Thread by @Mylovanov

NYTimes publishes a (paid) letter by 14 US national security experts. Jeffrey Sachs among the signees.

It calls for peace by stopping to support Ukraine.

Every claim it makes is misguided and uninformed. The arguments in the letter are embarrassingly weak. 1/

Claim 1. More weapons is a guarantee of further death and destruction.

This claim only makes sense if you don't think about it. But if you do, you see that the Western weapons allowed Ukraine to liberate Bucha, Kharkiv, Kherson, stopping torture, rape and executions there. 2/

Yesterday and the night before, the Western provided air defense protected people and saved lives. Before Patriots, people would die from Russian missile strikes.

The Western weapons help liberate territories and protect Ukrainian controlled territories. 3/

The implied assumption in the claim about weapons is that if there were no weapons there would be no war or violence. But it not true. Think about it. What would Russia do if Ukraine had no Western weapons? Well, they showed it in the begging of the invasion. 4/

They would try to take the entire country by force. Ukrainians would not surrender, and many more people would die.

The only way stopping providing Western weapons can save lives is if Ukraine surrenders to Russia. But it won't. 5/

Claim 2. The war could be ended speedily through diplomatic efforts.

If only we would live in the world in which this were true. Diplomatic efforts are relevant if Russia can be trusted to keep the agreement. But it can't as the past history has shown multiple times. 6/

The Budapest memorandum, the Kharkiv agreements, the demarcation of the border of Ukraine, the case of Tuzla island, or the ceasefire agreements from 2014 to 2021.

The problem is that the only mechanism to enforce any agreement with Russia is to have sufficient force. 7/

This literally means weapons. Ukraine should be able to militarily defend itself, only then any agreement will carry any weight.

Claim 3. The US is leaving Russian no choice but to either be humiliated or use nukes.

But Russia can withdraw its forces and end the war. 8/

No, it will not be humiliation as the evidence show. Russia withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and not a thing changed. But it had to be forced to do it. And this how the war will go. Ukraine will force Russia give up territory until it is out of Ukraine. 9/

Claim 4. NATO expansion provoked Russia.

Let's be serious here for a moment. Russia seized Crimea in 2014. What provoked it to do this? Plans of NATO expansion? No! The Revolution of Dignity. What was the revolution about? Joining the EU. 10/

No, it has never been about NATO, but about the fact the Ukrainians dared to tell Russia to go mind itself and turned to Europe.

But NATO fears cannot justify systemic rape, torture, and other war crimes in the occupied territories. How is that related? 11/

Well, Russia is destroying the spirit of resistance in Ukraine in the areas it occupies. But Ukraine won't have any of it. It is an existential fight for Ukraine. But it is not for Russia, and it is not about NATO. Russia can loose and go on ok. 12/

The letter calls for "immediate ceasefire and negotiations without any disqualifying or prohibitive preconditions".

The implication here is that Ukraine should abandon its citizens in the occupied territories who are being terrorized by Russia. 13/

The mistake the authors make is that they see this war as a war about territory (or NATO expansion), but the war is really about whether Ukraine has the right to be free.

So, if the authors say it does but the US should not support it, it is ok, but let's be honest about it. 14

Now let's look at this argument in earnest. Say the authors understand that Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and the US doesn't support it the war will stop, Ukrainians will be concurred, but there will be peace. 15/

Is this in the interest of the US? No, and here is why. Consider the next step of Russia after it swallows Ukraine. Now, it has 30 more million people under its control that it must suppress. It will take time, but eventually, at least this is what the authors seem to assume, 16/

it will work. Now Russia will have 5 more million people it can recruit for other military operations elsewhere. This is exactly what it did in the East of Ukraine - it forced Ukrainians in DNR and LNR units to fight the Ukrainians in the Ukrainian army. 17/

Most of these forcibly recruited people are dead by now. What will Russia do with this force? Moldova? Baltics? Georgia? Kazakhstan?

There is no reason why Russia will stop in Ukraine. Just a belief or hope that it would be insane for Russia to attack other countries. 18/

But it was insane for Russia to attack Ukraine in the first place.

Basically, what the authors advocate is the new Cold War, where Russia will get all the countries that are not in NATO and suppress freedom and opposition there. And they think that this world is safer. 19/

I disagree. The new Cold War and Russia controlling neighboring countries is as dangerous as the Soviet Union was if not more. The risk of global confrontation will increase and the nuclear war will be more likely. 20/

The best way to contain Russia is now while Ukrainians are willing to fight and are doing it well. The world in which Russia wins in Ukraine will embolden Russia and many other countries around the world, it will demonstrate that using force pays off, and so force will be used.21

The war in Ukraine will determine the next several decades of the European history. Will we move towards a more free and democratic world or will we move back in time to the 20th century? It is scary to stand up to a bully, but it must be done. Russia must be contained. 22X