We Need a President Who Keeps His Eye on the Ball

 

I haven’t done President Biden the courtesy of looking up his full remarks, context and all. But I’ll risk jumping to the conclusion that he is an idiot for saying that Russia must pay a “long-term price.”

The main objective should not be Putin, and should not be Russia. The objective should be helping Ukraine to be free, democratic, and independent, and helping it to get rid of corruption, whether that corruption comes from Russian interference, interference by U.S. Vice Presidents, or is homegrown. If that can be done by making Russia pay only a short-term price, that would be far better than making it pay a long-term price.

Russians want to make their country great again and that’s a worthy objective that we should support, so long as Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic countries can be great nations, too. I don’t see how mouthing off about making Russia suffer long-term is going to help bring that about. Let’s help Ukraine get this war over quickly instead of dragging out the suffering over the long term.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 97 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    “Imo they maintained any such fictions [of separate nations] because they wanted the extra votes at the UN.” Given that the Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian SSR’s were founded in or before 1922, while the United Nations was founded in 1945, Lenin must have been psychic! (The other 12 SSR’s didn’t have seats in the UN.)

    When you put it that way it seems unlikely.

    So why did Ukraine get a seat while for eg Uzbekistan – which has far more history of independent kingdoms – did not?

    Ukraine and Belarussia got UN seats as a compromise because members of the British Commonwealth were getting seats. The Soviets claimed that they would be puppets of Britain just as Ukraine and Belarussia would be puppets of the USSR. (Of course, they didn’t put it like that, but that’s what they meant.)

    My first thought was that it had something to do with the fact that nonwhites were third-class citizens in the Soviet Union. (Non-Russian whites were second-class citizens.)

    Another possibility is that in 1947 Belarus was — or was believed to be — the third largest country in the USSR, population-wise. Russia and Ukraine were numbers one and two, of course.

    If non-Russians were second class citizens, then why did they put Georgians and Ukrainians in charge?

    I am less concerned about the ethnicity of the various people in Russia and more concerned about the lack of human rights.  

    Putin wants to export his awful regime to outside Russia’s borders.  This is a concern, in my opinion.  

    • #91
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Putin wants to export his awful regime to outside Russia’s borders.  This is a concern, in my opinion.  

    I like the Thomas Jefferson quote: “We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guarantors only of our own.” 

    That still leaves a lot of room for determining how far we should go in our friendship, but I would worry that if our friendship is completely passive and uninvolved, that we are not in the right frame of mind for guarantying our own liberty.  

    • #92
  3. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    “Imo they maintained any such fictions [of separate nations] because they wanted the extra votes at the UN.” Given that the Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian SSR’s were founded in or before 1922, while the United Nations was founded in 1945, Lenin must have been psychic! (The other 12 SSR’s didn’t have seats in the UN.)

    When you put it that way it seems unlikely.

    So why did Ukraine get a seat while for eg Uzbekistan – which has far more history of independent kingdoms – did not?

    Ukraine and Belarussia got UN seats as a compromise because members of the British Commonwealth were getting seats. The Soviets claimed that they would be puppets of Britain just as Ukraine and Belarussia would be puppets of the USSR. (Of course, they didn’t put it like that, but that’s what they meant.)

    My first thought was that it had something to do with the fact that nonwhites were third-class citizens in the Soviet Union. (Non-Russian whites were second-class citizens.)

    Another possibility is that in 1947 Belarus was — or was believed to be — the third largest country in the USSR, population-wise. Russia and Ukraine were numbers one and two, of course.

    If non-Russians were second class citizens, then why did they put Georgians and Ukrainians in charge?

    Nobody “put” Stalin in charge.  He was merely the most ruthless and the most free from “bourgeois” scruples of the ruling elite, and killed all rivals.  Or are you thinking of some other Georgian?

    Nikita Khrushchev was born to Russian parents in southern Russia, near the Ukrainian border.  In his teens, he moved to eastern Ukraine to join his father, who had found work there.  The experience seems to have left him with fond memories of Ukraine, but you can’t call him a Ukrainian. Or are you thinking of somebody else?

    • #93
  4. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Putin wants to export his awful regime to outside Russia’s borders. This is a concern, in my opinion.

    I like the Thomas Jefferson quote: “We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guarantors only of our own.”

    That still leaves a lot of room for determining how far we should go in our friendship, but I would worry that if our friendship is completely passive and uninvolved, that we are not in the right frame of mind for guarantying our own liberty.

    I suppose we in the United States could just pretend that everything that is happening outside the United States doesn’t really impact us, that is doesn’t matter if Japan is an authoritarian dictatorship similar to North Korea’s dictatorship or a democracy such as it is now.  

    We can hope that the alligator eats other nations but never attempts to eat us.  That seems short-sighted in my view.  

    • #94
  5. Locke On Member
    Locke On
    @LockeOn

    Percival (View Comment):

    Nobody put Stalin in charge. He just took it.

    Your musical interlude for the occasion:

     

    • #95
  6. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Washingtonian isolationism was wise in its time.

    The Pax Americana was wise (and necessary) in its time.

    Now we need something in between.

    Washington wasn’t an isolationist. He wanted good relations with all nations. He wanted the United States to have active diplomatic intercourse with all nations. He wanted commerce with all nations – not sanctions like we keep doing today. (How many countries do we sanction?) He did not want entangling alliances with one nation for the benefit of another nation – which he recognized that the United States would be played and it was another country that would benefit and the United States would be left with the bill.

    That’s the problem with United States foreign policy at the moment – it’s for some other country’s benefit. It’s not for ours. There is no America First foreign policy and hasn’t been since Woodrow Wilson.

    It depends on how you interpret ‘isolationism’, I suppose…..in case there’s any confusion, I was talking about avoiding ‘foreign entanglements’, otherwise known as alliances, not something resembling a more peaceful version of North Korean diplomacy.

    Technology has made the world too small for isolationism to be a sensible policy, today or going forward.  Remember, after the Cold War we decided we no longer needed to pay attention to Afghanistan.  Unfortunately Afghanistan went on paying attention to us!

    • #96
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Taras (View Comment):
    Technology has made the world too small for isolationism to be a sensible policy, today or going forward.  Remember, after the Cold War we decided we no longer needed to pay attention to Afghanistan.  Unfortunately Afghanistan went on paying attention to us!

    Countries, even great powers, can’t just walk away from their history in other parts of the world simply because they get bored.  It’s thoughtless.

    Edited to add:

    I should have said walk away confident of no consequences.

    • #97
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.