It’s puzzling. Why does fear of World War III seem the underlying motive for America’s Ukraine strategy? I mean, look at our government’s efforts to dissuade Vladimir Putin from escalating his “special military operation”: First, we warned him not to involve any of our NATO allies in his misadventures – and warned if he expands beyond Ukraine there’ll be serious consequences! We’ve virtually confiscated most of the credit cards that he and his oligarch pals control. We’ve warned we’ll cease drinking vodka if he persists. We’ve called him a bagful of not-nice names (Butcher, Thug, War Criminal) and we’ve other nasty names reserved if he persists. We have, by our recalcitrance in supplying the Ukrainian resistance with anything more deadly than a few thousand slingshots, demonstrated that greater firepower is just around the corner if he escalates. We’ve praised the brave, resourceful Ukrainians putting those slingshots to good use. And we’ve committed to sending Ukraine another million pairs of blue and yellow cheerleader pom-poms.
The point is, with everything we’re doing to appease Putin, while simultaneously threatening him with paper tigers, why would he even consider starting another World War?
So, maybe I’ve made the case that a program of avoiding war at all costs is not such a great strategy. Should we draw a line in the rubble? Maybe, when there are zero apartment buildings, schools and hospitals left standing in Ukraine, maybe that will be the point at which we decide to call Putin’s bluff?
Robert Dorival
Ignacio
