The West Must Stay Calm and Not Play Into Putin's Hands

Watching the evening news last evening and the scenes o Ukrainan refugees and images of destrction wrought by Russian attacks on civilian areas and destroyed neighborhoods, the husband and I were moved to tears. Nothing would have made me more happy than a news flash that Putin had been assassinated as recommended by Sen. Lindsey Graham who seems to have pulled his head out of Donald Trump's ass long enough for a moment of somewhat clear thinking.  Yet, with Putin armed with nuclear weapons - I haven't thought of nuclear war as much since the "duck and cover" days in elementary school - and in desperate need for a sellable explanation for his military folly, America and the West must stay calm and not play into Putin's hands by directly intervening militarily in the Ukrainian mightmare and thereby lending validity to Putin's claim that the West is "out to get Russia."  In the short term, time is not on Ukraine's side and America must give as much indirect aid as possible, yet in the longer term Putin is rapidly destroying Russia's economy and at some point popular opposition could explode, especially as Russian military deaths continue to increase.  If the West could decide it is willing to experience economic pain, and cut off of Russian oil and gas exports it would accelerate the pain within Russia and deplete Putin's much needed funding. This might be far more effective than "bootson the ground." A piece in The Atlantic looks at why America and the West must remain calm and clear eyed in letting things play out to Putin's long term detriment.  Here are excerpts:

A few days ago, I was watching footage of Ukrainian mothers, panicked and crying, trying to evacuate their children from a beautiful city that a paranoid dictator has now turned into a war zone. I looked over at my wife, sitting a few feet away from me, and saw the tears welling in her eyes. I felt helpless. And for once, I was at a loss for words.

Night after night I find myself staring at the television, almost paralyzed with anger and grief. Russian President Vladimir Putin, after a catastrophic strategic miscalculation, is now embroiled in perhaps the greatest military blunder in modern European history. In his desperation, he is resorting to the classic Russian military playbook of indiscriminate and massive violence. His unprovoked war of aggression is rapidly escalating into war crimes.

In my rage, I want someone somewhere to do something. I have taught military and national-security affairs for more than a quarter century. . . I want all the might of the civilized world—a world of which Putin is no longer a part—to obliterate the invading forces and save the people of Ukraine.

Others share these impulses. In recent days, I’ve heard various proposals for Western intervention, including support for a no-fly zone over Ukraine from former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove and the Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, among others. Social media is aflame with calls to send in American troops against the invading Russians.

And yet, I still counsel caution and restraint, a position I know many Americans find impossible to understand. Every measure of our outrage is natural, as are the calls for action. But emotions should never dictate policy. As President Joe Biden emphasized in his State of the Union address, we must do all we can to aid the Ukrainian resistance and to fortify NATO, but we cannot become involved in military operations in Ukraine.

I realize that this is easy for me to say. I am not in Kyiv, trying to spirit my child to safety. I am not watching the Russians approach my town. When I finish writing this, I will reassure my wife and sit down to share dinner with her in a quiet home on a peaceful street.

But public figures and ordinary voters who are advocating for intervention also do so from the comfort of offices and homes where they can sound resolute by employing clinical euphemisms such as no-fly zone when what they mean is “war.” For now, fidelity to history requires us to remember that this isn’t the first time we’ve had little choice but to stand by and watch a dictator murder innocents.

The day may come, and sooner than we expect, when we have to fight in Europe, with all the risks that entails. If we are to plunge into a global war between the Russians and the West, however, it needs to be based on a better calculus than pure rage.

Also, let’s remember that America is, in fact, taking action to help Ukraine and oppose Russia. Western sanctions will not save Kyiv or other Ukrainian cities tomorrow, but they are crippling the Russian economy and undermining Putin’s ability both politically and materially to seek a larger war. We are working with the rest of the world to get military assistance to the Ukrainians, who will be fighting a resistance for as long as the Russians are in their country.

More important, we are sending more forces to our allies around Ukraine. If Putin reckoned on a quick victory and a dash to the West, that dream is over. He’ll win on the ground in the short run, but in the end he’ll be lucky to get out of Ukraine with his military intact—if he’s even still in power.

Indeed, one more reason not to let our emotions get the better of us is that the only way Putin can save himself from his own fiasco is to bait the West into an attack. Nothing would help him more, at home or abroad, than if the United States or any other NATO country were to enter direct hostilities with Russian forces. Putin would then use the conflict to rally his people and threaten conventional and nuclear attacks against NATO. He would become a hero at home, and Ukraine would be forgotten.

I am trying to be calm and rational, and yes, helpful, as much as I can be. So should we all.

Hard as it may be, we need to continue indirect support for Ukraine and let the noose Putin put around his own neck slowly tighten until it takes him out one way or another.