Response to Kelly Scoles' "Second Opinion"

Hi Kelly,
I just don't have any interest in sparing over political reputations, alleged comments, which have had no real time consequence (though some do). I will just accept the fact that you believe people like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are "demented " and Tucker Carlson a coward (Carlson is not only over his skis lately, he's got them on backwards).

I'm primarily interested in policy, not theater. My admission should save a lot of otherwise wasted ink. There are other politicians, like little Adam Schiff (of the infamous, 4-year Russia-Trump "Collusion"), and (late) Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, recognized by honest Americans as undisputed pathological liars. Such discussions inevitably lead to Pyrrhic dead ends - so why bother?

I would rather evaluate the success or failure of political decisions and those who launched them. For example, was it wise of President Biden to have closed down the nation's energy industry, as he did on his first day in office? Was it wise for Biden to have destroyed security at our southern border, welcoming (and dispersing) 3-million unvetted illegal aliens from all over the world - to date? Was it wise to abandon American citizens in Afghanistan, and surrender $83-billion in war-fighting equipment, and to give the entire country over to the Taliban enemy?

These kinds of issues deserve debate.

So, let's return to the life-and-death discussion of the murderous Ukraine war, where a sovereign nation of 41-million citizens has been brutally attacked by Russia. For America, the beginning of this catastrophe was with the Obama-Biden presidency. For a year we watched the (widely announced) build-up of Russian troops and equipment without doing anything to discourage Putin's megalomania. Obama had sent blankets and MREs when Ukraine asked for defensive military help. Trump was first to send Stinger and Javelin missiles. Sending more meaningful weapons, even if too little and almost too late, can still halt the Russian advance, but much of Ukraine's beautiful structure will be destroyed. If Ukraine should lose this war, it could also turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia (Pyrrhus, king of Epirus who defeated the Romans in 279 BCE but at a devastating cost). The destruction of Russian armaments by Ukrainian forces is extraordinary, including the death of two of Putin’s favorite generals. Regardless of Putin's nuclear threats to anyone assisting Ukraine, NATO should welcome all such assistance. Otherwise, Putin's threats will succeed in turning the Ukraine stallion into a Russian gelding.

Like many Americans I've been focused on the war from the beginning. A no-fly zone should have been implemented at least a year ago and backed up with a strongly reinforced NATO defense. Now that option is being delayed by the ongoing action. The West should not be intimidated by Putin's nuclear threats. The Russian people (including its military brass) is by now aware of their President's emotional instability; the almost cartoonish "Far Side" picture of Putin sitting at one end of a 40-foot conference table, with his two generals together at the other, says it all - debilitating paranoia; he fears his own generals (recognizes his own failures). He has lost "face" with the world looking on.

If Russia's military leadership remains rational itself, they might take Putin out for the sake of national survival. I hope NATO has finally understood the imminent, expanding threat and successfully rearms in time. It makes me recall Winston Churchill's alleged comment about Americans: "... they'll always do the right thing, after trying everything else."

If so, that's a dangerous habit to repeat during a war.