The situation in Ukraine remains dire, and it is tough to predict outcomes, given how few people predicted that Putin would send Russian troops into the country in the first place. Nevertheless, I think a likely outcome is emerging, and it is a diplomatic settlement, probably on unfavorable terms for Ukraine.
NATO is not going to war over Ukraine. That's the unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on how you look at it) consequence of the fact that Ukraine is not a member. It's an open question as to whether the U.S. would really go full-bore to defend a NATO member like, say, Turkey, but nonmembers have no chance.
That has consequences for frontline states such as Israel and Taiwan. These are emerging points of instability between the West on the one hand, and Russia/China on the other. Israel has tried to maintain good relations with all of the great powers; Taiwan, obviously, only has the U.S., and it barely has that.
But back to Ukraine. There will be no NATO no-fly zone, nor any other kind of no-fly zone. At the same time, Ukrainian resistance is dug in, and the Russian troops have been taking a beating so far. Putin hasn't yet brought in his biggest weapons, and Ukraine has yet to unleash a full counter-insurgency operation.
Russia's current demands -- no NATO membership, secession of the eastern provinces, recognition of Crimea as part of Russia -- are non-starters, because they are the same demands Ukraine rejected at the start of the war, and they amount to Russia using force to get what it wants, without compromise.
Yet are they reasonable demands? Russia has made clear that it regards NATO membership as a causus belli, and Ukraine isn't a member yet anyway, so it is probably not a major concession. Crimea is effectively part of Russia, sadly, so I'm not sure what Ukraine could hope for there, though recognition is a stretch.
There is probably room for some compromise that retains the breakaway parts of eastern Ukraine while devolving power somewhat, granting them greater regional autonomy. The one thing Ukraine can't accept is the idea that it can just be carved up by force. That is about sovereignty, not just about provinces.
We are in for a lot more fighting before both sides are ready to accept a deal as the best possible alternative to continuing. The cruel irony of war is that only a deal can stop the fighting, but only fighting will bring the two sides to a deal. Until then, Ukraine is basically on its own. Heroically, tragically, on its own.
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!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
