That's interesting; can you tell me more about that? In a previous piece, I discuss Sachs's CNN piece about sanctions; that piece was striking to read. And in a different previous piece, I embed Varoufakis's interview in which he points out that the sanctions are hurting the Russian people but not the Russian regime; that's a striking thing to consider.
Thanks for commenting! See my previous pieces for clarification on the issue of how diplomacy would work regarding Ukraine; Zelensky would be part of the negotiations and the Ukrainian people would make the final decision, so nothing would be imposed on anybody, which I agree would be an issue if that were the idea.
In refusing help asked for we'd be removing their preferred choice and leaving them with choices we think are better for them.... Might still be the right thing to do.
How do you know that Zelensky wants to do the "grotesque experiment" and that he's not in favor of diplomacy? I've published multiple pieces about Zelensky's pro-diplomacy statements, so it's not at all clear that he's not interested in diplomacy, though I understand that he's said various things.
I'm not suggesting he isn't interested in diplomacy. Certainly he seemed to be at the start, and despite recent statements about taking all land back, my guess is he still would be depending on the terms.
But he's consistently asked for Western military aid and of the choices available to him now - agreeing to terms currently acceptable to Russia or fighting with Western aid - he's chosen the latter.
Clearly not offering the military aid would be removing his preferred choice of getting that military aid.
Not giving aid asked for might be the right thing to do. But clearly it would be not giving help being asked for because we think we know what's better for them.
(Also, worth noting, the West have consistently said they would back a diplomatic solution agreed by Ukraine.)
Almost no one is opposed to military aid; the issue is what kind.
There's a crucial issue, which is whether Zelensky wants diplomacy or war; I agree that Zelensky isn't screaming from the rooftops about his desire for diplomacy, so that's certainly true, but I also think that Zelensky might not see diplomacy as a possibility, since Washington isn't interested, which would mean that Zelensky is narrowly calling for weapons because he knows that diplomacy simply isn't a possibility.
They're asking for more and heavier weapons. If your idea that the West is deliberately giving them just enough to prolong the war but no more, I don't think that's the case.
'War or diplomacy' seems like a false dichotomy to me. Everyone would, of course, prefer diplomacy. Just diplomacy where the other side agrees to something acceptable to them. Also, war effects diplomacy - what's possible via war effects what you you're willing to accept via diplomacy.
I've seen nothing to suggest that Zelensky is secretly wants the US to do more on the diplomatic front but they won't so he's persuing his current course instead.
I think the honest position for you, Chomsky, Varufakis etc. is to say, yes, we understand Ukraine wants X, but we think it's better they get Y so that's what we should do. That's a totally fine and respectable position. (I think Chomsky at least has been open about this).
The currency markets do not seem to back the view that Russia is losing. It's strange.
That's interesting; can you tell me more about that? In a previous piece, I discuss Sachs's CNN piece about sanctions; that piece was striking to read. And in a different previous piece, I embed Varoufakis's interview in which he points out that the sanctions are hurting the Russian people but not the Russian regime; that's a striking thing to consider.
Thanks; that's an interesting article!
Someone asks for help and we should say "no", cause we know what's best for you.
Thanks for commenting! See my previous pieces for clarification on the issue of how diplomacy would work regarding Ukraine; Zelensky would be part of the negotiations and the Ukrainian people would make the final decision, so nothing would be imposed on anybody, which I agree would be an issue if that were the idea.
In refusing help asked for we'd be removing their preferred choice and leaving them with choices we think are better for them.... Might still be the right thing to do.
How do you know that Zelensky wants to do the "grotesque experiment" and that he's not in favor of diplomacy? I've published multiple pieces about Zelensky's pro-diplomacy statements, so it's not at all clear that he's not interested in diplomacy, though I understand that he's said various things.
I'm not suggesting he isn't interested in diplomacy. Certainly he seemed to be at the start, and despite recent statements about taking all land back, my guess is he still would be depending on the terms.
But he's consistently asked for Western military aid and of the choices available to him now - agreeing to terms currently acceptable to Russia or fighting with Western aid - he's chosen the latter.
Clearly not offering the military aid would be removing his preferred choice of getting that military aid.
Not giving aid asked for might be the right thing to do. But clearly it would be not giving help being asked for because we think we know what's better for them.
(Also, worth noting, the West have consistently said they would back a diplomatic solution agreed by Ukraine.)
Almost no one is opposed to military aid; the issue is what kind.
There's a crucial issue, which is whether Zelensky wants diplomacy or war; I agree that Zelensky isn't screaming from the rooftops about his desire for diplomacy, so that's certainly true, but I also think that Zelensky might not see diplomacy as a possibility, since Washington isn't interested, which would mean that Zelensky is narrowly calling for weapons because he knows that diplomacy simply isn't a possibility.
They're asking for more and heavier weapons. If your idea that the West is deliberately giving them just enough to prolong the war but no more, I don't think that's the case.
'War or diplomacy' seems like a false dichotomy to me. Everyone would, of course, prefer diplomacy. Just diplomacy where the other side agrees to something acceptable to them. Also, war effects diplomacy - what's possible via war effects what you you're willing to accept via diplomacy.
I've seen nothing to suggest that Zelensky is secretly wants the US to do more on the diplomatic front but they won't so he's persuing his current course instead.
I think the honest position for you, Chomsky, Varufakis etc. is to say, yes, we understand Ukraine wants X, but we think it's better they get Y so that's what we should do. That's a totally fine and respectable position. (I think Chomsky at least has been open about this).
Thanks! What did you find interesting about the fact that Tucker Carlson mentioned these points?