Perhaps I should apologize for the tone I took on the Chomsky post. This is not Twitter, where indignant polemic - in anticipation of invective - is the only way to communicate. This is a place of reasoned debate and will be treated as such.
Now, to Mr. Sachs' arguments: I think he is making the same mistake Chomsky made - he is treating the situation as if Ukraine was a puppet government of the United States, when it is very much not. The Ukrainians are not fighting because the West told them to fight, they are fighting because they want to fight for their own freedom. It's as if Mr. Sachs is talking about a deal between the United States and Russia over the Ukraine crisis - and forgot to include Ukrainian participation in the negotiations about their own country. And he assumes that the Russians would abide by that peace agreement, even though they violate every other agreement (such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and the 2014 Minsk agreements). He also assumes that the Russians have made their final territorial demands, a classic appeasement delusion. So when he writes that we should "try very hard, to see whether peace can be achieved through Ukraine's neutrality backed by international guarantees" he ignores that they've tried that before and all the "international guarantees" were worthless.
As to NATO - once again, he hasn't considered that the Russians are lying. The Russians are not afraid of a NATO invasion of Russia, the Russians are upset that they can't invade the Eastern European NATO countries the way he invaded non-NATO Ukraine and Georgia. Putin has spoken many times about how humiliating it is that Russia gave up all this territory at the end of the Cold War. It makes him feel bad. That's too bad, but it's not a reason to let him invade democratic Europe.
He says that sanctions "enjoys little support outside of the United States and Europe". So what? The technology and finances he needs most are concentrated in the United States and Europe - that's why all his oligarchs live there, and not in China or wherever else. I guess he's unfamiliar with the history of how western companies were what built and sustained the Soviet Union's industrial and military machine (as Stalin told Averell Harriman: "two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.") Keep in mind that one of the big reasons the Russian advance on Kyiv failed was because their cheap Chinese tires failed. Let's keep it that way. And yes, we should keep selling weapons to Ukraine. Without them they are at Russia's mercy. Obviously.
Anyway, that's my take - as long as the Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, we should support them in any way we can. Hopefully Russians get tired of being poor, isolated and having their young men drafted and turned into worm food by the tens of thousands
Thanks.. These are thoughtful and cogent points.. I too suspect that Russia would not be satisfied with commitments on NATO at this point, but I think the issue that both Chomsky and Sachs raise is important, and somewhat different than you are suggesting. As Chomsky and I both pointed out, Ukraine has already stated that they would not join NATO, but that has done nothing. The key point is that the US, which has been pushing for NATO expansion, has not reinforced and reiterated their earlier commitment not to enlarge NATO. This is an important first step.. Then one could see what happens after that. Ukraine needs to continue fighting and defending their people, but it is very important for all sides to explore diplomatic solutions, which, as Chomsky in particular pointed out, at this time, will not be very attractive ones.. Thanks again for the tone, and thoughtful discussion. I appreciate it.
Perhaps I should apologize for the tone I took on the Chomsky post. This is not Twitter, where indignant polemic - in anticipation of invective - is the only way to communicate. This is a place of reasoned debate and will be treated as such.
Now, to Mr. Sachs' arguments: I think he is making the same mistake Chomsky made - he is treating the situation as if Ukraine was a puppet government of the United States, when it is very much not. The Ukrainians are not fighting because the West told them to fight, they are fighting because they want to fight for their own freedom. It's as if Mr. Sachs is talking about a deal between the United States and Russia over the Ukraine crisis - and forgot to include Ukrainian participation in the negotiations about their own country. And he assumes that the Russians would abide by that peace agreement, even though they violate every other agreement (such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and the 2014 Minsk agreements). He also assumes that the Russians have made their final territorial demands, a classic appeasement delusion. So when he writes that we should "try very hard, to see whether peace can be achieved through Ukraine's neutrality backed by international guarantees" he ignores that they've tried that before and all the "international guarantees" were worthless.
As to NATO - once again, he hasn't considered that the Russians are lying. The Russians are not afraid of a NATO invasion of Russia, the Russians are upset that they can't invade the Eastern European NATO countries the way he invaded non-NATO Ukraine and Georgia. Putin has spoken many times about how humiliating it is that Russia gave up all this territory at the end of the Cold War. It makes him feel bad. That's too bad, but it's not a reason to let him invade democratic Europe.
He says that sanctions "enjoys little support outside of the United States and Europe". So what? The technology and finances he needs most are concentrated in the United States and Europe - that's why all his oligarchs live there, and not in China or wherever else. I guess he's unfamiliar with the history of how western companies were what built and sustained the Soviet Union's industrial and military machine (as Stalin told Averell Harriman: "two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.") Keep in mind that one of the big reasons the Russian advance on Kyiv failed was because their cheap Chinese tires failed. Let's keep it that way. And yes, we should keep selling weapons to Ukraine. Without them they are at Russia's mercy. Obviously.
Anyway, that's my take - as long as the Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, we should support them in any way we can. Hopefully Russians get tired of being poor, isolated and having their young men drafted and turned into worm food by the tens of thousands
Thanks.. These are thoughtful and cogent points.. I too suspect that Russia would not be satisfied with commitments on NATO at this point, but I think the issue that both Chomsky and Sachs raise is important, and somewhat different than you are suggesting. As Chomsky and I both pointed out, Ukraine has already stated that they would not join NATO, but that has done nothing. The key point is that the US, which has been pushing for NATO expansion, has not reinforced and reiterated their earlier commitment not to enlarge NATO. This is an important first step.. Then one could see what happens after that. Ukraine needs to continue fighting and defending their people, but it is very important for all sides to explore diplomatic solutions, which, as Chomsky in particular pointed out, at this time, will not be very attractive ones.. Thanks again for the tone, and thoughtful discussion. I appreciate it.