U.S. can't agree with NATO on Polish arms. Biden bans Russian oil after oil companies do it first. Saudis and UAE say we're on our own. Why can't we get things on track?
Acting with consensus is hard and sometimes a messy thing, but is the correct course at this time. Maybe we need more action and faster to save Ukraine. I hope that is the goal.
"Perhaps this is a bit of passive aggressive theater. From Vladimir Putin’s chair (at the end of a very long table), whether the U.S. balks or not, this could be used as a provocation, or at least for propaganda purposes. It also shows the world exactly who’s boss, and that would not be the United States or President Joe Biden. Biden is reacting like he is walking on eggshells not to provoke Mr. Putin, who is calling all the shots in his war. This gives Putin the initiative in tactical, strategic, and political terms."
"By having a rather public disagreement on the provision of fighter jets to Ukraine, NATO has signaled to the world that we are indeed not really on the same page, merely the same chapter. We cannot pretend that Putin will not use this to further his own aims and weaken the global alliance now determined to punish Russia."
There's also a theory in play that this disagreement is All Part of the Plan and intended to provide plausible deniability for Poland, the US, and NATO when Ukrainians start flying the extra planes that fell off the truck. As far as I know, Zelenskyy has been quiet on this matter, which may or may not be a signal that someone's playing 4-D chess well (or checkers poorly).
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
I find it difficult to fault the US for leading from behind in this situation. What is the US military stick that you think we could use that would stifle nuclear-armed adversaries, without our using or threatening to nuke in a pre-emptive strike?
The whole reason our adversaries like NKorea and Iran want nukes is they saw what we did with Iraq and Libya, who didn't have nukes, and know that nuclear weapons are the only way to block Western aggression, while holding the world hostage to their demands.
At some point in the future, the world WILL be faced with a conflict between two nuclear-armed powers, and it will be terrifying to see how that winds up.
As for oil, I agree we should be aiming to be completely energy self-sufficient because of how much international conflicts can affect us at home. that means nuclear power, more drilling (although I'm totally against drilling in national parks), adopting more green energy, and eliminating the Jones act.
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
One thing to note is that if the US was prominently leading on the conflict then it is easier for Putin to say that the US is turning the world against Russia. Other countries or companies taking an action, followed by the US Government taking action, may not "look" as good but may lead to a better situation overall.
Perhaps a better way of putting it: is it better to be seen to be doing something, or that what you do be effective/provide for the best outcome?
The Lincoln Project posted this excerpt and article from The Atlantic:
"Joe Biden hasn’t received the full credit he deserves for his statecraft during this crisis, because he has pursued a policy of self-effacement. Rather than touting his accomplishments in mobilizing a unified global response to the invasion, he has portrayed the stringent sanctions as the triumph of an alliance. By carefully limiting his own public role—and letting France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz take turns as the lead faces of NATO—he has left Vladimir Putin with little opportunity to portray the conflict as a standoff with the United States, a narrative that the Russian leader would clearly prefer. He’s shown how to wield American leadership in the face of deep European ambivalence about its exercise."
Acting with consensus is hard and sometimes a messy thing, but is the correct course at this time. Maybe we need more action and faster to save Ukraine. I hope that is the goal.
"Perhaps this is a bit of passive aggressive theater. From Vladimir Putin’s chair (at the end of a very long table), whether the U.S. balks or not, this could be used as a provocation, or at least for propaganda purposes. It also shows the world exactly who’s boss, and that would not be the United States or President Joe Biden. Biden is reacting like he is walking on eggshells not to provoke Mr. Putin, who is calling all the shots in his war. This gives Putin the initiative in tactical, strategic, and political terms."
"By having a rather public disagreement on the provision of fighter jets to Ukraine, NATO has signaled to the world that we are indeed not really on the same page, merely the same chapter. We cannot pretend that Putin will not use this to further his own aims and weaken the global alliance now determined to punish Russia."
There's also a theory in play that this disagreement is All Part of the Plan and intended to provide plausible deniability for Poland, the US, and NATO when Ukrainians start flying the extra planes that fell off the truck. As far as I know, Zelenskyy has been quiet on this matter, which may or may not be a signal that someone's playing 4-D chess well (or checkers poorly).
I find it difficult to fault the US for leading from behind in this situation. What is the US military stick that you think we could use that would stifle nuclear-armed adversaries, without our using or threatening to nuke in a pre-emptive strike?
The whole reason our adversaries like NKorea and Iran want nukes is they saw what we did with Iraq and Libya, who didn't have nukes, and know that nuclear weapons are the only way to block Western aggression, while holding the world hostage to their demands.
At some point in the future, the world WILL be faced with a conflict between two nuclear-armed powers, and it will be terrifying to see how that winds up.
As for oil, I agree we should be aiming to be completely energy self-sufficient because of how much international conflicts can affect us at home. that means nuclear power, more drilling (although I'm totally against drilling in national parks), adopting more green energy, and eliminating the Jones act.
One thing to note is that if the US was prominently leading on the conflict then it is easier for Putin to say that the US is turning the world against Russia. Other countries or companies taking an action, followed by the US Government taking action, may not "look" as good but may lead to a better situation overall.
Perhaps a better way of putting it: is it better to be seen to be doing something, or that what you do be effective/provide for the best outcome?
The Lincoln Project posted this excerpt and article from The Atlantic:
"Joe Biden hasn’t received the full credit he deserves for his statecraft during this crisis, because he has pursued a policy of self-effacement. Rather than touting his accomplishments in mobilizing a unified global response to the invasion, he has portrayed the stringent sanctions as the triumph of an alliance. By carefully limiting his own public role—and letting France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz take turns as the lead faces of NATO—he has left Vladimir Putin with little opportunity to portray the conflict as a standoff with the United States, a narrative that the Russian leader would clearly prefer. He’s shown how to wield American leadership in the face of deep European ambivalence about its exercise."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/biden-answered-the-3-a-m-call/ar-AAUMXEa?li=BBorjTa