivations for their actions may differ, the only other substantial difference between them is that Putin has the resources of a large country, a large standing army and nuclear weapons at his disposal, and bin-Laden did not. Beyond the direct military-on-military actions Putin's forces are engaging in in Ukraine, not one thing they are doing there can properly be considered as war-making. It is terrorism. State conducted terrorism. Not military action. Not war. Terrorism. Period.
So, let's start calling this slaughter and bloodshed what it is. And the man who is propagating it what he is. And let's quit agonizing over the fact that the leader of the United States said out loud what all have been too timid to say up until that point. Does anyone really, truly believe that Putin doesn't already know - and has known for a very long time - that if the West had a button connected to some magical weapon that could remove him from power without the risk of a huge conflagration ensuing that there wouldn't be a dog fight to see who could get their finger on that button first? And does anyone believe he isn't perfectly cognizant of the deterrent effect of his nuclear arsenal? And does anyone actually believe that he felt more threatened the day after those words were spoken than the day before? I guess some do. And there are no doubt cadres of experts continuing to consider that very question as I write this. But from where I sit, as an admitted non-expert on statecraft or geopolitics, this is all bullshit. And the sooner we gather it up and dump it in the compost pile where it belongs, the better. Are you listening, CNN et al? Of course not. Wouldn't be good for ratings, would it?
We can argue all day long about what should or shouldn't be done to defend - or at least help to defend - Ukraine from what has now become an act of state directed terrorism in furtherance of a political goal. We can debate what has been done rightly, and what has been done wrongly. But let's flush this debate about Biden's words down the toilet where it belongs. Let those words stand as the expression of what all of us who believe in and cherish freedom and liberty - wherever in the world we live - are truly thinking in our heart of hearts, regardless of our views on tactics or levels of involvement of our respective governments and countries. Because by doing so we can say that if nothing else, we at least got that right.
All these stars at the Oscars are SHOCKED SHOCKED at Will Smith's slap and cursing of Chris Rock? Have they noticed the behavior of their peers when the cameras aren't rolling, the fancy dresses and jewels are sent back to wardrobe? And the Academy doesn't condone violence? It's apparently ok in the films they promote, just not ok when they're on camera being "normal people" in an audience.
What was Biden supposed to say to get out the message to Russia?
"Beware the Ides of March"
Would Putin understand the reference? Heck, how many MAGAs, including Trump, understand it?
As long as we understand it.
I sincerely hope so! :-)
Establish a no-fly zone in stages. First stage, any Russian plane west of (an easily definable boundary just west of where the farthest western advance of Russian ground forces are) will be shot down. Move in allied operated air defense systems up to this boundary. Allied combat air patrols orbit the western part of Ukraine. Allied ground and logistics units take up positions in western Ukraine. See what happens.
Your warning to the West is exactly right. Ukraine has battled the "mighty" Russian military to a stalemate with minimal defense against attack from the air and sea. If it loses the war, this commenter, a life-long Democrat, will no longer be able to support Joe Biden. I am sure many other Democrats, already deeply unhappy about the manner of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, are likely to abandon him, too. Give Zelenski the d___n planes already! That's just for a start. Anne Applebaum says correctly that our side needs to focus on the objective, which is that Ukraine wins.
That's fine, Nancy. But if you would trade a Joe Biden you're disappointed in for a Trump who will kill you as soon as look at you a la Putin, and finish off the Republic for a lifetime authoritariansim, I think that's a wrong choice. Just my 2 cents.
Lay the blame for the Afghanistan withdrawal where it belongs - Trump for selling out to the Taliban, Trump for gutting the special visa program that included Afghanis who helped the US, Trump who decided that Muslims and the like were persona non grata in the US, Afghanis who, unlike the Ukrainians, refused to fight, and American idiots who were told to leave months before and still stayed there. I'm sorry, but Biden was handed a bad hand and did the best he could. And if you don't support/vote for him, then you can kiss the US goodbye for a very long time.
I agree. Thanks for saying it. Again.
Agree with everything in your comment. Except for the last sentence. If Ukraine doesn't win--if Putin is allowed to destroy democracy there and to do it by getting away with genocide--we can kiss our country good-bye.
Well, that too, sadly.
Gaffe or Not, What's The End Game with Putin?
Russia has already lost the war. They will not take Kiev. Karkiev also seems out of reach. An assault on Odessa is unlikely at this point. Russia reached the high water mark of its invasion weeks ago. They are making few advances and are being pushed back from Kiev.
The Russian military is hemorrhaging men and equipment at an astounding rate. Per Oryx (@oryxspioenkop) Russia has lost at least 2200 vehicles and other pieces of heavy military equipment. The true number is higher as Oryx only uses video confirmation to compile it's numbers.
How bad is it? Well, just this morning I saw pictures of "technicals" with white Z's painted on them. For those who don't know, a technical is a small pick-up truck with a heavy gun mounted in the bed. These are typically seen in use by rebel groups with few resources.
NATO places the Russian casulties at 40,000. This undoubtedly includes many deserters. I've seen reports that Russia is pulling units back into Russia and Belorussia due to their taking heavy losses. One unit reportedly drove an armored vehicle over its commander after it lost many men in action Morale has to be very low.
Putin, if he is getting accurate information, has to know he cannot take all of Ukraine. He knows he cannot remove Zalinksky from power. These were the original goals. If the Russian army does not collapse in the field (Not likely, but not impossible either) the strategy now is to try to finish taking Mariupol and then consolidate Russian holdings in Southeast Ukraine.
What then? Maybe Putin declares victory and spins this whole disaster into a success for the Russian people. Does Ukraine and the West accept this loss of territory as a price to stop the bombing of civilians?
If so, do the sanctions continue? Despite the criticism, they will wreak havoc on the Russian economy. Does Putin ever have to answer for his war crimes? Does he get to stay in power? These are issues in play as the war winds down.
So, probably, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. (ok at least partly tongue in cheek). Seriously, the only off ramp I can see is giving up Donbas and Crimea. But I am wondering how much of Russia's failing "war" is due to Russian soldiers just not fighting, or walking away. It seems they were lied to and not happy about it. It could be a fair percentage, on top of poor training and the fact that generals apparently skimmed the cash for new equipment etc. and bought themselves yachts.
I think its time for Biden to say something like - "If Putin uses chemical or nuclear weapons, the U.S. will designate him a state terrorist along with any government officials complicit in such action and will use all resources at our disposal to eliminate them as we have done with other terrorists in the past." The only way to potentially deter WMD based war crimes is to make it clear that Russian leaders will pay the ultimate personal price. If Putin, or anyone in his regime, is on the fence about using WMDs then a powerful stance that is clear about the consequences has a chance of preventing them. Also, I can't imagine a scenario where such a statement would be the escalation that would cause Putin to use them, so I believe its a fairly safe ploy in terms of not triggering WWIII. Thoughts?
Even though it's not that reasonable at this point, the hangover from the middle east in the US and other NATO countries continues. Putin knows this because he's done quite a bit to help nurse it. I'm not sure what the answer here is, but it's going to take a while to break the delusion that countries the West can be for protectionism and isolation with everything else staying the same.