Jump to content

Message Board User

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    9877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Message Board User

  1. In situations like this, you dont freeze assets you confiscate them. This is a good start:
  2. A glimmer of hope...and it makes sense; would you want to be the military/intel expert to tell Putin his plans aren't fail-proof?
  3. Thought this is particularly astute and why it's folly to think of Putin as a "madman." This weekend, while I was reading Brendan Simms' new biography of Hitler, I came across a striking passage. Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed—in 1933 no less—that Hitler's rise was a "portent of evil," and astutely observed that his rise would lead to incommensurable conflict with the liberal West. FDR is pointing to a kind of fundamental irreconcilability in worldviews. It's remarkable that he describes Hitler as "evil" this early on. For FDR, "reason" appears to imply toleration, and "justice" is something that flows out of a rationally ordered society. But note that the moral argument is grounded not in Hitler's actions. Yes, by 1933, everyone knew Hitler to be a violent antisemitic thug who had managed to claw his way to the head of Germany, and who was already well on his way to completely suppressing dissent. But he hadn't yet started on his genocidal project in earnest, and few at the time could imagine that he would actually try to prosecute his murderous designs. Instead, FDR's rebuke is grounded in first principle questions. Hitler appeals to human hatred, to division. He mocks tolerance. To write off Hitler as merely an unreasonable madman is to render his hold over the German people incomprehensible. "Black sorcery" gets at the heart of the matter much more aptly. Hitler's starting premises—his first commitments—are irreconcilable with our own. But his first commitments are also powerful appeals to real aspects of human nature. A worldview grounded in grievance, suspicion, and loathing may be hideous to contemplate, but it is coherent. And, moreover, plausible and durable. By invoking Hitler as a parallel for current events, I know I risk falling into the reductio ad Hitleram fallacy. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that Putinism is the new incarnation of Nazism (though at time of writing it feels ominously violent). Nor do I plan to invoke Neville Chamberlain when I criticize those that will, no doubt, continue to believe that a diplomatic solution to the current crisis is still within reach. My point is narrower, though perhaps no less grim: there is no bargaining with Putin's Russia. The sooner we understand this—and the sooner we recognize what we are up against—the better.
  4. The answer to this question lies in the equation - Deterrence = Capability x Will.
×
×
  • Create New...