Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The number of people sent fleeing Ukraine by Russia’s invasion topped 1 million on Wednesday, the swiftest refugee exodus this century, the United Nations said, as Russian forces kept up their bombardment of the country’s second-biggest city, Kharkiv, and laid siege to two strategic seaports… Moscow’s isolation deepened when most of the world lined up against it at the United Nations to demand it withdraw from Ukraine. And the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into possible war crimes.” AP News
Both sides argue that Putin will be unable to subdue Ukraine even if he manages to capture Kyiv:
“Russian logistics trains into Ukraine are now overwhelmed and unprovisioned for a drawn-out war across hundreds of thousands of square miles. Forward-deployed Russian forces lack sufficient ammunition stocks, fuel, food, and cold-weather equipment. The apparent inability of Russian commanders to conduct coordinated combined arms offensives (for example, ground assaults supported by air power and heavy artillery) has led to units being isolated and annihilated…
“Western defense intelligence staff estimate Russian troops killed in action are at more than 2,000 and perhaps more than 3,000… [Meanwhile] The Russian ruble has collapsed in value, and the sanctioned Russian central bank has been forced to keep markets closed for a third day for fear of capital flight…
“To break through the determined Ukrainian resistance, Putin is embracing a strategy of terror… [But] Unless [he] is willing to exterminate much of the Ukrainian population, an act his regime might not be able to survive, he is stuck. If he does manage to seize control in Kyiv, the pacification of Ukraine will require a Russian occupying force at least three times that which is currently present in Ukraine. Putin lacks the military and financial capacity to conduct a long-lasting operation at that scale. If the West supported a Ukrainian insurgency, the costs of any occupation would grow exponentially. Put another way, Putin is now caught between his own destiny-driven ambitions and the cold reality of a free Ukraine.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
“I think the most important thing that we can do is make sure that Ukrainians who want to fight and are fighting for their own country have all the arms they need to do that. I think the engine of this conflict going forward is what happens between the Ukrainians defending their country and Vladimir Putin’s army trying to take it over on the ground. That will be the core flywheel of all of this. And what strikes me is Putin thought this was going to be a cakewalk, that he actually believed his own fantasy, that there are a bunch of Nazis running Ukraine, as soon as he came in the Ukrainian people would want them evicted, they would throw flowers, etc. And now that that hasn’t happened…
“It is very clear Putin has no Plan B. Because there is no Plan B. He simply cannot do what he hoped to do: install a puppet and basically go home. If he installs a puppet, he’s going to have troops there forever. So I think Putin basically has four choices: lose early, lose late, lose big or lose small. But those are his only choices… The long shot scenario is, somebody [from the Russian military] steps in and takes [Putin] out and you get a different Russia. But the other is a dirty compromise. And the third is an endless war which would be just terrible.”
Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
Other opinions below.
“Some are already calling for NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine that would deny Russia air superiority. This is well-intentioned, but Ukraine today isn’t Libya in 2011 or Iraq in the 1990s where controlling the skies was far easier. NATO planes would have to engage Russian MiGs and antiaircraft systems. The idea is likely to divide NATO, which lacks enough aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone in any case…
“But there are options between doing nothing and risking the start of World War III. Getting more weapons into Ukraine faster is essential, and not merely dropping them off at the Polish border… The CIA and Pentagon also have covert capabilities that could be unleashed with a presidential finding. These include special forces with expertise in sabotage. The miles of Russian vehicle convoys are a ripe target for unmanned drones, especially at night, and the Ukrainians have used Turkish drones to good effect.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“The conflict in Ukraine serves as a case study in how U.S. rivals plan to employ nuclear coercion in the service of revisionist objectives. Step 1: Use conventional forces to invade a vulnerable, overmatched neighbor. Step 2: Use the threat of nuclear escalation to prevent the U.S. and its allies from getting in the way…
“The U.S. president took office intending to reduce American reliance on weapons of mass destruction… [But] If anything, the Pentagon will need more rather than fewer nuclear options. For example, it will probably require an expanded suite of ‘limited’ nuclear options — with the ability to use small numbers of low-yield nuclear warheads against battlefield targets. These capabilities are critical to sustaining extended deterrence by allowing Washington to threaten (even implicitly) that it might respond to regional aggression with something greater than conventional forces but less than the full weight of its strategic nuclear arsenal.”
Hal Brands, Bloomberg
“Huge majorities of both parties approve of the sanctions that have been levied against Russia to date. But large numbers also doubt those sanctions will be sufficient to halt the invasion. Thus, another idea that crosses partisan lines is the desire to do more — to get ‘tougher’ on Russia…
“Perhaps the most provocative idea that garners significant support is a no-fly zone, which 45 percent support and 20 percent oppose. But most casual observers probably don’t realize how likely it would be that this could lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia…
“Also looming over it all is how much sacrifice Americans are truly willing to offer in the name of getting tough. While there is broad support for sanctions, the poll reinforces how that support drops significantly if and when it leads to higher domestic gas prices. While two-thirds support additional sanctions, just 40 percent say they would support those additional sanctions if it meant higher gas prices… So if you’re the Biden administration, you’re left with some not easily reconcilable choices."
Aaron Blake, Washington Post
“Journalist Phillipe Corbé stated this about Ukraine: ‘We’re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin. We’re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives.’… An ITV journalist reporting from Poland said: ‘Now the unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing, third world nation. This is Europe!’ As if war is always and forever an ordinary routine limited to developing, third world nations…
“We absolutely should be providing Ukrainians with life-saving security wherever and whenever we can… [but] If our sympathy is activated only for welcoming people who look like us or pray like us, then we are doomed to replicate the very sort of narrow, ignorant nationalism that war promotes in the first place.”
Moustafa Bayoumi, The Guardian
Sneaky cat swings on handle to open door for all his friends.
Good News Network
