Nations armed with nuclear weapons have avoided direct conflict for 83 years, for reasons which should be obvious.

(6) comments

Bill Tallen

Mary Keller, I like conversation. I have read Snyder's points and find them for the most part to be based on false assumptions, and logically flawed. Whatever his expertise, it does not appear to be in the subject of war or international relations. It would take more space than I have here to respond to them all, but I will do so on Facebook if the censors there will allow me.

Mary Keller

Great to think history out loud and initiate a conversation. Here is a short 8 min video with Yale historian Timothy Snyder, whose expertise across multiple languages, literature, poetry and history of the region is impressive. And in this pithy argument, I see counterarguments to your argument that merit consideration. What do you think?

Justin Smith

Letting a hostile mafia state run by a 21st century Czar roll in to Europe unchallenged may not be the best idea. Also the US has been involved in other proxy wars. any attempt to use old rusty nuclear weapons on the part of Russia would be met with full US thermonuclear retaliation. I seriously don't think anyone would be pressing that button. The way this piece reads to me is that we should just let a bully take pieces of Europe because we are afraid of Putin's temper. There is a clear good side and bad side here, Ukraine might be far from the perfect good guy but it is a million times better than Russia in virtually every metric. Lets not forget Russia is a hostile nation to the US.

Jim Guelde

Isn’t it terrific… how we can be dragged to the brink of global thermonuclear war, without even 5 minutes of congressional debate? Isn’t it marvelous how the American stooge carries the bulk of the financial and material burden for yet another European squabble?

John Potter

Nice to see that Bill Tallen can pontificate as magisterially in print as he does on the radio. The "promise" not to expand NATO was a careless Jim Baker comment almost immediately back-pedalled on. If Russia was so alarmed by NATO expansion, why did Yeltsin himself muse about Russian adherence to the alliance? NATO didn't move east because it was afraid of Russia, it expanded because the countries that joined did so because they were afraid of Russian aggression, and rightly so. Russia has been biting chunks off its neighbors for decades, and Russia attacked Ukraine (I hope in Tallen's two years of service he was taught what "attack" means) because it wanted more. Tallen's solution is, of course, now that Russian forces are at a near standstill, to let them keep everything they've stolen so far, in return for what I assume he regards as an honorable peace. That's an even more nauseating example of the appeasement that somehow didn't manage to satisfy the last of Europe's aggressive authoritarian bullies.

Dewey Vanderhoff

You forgot about Crimea and everything that occurred between 2013 and 2021.

Your hollow one-sided arguments and five thousand rubles will buy you a bucket of borscht...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.