Joe Biden has never been interested in winning in Ukraine -- neither in deterring Russian invasion, nor in "reversing" it, which Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Friday was the administration's new goal.
The clearest signs: Biden lifted sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline last year; Biden essentially gave Russia a green light to invade by saying Putin had to do so; Biden created an absurd system of "tranches" of sanctions that all but admitted Putin would invade; Biden refuses to sanction Russia's energy industry; and Biden has ruled out the use of troops to help Ukraine.
What they've opted for, instead, is a set of sanctions that Putin has easily ignored in the past, and efforts to embarrass Russia on the international stage, which Putin has clearly demonstrated do not move him in the slightest way.
All Russia has ever understood is force, and the challenge is that force could trigger a nuclear confrontation. Trump's approach was to use limited, yet overwhelming, displays of force that helped avoid larger clashes. Putin decided the risk of incurring Trump's unpredictable wrath wasn't worth it.
Now we are the ones trying to figure out an unpredictable Putin, amid fear that he might go nuclear or somehow cause a Ukrainian nuclear "accident."
What is the strategy for victory? We've never had one. I think it begins by finding some indirect way to bleed Russia -- not economically, but literally -- such that Putin pulls back in Ukraine. What's the target -- Russian forces in Syria? Disputed islands in the western Pacific? Creative thinking needed.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
