I mean, should I give you a list? The question isn’t rhetorical. pic.twitter.com/MNbQzAiKMV— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) March 1, 2022
Honestly if this stuff is a substitute for a no-fly zone and makes idiots feel good then it's worth it. https://t.co/71fHFczsxl— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 1, 2022
This is also my impression.
We’re watching a bunch of fools who are steering our foreign policy, especially women and feminized liberal men who are Twitter addicts, living vicariously through the Ukrainians. These people are emoting and virtue signaling their way into World War III. They are making a series of rash, highly emotional decisions without giving much thought to the long term consequences.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a very big deal and a very bad thing. Permit me to stipulate that, before going on to observe that the event has also triggered the latest outbreak of mass hysteria among the Western ruling class, the severest yet.
Just when sobriety, responsibility, probity, and diplomatic skill are most needful, our pundits and policymakers offer the opposite: trembling emotion, cheap propaganda, wild fantasies, a refusal to dialogue and de-escalate. And the worst part is: It’s all so damned familiar. Once more, we are falling—or rather, being driven—into structural information traps that hamper sound decision-making and force policy choices we might regret dearly when it’s too late. …”
I know enough about this conflict to know that it is complex and that it is really none of our business and we should stay out of it because we have no vital interest at stake.
We’re seeing insane nonsense though like the idea that we can just crush Russia’s currency and economy and flood Ukraine with Western weapons or establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and shoot down Russia aircraft without unleashing a tit-for-tat that could spiral out of control.
“The Western response to Russian invasion falls hard and fast. The actions of the E.U., the Anglosphere nations, and Japan are both extraordinary and consequential: multiple NATO states have brazenly declared their intent to arm Ukrainian forces with conventional ammunition, precision munitions, and even military aircraft. European airspace is closed to all Russian planes. Western capitals have not only announced sanctions on Kremlin oligarchs, but also restrictions on Russia’s central bank. Russian institutions are being removed from the SWIFT system. The Norwegians— in a maneuver sure to be copied—have dumped all Russian assets in their sovereign wealth fund. Olaf Scholz repudiated the last decade of German defense and energy policy with one speech. And now there is talk of bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO. …
This is a powerful framework for understanding foreign policy crises. Catastrophic misjudgment rests on the convergence of two elements: an emergent sense that there is a moral imperative to act paired with a breakdown in the formal decision-making processes designed to force policy makers to carefully weigh the potential consequences of their decisions. Combined these elements make for a “pattern of misjudgement” that changes the way officials “weigh the costs and benefits” of their decisions, as they shift from an attitude of “analytical nuance” to “morally charged commitment to acting almost regardless of consequence.”
The first element of the diad is inevitable. The demand to “do something” is a certain sequel to the high emotions of danger and outrage—be they emotions prompted by a terrorist attack in the heart of America or an invasion on the marchlands of Europe. The “interagency” system was partially designed with this inevitably in mind. When working properly, it leads officials to confront their own assumptions and emotions. But the system is not infallible. For the Bush administration the default to intuition was the product of a dysfunctional national security team; the bureaucratic acumen and fractious interpersonal conflicts of its leading officials destroyed all procedural guide-rails that might have brought the administration back down to reality. We still suffer the consequences of that procedural implosion. …”
We have opened up Pandora’s Box on a whim.
“Among the cognoscenti of the Western capitals of politics and finance, the chorus screams unanimously for ever-escalating economic sanctions against Russia. Lost amidst the cacophony of those calling for a historic financial bloodletting is a dispassionate and careful analysis of the potential peril of such unprecedented collective actions.
Specifically, for the first time ever, the powers of the Western World align to purposefully and willfully destroy the currency of a major power – and not just any power, but the most armed nuclear force on earth. The decision to essentially de-bank the entire country of Russia, save very key carve-outs (more on those elements in a moment), represents a brash entry into a heretofore uncharted path of the weaponization of money.
After all, even the despicable Nazi regime during WWII did not face this level of monetary attack. In fact, the Germans transacted internationally via the Bank of International Settlements, which remained neutral in a Switzerland which was then committed to that over-arching principle. ….
Even a columnist for the Washington Post recognized the potential massive and dangerous unknowable ramifications of such actions. …”
Joe Biden promised a “return to normalcy.”
The last 48 hours have made the Trump administration look like a walk in the park in summer. Nothing has happened that is remotely this crazy since 1914 or 1939.
Note: It is worth remembering that World War I began in the Balkans and World War II began over Poland. The U.S. entered World War II when Japan struck Pearl Harbor after it was crushed by sanctions.