Editor,
The logic of the Ukraine hawks escapes me.
Assume for the moment we embark on WWIII, by some miracle nuclear weapons are not used, a few hundred thousand people or a few million are killed, cities are destroyed, but human civilization is not wiped from the face of the Earth.
Are we talking about all-out war? Incinerating cities? Unconditional surrender? In this case, whoever is advocating this insanity truly is mad.
So at some point a negotiated settlement will be necessary, in which case further escalation, further death and destruction, today are not required.
Is backing down rather than showing the world how tough you are really that important? Is reaching an accommodation now instead of killing a lot of people first really going to "reward" anybody for their "bad behavior?"
My personal opinion, going back to the original issue, when Yanukovich was still in power -- the West telling Ukraine to choose between Russia and the EU and tying an economic agreement to a "security" arrangement that would inevitably lead to Ukraine joining NATO -- is that it has been obvious from the start that the West wants Russia's oil and gas and does not want to pay for it. Shoot me. This is what I think.
Every accusation by the West of Russian aggression sounds to me like aggression by the West. Who wants this war? Who wins what if we have it? Who loses what if we do not?
Mr. Putin, no matter what you think of him or political repression in Russia -- as if there is none in the USA, a total joke -- has asked again and again for negotiations.
Negotiate.
Re: "U.S. and Europe Are Struggling With Response to a Bold Russia" (9/3//2014)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment