So, what is wrong with saying, "International law demands Ukraine be allowed to determine its own future. So long as the people of Ukraine seek to preserve their independence, we will work with our allies to provide the support they need to do so. And...
...we will use all tools available to us to penalize Russia for violating Ukraine's independence. That includes not just sanctions, but sweeping sanctions. And not just temporary sanctions, but long-term sanctions that grow longer/deeper the longer Russia's aggression lasts.
We will seek to systematically isolate Russia within the international community and limit their ability to participate in international forums. We will target Putin and those closest to them, reveal their corruption, freeze their assets, make it impossible for them to travel.
Importantly, we recognize that economic and political pressure alone are not enough. Our support for Ukraine will explicitly include military support and training to assist in the country's defense. And...
...we will continue to strengthen NATO along Russia's borders. We do this for one reason and one reason alone. Russia's actions dictate we must. We will also use all our resources to protect and assist those in humanitarian need."
I realize this is in the zip code of what has been discussed. My question is whether the nuanced differences, between strength and too much restraint, are appropriate and possible. (I think they are.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
