In my 70 years I've witnessed US foreign policy disasters but nothing on the scale Trump is committing. Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is the darkest chapter in US foreign policy history. Europe must step into the breach.
The Vlad & Donnie puppet show isn't fooling Ukraine's friends in Europe. The 30-nation military meeting in the UK, and the today's passage of enabling legislation to fund a serious military in Germany are real events, and there is real urgency to restructure as at least semi-wartime economies. It's not universal yet, and a few will pretend to go alone while doing not much, but Ukraine's friends will shortly be much stronger, and more assertive, faster than most might think possible. Without the USA, it's much more difficult, but the conviction has arrived that Putin cannot be allowed to prevail. Period.
I just unsubscribed because I realized that you think you are smarter than Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Dan Ellsberg (RIP), Chris Hedges, Paul Jay, and Ralph Nader. You are not. You are borderline insane and naive as a child if you think the US is "helping" Ukraine. Watch this if you're not a coward. God hates a coward. https://youtu.be/dYi5S81fKxI
You need to read Caitlin Johnstone and break through your 5th grade civics class brainwashing about America. Read some Indi Samarajiva. We have left Ukraine just as we have left other victims of our proxy wars, Vietnam and Iraq: piles of dead bodies and a ruined country after we fought for their "freedom". You might as well be a Trumper.
You truly won’t be satisfied until every Ukrainian is dead, will you? It’s like the black knight from Monty Python, and you’re over here cheering “keep your head in the game bud!” as his limbs are hacked off one by one. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
The breathtaking moral inversion of your comment deserves a standing ovation. Only in the funhouse mirror of geopolitical fantasy could advocating for Ukrainian sovereignty be recast as cheering their slaughter.
Your Monty Python reference is apt, though not in the way you intended. Ukraine stands defiant against an aggressor ten times its size while armchair strategists like yourself counsel surrender as mercy. "It's just a flesh wound!" is Ukraine's courageous stance—while your position amounts to "Die faster so I can feel virtuous about peace."
The grotesque suggestion that opposing Putin's maximalist demands—which explicitly seek to "end Ukraine's existence as an independent state"—somehow constitutes wishing Ukrainians dead reveals either a profound misunderstanding of the conflict or a deliberate perversion of moral reasoning.
Let me be perfectly clear: I want Ukrainians to live free in their own country, not under occupation where they can be disappeared for speaking their language. The position that Ukraine should simply accept whatever crumbs Putin offers in exchange for a pause in bombing power plants—while apartment buildings remain fair game - isn't advocating peace. It's advocating capitulation wrapped in the language of humanitarian concern.
With "peacemakers" like you, who needs warmongers?
If you read your responses here, you do seem to imply that Ukrainian forfeiture is the way to end this conflict. I’d be very happy to hear you say that’s wrong and not your position. And perhaps it’s glib but either they fight or they don’t. And we know what happens if they don’t.
Do you realize that a ceasefire was negotiated two years ago, scuttled by the US and UK via empty assurances to the Ukrainians, urging them to fight on rather than accept the terms? And what did that gain them? Hundreds of thousands of additional lives thrown away, and likely a worse settlement when the dust finally settles in Russia's favor, which it will. Most Ukrainians are sick of it, especially those closest to the front lines. A majority wants a ceasefire, even if that involves territorial concessions, which it will.
The only substantive alternate is to well and truly launch world war 3. No thank you.
Then my comment about you stands. If you think capitulation to a dictator is a recipe for a lasting peace, you’re wrong. That was tried during WW2. It didn’t work out.
I don’t know the reason we talked Ukraine out of a ceasefire 2 years ago but very clearly Putin wouldn’t haven’t honored it anyway. How do I know? Because we also signed the 94 agreement with them and Ukraine and Putin ignored that. And he just bombed a power plant despite recent ceasefire negotiations.
So, he ignored the 94 agreement; he’s not negotiating in good faith now, but your advice to the Ukrainians is let Putin keep the land and roll over?
Do you believe Putin would actually stop the invasion and go home?
I’ve watched you for a while. You’re an absolutely fanatical neocon, itching for global disaster via hot war with Russia, China, and lord knows who else, all the while droning endlessly on and on about how you’re a shining beacon of moral and intellectual seriousness in these troubling times. (And yes, they are troubling times.)
Your attempt to stuff me into the "neocon" box would be amusing if it weren't so intellectually lazy. I don't recall advocating for any wars, hot or otherwise—but I do recall insisting that democratic institutions matter and authoritarians should be recognized for what they are.
If pointing out that Putin's Russia is invading its neighbors and Trump's administration is dismantling democratic guardrails makes me a warmonger in your taxonomy, then your political compass is in desperate need of recalibration.
The truly revealing part is how you've conjured this entire fantasy about my positions without bothering to engage with anything I've actually written. This isn't analysis—it's just intellectual mail-order, where you can purchase pre-fabricated opinions about people you've never bothered to understand.
Perhaps next time, before mounting your high horse of contempt, you might try the revolutionary act of actually reading what I've written rather than shadow-boxing with the convenient strawman you've constructed. Until then, I'll continue the apparently radical work of taking both democracy and reality seriously.
I’ve read many thousands of words of your writing over two plus years, both here and on twitter. Your fundamental geopolitical premise is that post-WW2 US primacy has involved some missteps, yes, and some rough edges, sure, but that overwhelmingly it’s been THE global instrument for peace, stability, democracy. (The reason you’re specifically a neocon is that you’re eager to enforce this primacy by nearly any means necessary, though not in the decorum-free manner of Trump, which strips it of its pretenses and makes it a harder ideological sell for most.) And I'm deliberately omitting "western" from that formulation, because I don't see evidence that you care about, say, specifically European interests. No curiosity that I've seen in your writing about, for example, the Nord Stream 2 bombing which was very likely a covert US op, and a thuggish, unilateral one at that.
It’s a premise that a large and rapidly growing majority of humans do not share. A premise that a very sizable, also rapidly growing, and, especially, a young segment of Americans do not share either.
And I’ve consistently found both in my direct attempts to engage with you and in your writing more broadly, that your general strategy is to berate, belittle, and mostly to simply ignore those who aren’t already sufficiently sympathetic to your underlying premise. Which is a lazy and insulting strategy, not to mention an ultimately losing one. So I’m left to just peek in every now and then at what you’re up to and lob a few mostly worthless rhetorical grenades.
Here’s a challenge for you: actually make that case, in detail. Rather than just assuming and asserting it, with occasional broad brush correlational nods to "well we haven't had WW3 yet." And more importantly, actually offer meaningful, in-the-moment critiques every now and then to the decades-incumbent US order, and be a strong voice for reform. Perhaps you believe, for example, that US involvement in the Middle East has generally been an important force for stability (that'd be an awfully tough sell), but for Christ's sake, the genocide meted out on Palestinians for 17 months now has been utterly grotesque and gratuitous and you've had nothing to say about it. (Though I suspect that your silence will start to lift now that it's becoming Trump's project.)
Regarding Ukraine specifically, it seems that a majority of Ukrainians are waking up to the fact that they’ve been used cynically as a proxy; a disposable people whose country is being reduced to rubble as the west uses them up and dumps them in the gutter, as it always (obviously) planned to do. You might protest that that's a betrayal that need not be; that they can still win this war with adequate support. (You “don’t recall advocating for any wars”? You haven’t cheered every escalation in this theater, including firing ATACMS deep into Russian territory which is only possible with the direct involvement of US personnel?) To that I say shame on you for being so hopelessly naive and careless, and I don’t believe you for a moment that the Ukrainian people mean anything to you other than being a disposable tool with which to score a few body blows against Russia.
You’re also going to find it difficult to make a comparable domestic case to Americans, who increasingly see that the incumbent deep state has become irredeemably cruel, reckless, destructive, and democratically unresponsive. You could try to actually make a careful detailed case here on behalf of the incumbent order, and offer meaningful critiques and ideas for reform. But all I've seen from you so far is endless sloganeering from third grade civics class, along with sweeping insults to the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with you.
For whatever it's worth, I say all this as a western liberal humanist, who shares much if not most of your stated philosophical outlook.
I'm guessing you haven't spent more than 10 minutes reading Mike's work, because yes, he's a thoroughgoing neocon. His fundamental political loyalty is to US global dominance, which he's eager to see enforced by nearly any means necessary, so long as it's carried out with the proper decorum.
He's an imperialist through and through. Humanity's salvation lies in global US hegemony; the entire world submitting and converting to the rule and ideology of the incumbent US establishment.
Non-neocon hawks aren't so Messianic in their vision. They're happy to use a big stick when they deem it necessary, but they're not trying to remake the entire globe. I'd put Trump in this latter category, for example.
PS-if you’re disinterested in actionable intelligence from 2 European powers, why do you expect me to care what 1 American economist says who’s not an expert on this field?
Ok I'll bite on this: do you have any idea who Jeffrey Sachs is? He's been one of the preeminent direct economic advisors to governments spanning the globe for many decades, with direct, first hand, "in the room where it happened" knowledge of many of the relevant developments during the collapse of the USSR and post-Soviet US/Russian negotiations.
His opinion is one opinion, and you're welcome to critique it all you want. But you're just sounding childish now, coming from a place of deep ignorance on this issue, as you clearly are.
For all his discontent with US foreign policy (and there’s good reason for it, I agree), but blaming anyone other than Putin for the invasion makes little sense.
He essentially is arguing that we should just give Russia what it wants.
“Russia had no territorial interest in Ukraine.” He says.
This is laughable on its face. Putin called the collapse of the USSR a tragedy and has been open about his desire to reconstitute the Soviet bloc. Putin admitted to have territorial interests that weren’t limited to Ukraine. How else does one reconstitute the USSR?
The idea that we somehow forced Russia to invade Ukraine due to NATO when Ukraine had not applied for membership in the decades following the Soviet collapse is hysterical on its face.
Of course we wanted Ukraine in NATO. And Ukraine didn’t pursue it till recently. And that provoked Putin to invade Ukraine?
Then he invades Ukraine and now they and some Scandinavian countries have also joined. This was predictable and has happened.
What is Sach’s response? Russia invades Ukraine and the world should watch because US foreign policy sucks?
Even if I agreed with every critique of our policy and history, it also still does not solve the problem in front of us.
Ukraine wants its independence. If they don’t, Zelenskyy can surrender tomorrow. We signed a deal with Russia and Ukraine in 1994 where the Russians agreed not to invade and we guaranteed to support Ukraine if they did. Ukraine did NOT join NATO.
Russia broke the deal. We should honor our commitment unless Ukraine wants to surrender, which it still has not done.
Looks like you’re fishing for a gotcha moment, that if you keep asking the same question I’ll eventually admit that, what, Ukraine should fight to the very last person? The west should launch WW3? Something else?
Generous of you to offer unlimited Ukrainian bodies for this cause, when most of them no longer want involvement in it themselves.
It’s like if you were to ask me whether Cubans should wage war against the US in response to its crippling sanctions. It’s a cruel and brutal situation but I wouldn’t recommend that Cubans get themselves annihilated. Or if you were to ask me whether Cubans should invite Russia to stage warheads and a massive military buildup on Cuba. Wait didn’t something more or less like that already happen, and the world came within a hair’s breadth of nuclear armageddon? The wheels of eventual relief and redemption will unfortunately grind much more slowly than that for Cuba.
Was there some other question you wanted me to answer?
And if the majority of Ukrainians want to be Russian, Zelensky can surrender tomorrow. And the Cuban analogy isn’t analogous. Are we actively invading Cuba? No.
Is Putin actively invading Ukraine? Yes.
And Ukraine doesn’t have to get annihilated. Putin could leave tomorrow. Except he won’t. So my original comment stands. Your and Sach’s solution seems to be give dictator what they want to maintain peace. If you want to be Russian, move to Russia. But maybe the rest of the world doesn’t want to surrender to him.
I am. As an economist, he’s top of the game whether people agree with him or not. But foreign policy? There’s a bit of halo effect here.
And yes, he may have been in the room but if he thinks the Russians were speaking candidly in front of him, he is probably naive and you would be as well.
And I can offer my own experts who aren’t economists and have relevant experience - like teaching Russian politics at the War College.
In any case, you and Sachs can re-litigate the past all you want. And maybe there’s truth to it. But we are here now.
Putin has ignored every agreement to date but you expect to believe he will honor the next. Fine. I have a bridge to sell you.
The Ukrainians have plenty of reason to keep fighting. They know what will happen if they stop.
"For years, the world watched as Russia systematically kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, erasing their identities and forcing them into Russian families. This isn’t just a war crime—it’s genocide in real time.
"Now, Trump’s regime is actively helping Russia cover up this genocide. His State Department quietly terminated a crucial contract that was facilitating the transfer of evidence on Russia’s mass abduction of Ukrainian children to European law enforcement, according to The New Republic.
"This decision cripples efforts to track and recover abducted children, making it harder to hold Russia accountable for what international courts have already labeled a war crime. By cutting off this support, Trump’s regime is not just abandoning Ukraine—they are actively obstructing justice.
"This isn’t just inaction—it’s complicity in one of the most horrific acts of genocide and war crimes."
In my 70 years I've witnessed US foreign policy disasters but nothing on the scale Trump is committing. Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is the darkest chapter in US foreign policy history. Europe must step into the breach.
Just as Ukraine demonstrated its home-grown long-range strike capabilities by leveling a Russian oil refinery….
The Vlad & Donnie puppet show isn't fooling Ukraine's friends in Europe. The 30-nation military meeting in the UK, and the today's passage of enabling legislation to fund a serious military in Germany are real events, and there is real urgency to restructure as at least semi-wartime economies. It's not universal yet, and a few will pretend to go alone while doing not much, but Ukraine's friends will shortly be much stronger, and more assertive, faster than most might think possible. Without the USA, it's much more difficult, but the conviction has arrived that Putin cannot be allowed to prevail. Period.
I just unsubscribed because I realized that you think you are smarter than Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Dan Ellsberg (RIP), Chris Hedges, Paul Jay, and Ralph Nader. You are not. You are borderline insane and naive as a child if you think the US is "helping" Ukraine. Watch this if you're not a coward. God hates a coward. https://youtu.be/dYi5S81fKxI
You need to read Caitlin Johnstone and break through your 5th grade civics class brainwashing about America. Read some Indi Samarajiva. We have left Ukraine just as we have left other victims of our proxy wars, Vietnam and Iraq: piles of dead bodies and a ruined country after we fought for their "freedom". You might as well be a Trumper.
Thank you for unsubscribing. Take care!
I'll be going paid shortly, so it nets out. Just take the dog for a walk, get a good sleep and carry on.
That's quite the collection of names. Let's see how they feel about Russia in general and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Jeffrey Sachs - https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/166/
Noam Chomsky - https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/181/
Dan Ellsberg - https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3970983-pentagon-papers-leaker-dod-records-show-ukraine-at-stalemate-very-similar-to-vietnam/
Chris Hedges - https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/reject-the-left-right-alliance-against-ukraine/
Paul Jay - https://macleans.ca/news/world/deconstructing-julian-assange/
Ralph Nader - https://www.eurasiareview.com/11062024-ralph-nader-biden-is-pushing-america-deeper-into-the-russian-ukrainian-war-oped/
Every one of them has said lines that please the Kremlin to hear, sometimes even verbatim from Russia. How coincidental!
You truly won’t be satisfied until every Ukrainian is dead, will you? It’s like the black knight from Monty Python, and you’re over here cheering “keep your head in the game bud!” as his limbs are hacked off one by one. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Hi Jeff,
The breathtaking moral inversion of your comment deserves a standing ovation. Only in the funhouse mirror of geopolitical fantasy could advocating for Ukrainian sovereignty be recast as cheering their slaughter.
Your Monty Python reference is apt, though not in the way you intended. Ukraine stands defiant against an aggressor ten times its size while armchair strategists like yourself counsel surrender as mercy. "It's just a flesh wound!" is Ukraine's courageous stance—while your position amounts to "Die faster so I can feel virtuous about peace."
The grotesque suggestion that opposing Putin's maximalist demands—which explicitly seek to "end Ukraine's existence as an independent state"—somehow constitutes wishing Ukrainians dead reveals either a profound misunderstanding of the conflict or a deliberate perversion of moral reasoning.
Let me be perfectly clear: I want Ukrainians to live free in their own country, not under occupation where they can be disappeared for speaking their language. The position that Ukraine should simply accept whatever crumbs Putin offers in exchange for a pause in bombing power plants—while apartment buildings remain fair game - isn't advocating peace. It's advocating capitulation wrapped in the language of humanitarian concern.
With "peacemakers" like you, who needs warmongers?
@Mike Brock Yes, if everyone just surrendered to the bigger guy, there would be no fighting.
And Ukrainians should just roll over as Putin kidnaps children, rapes women and tramples the rights of everyone to even just exist as Ukrainians.
This is the way to a lasting peace. Just ask Jeff. Or Trump. Or MAGA generally.
Spectacularly clueless comment. And just when I was starting to like you ;-)
If you read your responses here, you do seem to imply that Ukrainian forfeiture is the way to end this conflict. I’d be very happy to hear you say that’s wrong and not your position. And perhaps it’s glib but either they fight or they don’t. And we know what happens if they don’t.
So which is it?
What happens exactly if they don't?
Do you realize that a ceasefire was negotiated two years ago, scuttled by the US and UK via empty assurances to the Ukrainians, urging them to fight on rather than accept the terms? And what did that gain them? Hundreds of thousands of additional lives thrown away, and likely a worse settlement when the dust finally settles in Russia's favor, which it will. Most Ukrainians are sick of it, especially those closest to the front lines. A majority wants a ceasefire, even if that involves territorial concessions, which it will.
The only substantive alternate is to well and truly launch world war 3. No thank you.
Then my comment about you stands. If you think capitulation to a dictator is a recipe for a lasting peace, you’re wrong. That was tried during WW2. It didn’t work out.
I don’t know the reason we talked Ukraine out of a ceasefire 2 years ago but very clearly Putin wouldn’t haven’t honored it anyway. How do I know? Because we also signed the 94 agreement with them and Ukraine and Putin ignored that. And he just bombed a power plant despite recent ceasefire negotiations.
So, he ignored the 94 agreement; he’s not negotiating in good faith now, but your advice to the Ukrainians is let Putin keep the land and roll over?
Do you believe Putin would actually stop the invasion and go home?
You are talking to a troll. Look at his bio. Block it.
I’ve watched you for a while. You’re an absolutely fanatical neocon, itching for global disaster via hot war with Russia, China, and lord knows who else, all the while droning endlessly on and on about how you’re a shining beacon of moral and intellectual seriousness in these troubling times. (And yes, they are troubling times.)
Your attempt to stuff me into the "neocon" box would be amusing if it weren't so intellectually lazy. I don't recall advocating for any wars, hot or otherwise—but I do recall insisting that democratic institutions matter and authoritarians should be recognized for what they are.
If pointing out that Putin's Russia is invading its neighbors and Trump's administration is dismantling democratic guardrails makes me a warmonger in your taxonomy, then your political compass is in desperate need of recalibration.
The truly revealing part is how you've conjured this entire fantasy about my positions without bothering to engage with anything I've actually written. This isn't analysis—it's just intellectual mail-order, where you can purchase pre-fabricated opinions about people you've never bothered to understand.
Perhaps next time, before mounting your high horse of contempt, you might try the revolutionary act of actually reading what I've written rather than shadow-boxing with the convenient strawman you've constructed. Until then, I'll continue the apparently radical work of taking both democracy and reality seriously.
I’ve read many thousands of words of your writing over two plus years, both here and on twitter. Your fundamental geopolitical premise is that post-WW2 US primacy has involved some missteps, yes, and some rough edges, sure, but that overwhelmingly it’s been THE global instrument for peace, stability, democracy. (The reason you’re specifically a neocon is that you’re eager to enforce this primacy by nearly any means necessary, though not in the decorum-free manner of Trump, which strips it of its pretenses and makes it a harder ideological sell for most.) And I'm deliberately omitting "western" from that formulation, because I don't see evidence that you care about, say, specifically European interests. No curiosity that I've seen in your writing about, for example, the Nord Stream 2 bombing which was very likely a covert US op, and a thuggish, unilateral one at that.
It’s a premise that a large and rapidly growing majority of humans do not share. A premise that a very sizable, also rapidly growing, and, especially, a young segment of Americans do not share either.
And I’ve consistently found both in my direct attempts to engage with you and in your writing more broadly, that your general strategy is to berate, belittle, and mostly to simply ignore those who aren’t already sufficiently sympathetic to your underlying premise. Which is a lazy and insulting strategy, not to mention an ultimately losing one. So I’m left to just peek in every now and then at what you’re up to and lob a few mostly worthless rhetorical grenades.
Here’s a challenge for you: actually make that case, in detail. Rather than just assuming and asserting it, with occasional broad brush correlational nods to "well we haven't had WW3 yet." And more importantly, actually offer meaningful, in-the-moment critiques every now and then to the decades-incumbent US order, and be a strong voice for reform. Perhaps you believe, for example, that US involvement in the Middle East has generally been an important force for stability (that'd be an awfully tough sell), but for Christ's sake, the genocide meted out on Palestinians for 17 months now has been utterly grotesque and gratuitous and you've had nothing to say about it. (Though I suspect that your silence will start to lift now that it's becoming Trump's project.)
Regarding Ukraine specifically, it seems that a majority of Ukrainians are waking up to the fact that they’ve been used cynically as a proxy; a disposable people whose country is being reduced to rubble as the west uses them up and dumps them in the gutter, as it always (obviously) planned to do. You might protest that that's a betrayal that need not be; that they can still win this war with adequate support. (You “don’t recall advocating for any wars”? You haven’t cheered every escalation in this theater, including firing ATACMS deep into Russian territory which is only possible with the direct involvement of US personnel?) To that I say shame on you for being so hopelessly naive and careless, and I don’t believe you for a moment that the Ukrainian people mean anything to you other than being a disposable tool with which to score a few body blows against Russia.
You’re also going to find it difficult to make a comparable domestic case to Americans, who increasingly see that the incumbent deep state has become irredeemably cruel, reckless, destructive, and democratically unresponsive. You could try to actually make a careful detailed case here on behalf of the incumbent order, and offer meaningful critiques and ideas for reform. But all I've seen from you so far is endless sloganeering from third grade civics class, along with sweeping insults to the intelligence and morality of those who disagree with you.
For whatever it's worth, I say all this as a western liberal humanist, who shares much if not most of your stated philosophical outlook.
Jeff, you're beyond hope. Mike, just move on... he's beyond redemption.
Gotcha, thanks for the tip
Neocon? Where the hell did that come from? Have you spend more than 10 minutes here?
I'm guessing you haven't spent more than 10 minutes reading Mike's work, because yes, he's a thoroughgoing neocon. His fundamental political loyalty is to US global dominance, which he's eager to see enforced by nearly any means necessary, so long as it's carried out with the proper decorum.
See my lengthy reply to him above.
That’s a very over-broad definition of neoconservatism.
What differentiates it from a perhaps hawkish classic liberalism?
He's an imperialist through and through. Humanity's salvation lies in global US hegemony; the entire world submitting and converting to the rule and ideology of the incumbent US establishment.
Non-neocon hawks aren't so Messianic in their vision. They're happy to use a big stick when they deem it necessary, but they're not trying to remake the entire globe. I'd put Trump in this latter category, for example.
How much of Ukraine and other nations should we give Russia? All of it?
PS-if you’re disinterested in actionable intelligence from 2 European powers, why do you expect me to care what 1 American economist says who’s not an expert on this field?
Ok I'll bite on this: do you have any idea who Jeffrey Sachs is? He's been one of the preeminent direct economic advisors to governments spanning the globe for many decades, with direct, first hand, "in the room where it happened" knowledge of many of the relevant developments during the collapse of the USSR and post-Soviet US/Russian negotiations.
His opinion is one opinion, and you're welcome to critique it all you want. But you're just sounding childish now, coming from a place of deep ignorance on this issue, as you clearly are.
For all his discontent with US foreign policy (and there’s good reason for it, I agree), but blaming anyone other than Putin for the invasion makes little sense.
He essentially is arguing that we should just give Russia what it wants.
“Russia had no territorial interest in Ukraine.” He says.
This is laughable on its face. Putin called the collapse of the USSR a tragedy and has been open about his desire to reconstitute the Soviet bloc. Putin admitted to have territorial interests that weren’t limited to Ukraine. How else does one reconstitute the USSR?
The idea that we somehow forced Russia to invade Ukraine due to NATO when Ukraine had not applied for membership in the decades following the Soviet collapse is hysterical on its face.
Of course we wanted Ukraine in NATO. And Ukraine didn’t pursue it till recently. And that provoked Putin to invade Ukraine?
Then he invades Ukraine and now they and some Scandinavian countries have also joined. This was predictable and has happened.
What is Sach’s response? Russia invades Ukraine and the world should watch because US foreign policy sucks?
Even if I agreed with every critique of our policy and history, it also still does not solve the problem in front of us.
Ukraine wants its independence. If they don’t, Zelenskyy can surrender tomorrow. We signed a deal with Russia and Ukraine in 1994 where the Russians agreed not to invade and we guaranteed to support Ukraine if they did. Ukraine did NOT join NATO.
Russia broke the deal. We should honor our commitment unless Ukraine wants to surrender, which it still has not done.
Now please answer the questions I asked you
Props for watching. Truly!
Looks like you’re fishing for a gotcha moment, that if you keep asking the same question I’ll eventually admit that, what, Ukraine should fight to the very last person? The west should launch WW3? Something else?
Generous of you to offer unlimited Ukrainian bodies for this cause, when most of them no longer want involvement in it themselves.
It’s like if you were to ask me whether Cubans should wage war against the US in response to its crippling sanctions. It’s a cruel and brutal situation but I wouldn’t recommend that Cubans get themselves annihilated. Or if you were to ask me whether Cubans should invite Russia to stage warheads and a massive military buildup on Cuba. Wait didn’t something more or less like that already happen, and the world came within a hair’s breadth of nuclear armageddon? The wheels of eventual relief and redemption will unfortunately grind much more slowly than that for Cuba.
Was there some other question you wanted me to answer?
And if the majority of Ukrainians want to be Russian, Zelensky can surrender tomorrow. And the Cuban analogy isn’t analogous. Are we actively invading Cuba? No.
Is Putin actively invading Ukraine? Yes.
And Ukraine doesn’t have to get annihilated. Putin could leave tomorrow. Except he won’t. So my original comment stands. Your and Sach’s solution seems to be give dictator what they want to maintain peace. If you want to be Russian, move to Russia. But maybe the rest of the world doesn’t want to surrender to him.
This is always my favorite part of these discussions. “If you love Saddam Hussein so much, why don’t you move to China.”
I think we’ve probably taken this particular conversation as far as we can. Thanks for engaging.
Ps- listening now.
I am. As an economist, he’s top of the game whether people agree with him or not. But foreign policy? There’s a bit of halo effect here.
And yes, he may have been in the room but if he thinks the Russians were speaking candidly in front of him, he is probably naive and you would be as well.
And I can offer my own experts who aren’t economists and have relevant experience - like teaching Russian politics at the War College.
In any case, you and Sachs can re-litigate the past all you want. And maybe there’s truth to it. But we are here now.
Putin has ignored every agreement to date but you expect to believe he will honor the next. Fine. I have a bridge to sell you.
The Ukrainians have plenty of reason to keep fighting. They know what will happen if they stop.
"For years, the world watched as Russia systematically kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, erasing their identities and forcing them into Russian families. This isn’t just a war crime—it’s genocide in real time.
"Now, Trump’s regime is actively helping Russia cover up this genocide. His State Department quietly terminated a crucial contract that was facilitating the transfer of evidence on Russia’s mass abduction of Ukrainian children to European law enforcement, according to The New Republic.
"This decision cripples efforts to track and recover abducted children, making it harder to hold Russia accountable for what international courts have already labeled a war crime. By cutting off this support, Trump’s regime is not just abandoning Ukraine—they are actively obstructing justice.
"This isn’t just inaction—it’s complicity in one of the most horrific acts of genocide and war crimes."
https://olgalautman.substack.com/p/trump-is-helping-russia-get-away