[GK3]

Thoughts on a Sunday morning in May: At the very moment the Free World needs an America to be led by an inspiring, serious and wise statesman or stateswoman, a commander-in-chief steeped in history and instinctively capable of zooming back and forth between details and the big picture of international relations, we are once again stuck with a "choice" between stumbling senility and oblivious narcissism. Any wonder why Hamas, Putin, Xi, the Iranian mullahs, et. al., are rubbing their hands and operating with unmitigated impunity? Their collective future is so bright they gotta wear shades. This is not good, folks.

Amen! No better way to say it like it is.

---

(5) If you're saying that the U.S. or West should have sent troops to defend Ukraine pre-2014, then I agree, but those were very different political times.  Obama was attempting a "re-set" with Russia.  Bush was tied up in two major conflicts for most of his presidency.  Before the Iraq War went south, Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian strongman who would not have accepted Western troops even if we wanted to put them there.  Before that, Yeltsin was trying to move Russia towards a more friendly relationship with the West and we weren't about to undermine him by putting troops directly on his border.  In sum, a 2024 peace treaty would be the most logical time since the Fall of the Soviet Union for the U.S. or the West to put troops in Ukraine.

It might be the most logical time, but the US should never put troops into a country whose defense is not considered in the "vital interest" of the US. Right now, we clearly don't believe that a free Ukrainian state is in our "vital interest", at least not vital enough to actually fight for. I am not arguing here that it is in our vital interest. I am simply stating that right now the US president, the US congress, and the US military do not believe it is. Ukraine knows this and Russia knows this.

FWL my opinion is worth, I think the problem lies with Congress and the President.  Congress is a mess, no one can agree on anything.  The President has a hard time makiing hard decisions.  The Military is left trying to figure out what they are supposed to do, since almost all the important people above them have NO military expertise or experience.  Our system of having a civilian Commander in Chief is important, but that commander has to be smart emough to staff his advisors with people who understand what he or she doesn't, and then be willing ot listen. Enough said.

---

(5) If you're saying that the U.S. or West should have sent troops to defend Ukraine pre-2014, then I agree, but those were very different political times.  Obama was attempting a "re-set" with Russia.  Bush was tied up in two major conflicts for most of his presidency.  Before the Iraq War went south, Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian strongman who would not have accepted Western troops even if we wanted to put them there.  Before that, Yeltsin was trying to move Russia towards a more friendly relationship with the West and we weren't about to undermine him by putting troops directly on his border.  In sum, a 2024 peace treaty would be the most logical time since the Fall of the Soviet Union for the U.S. or the West to put troops in Ukraine.

It might be the most logical time, but the US should never put troops into a country whose defense is not considered in the "vital interest" of the US. Right now, we clearly don't believe that a free Ukrainian state is in our "vital interest", at least not vital enough to actually fight for. I am not arguing here that it is in our vital interest. I am simply stating that right now the US president, the US congress, and the US military do not believe it is. Ukraine knows this and Russia knows this.

Amen!

[GK3]

Thoughts on a Sunday morning in May: At the very moment the Free World needs an America to be led by an inspiring, serious and wise statesman or stateswoman, a commander-in-chief steeped in history and instinctively capable of zooming back and forth between details and the big picture of international relations, we are once again stuck with a "choice" between stumbling senility and oblivious narcissism. Any wonder why Hamas, Putin, Xi, the Iranian mullahs, et. al., are rubbing their hands and operating with unmitigated impunity? Their collective future is so bright they gotta wear shades. This is not good, folks.

Amen! No better way to say it like it is.

---

(5) If you're saying that the U.S. or West should have sent troops to defend Ukraine pre-2014, then I agree, but those were very different political times.  Obama was attempting a "re-set" with Russia.  Bush was tied up in two major conflicts for most of his presidency.  Before the Iraq War went south, Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian strongman who would not have accepted Western troops even if we wanted to put them there.  Before that, Yeltsin was trying to move Russia towards a more friendly relationship with the West and we weren't about to undermine him by putting troops directly on his border.  In sum, a 2024 peace treaty would be the most logical time since the Fall of the Soviet Union for the U.S. or the West to put troops in Ukraine.

It might be the most logical time, but the US should never put troops into a country whose defense is not considered in the "vital interest" of the US. Right now, we clearly don't believe that a free Ukrainian state is in our "vital interest", at least not vital enough to actually fight for. I am not arguing here that it is in our vital interest. I am simply stating that right now the US president, the US congress, and the US military do not believe it is. Ukraine knows this and Russia knows this.

FWL my opinion is worth, I think the problem lies with Congress and the President.  Congress is a mess, no one can agree on anything.  The President has a hard time makiing hard decisions.  The Military is left trying to figure out what they are supposed to do, since almost all the important people above them have NO military expertise or experience.  Our system of having a civilian Commander in Chief is important, but that commander has to be smart emough to staff his advisors with people who understand what he or she doesn't, and then be willing ot listen. Enough said.

---

(5) If you're saying that the U.S. or West should have sent troops to defend Ukraine pre-2014, then I agree, but those were very different political times.  Obama was attempting a "re-set" with Russia.  Bush was tied up in two major conflicts for most of his presidency.  Before the Iraq War went south, Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian strongman who would not have accepted Western troops even if we wanted to put them there.  Before that, Yeltsin was trying to move Russia towards a more friendly relationship with the West and we weren't about to undermine him by putting troops directly on his border.  In sum, a 2024 peace treaty would be the most logical time since the Fall of the Soviet Union for the U.S. or the West to put troops in Ukraine.

It might be the most logical time, but the US should never put troops into a country whose defense is not considered in the "vital interest" of the US. Right now, we clearly don't believe that a free Ukrainian state is in our "vital interest", at least not vital enough to actually fight for. I am not arguing here that it is in our vital interest. I am simply stating that right now the US president, the US congress, and the US military do not believe it is. Ukraine knows this and Russia knows this.

Amen!