There's no simple solution to Ukraine. Putin is an a-hole tyrant using propaganda about Ukraine to prop up his crappy petro-state. Although, it's increasigly to hide his hundreds of thousands of dead/wounded and declining economy.
But Putin has nuclear weapons. Any hard Ukrainian push with Western arms increases the horrific likelihood of nuke use. So Ukraine will probably lose territory in any ceasefire agreement. Russia's nukes aren't going anywhere.
It all just sucks. Good luck to Trump to sort it out.
enjoying your book on Lindbergh vs Roosevelt wondering if you have or will ever write about Taft vs Eisenhower and the disagreement they had about Americas role in the world.
I first became aware of Taft position while I was writing a paper in college - my paper for an east Asian history class quickly became a summary of American foreign policy of the last 80 years.
As a matter of fact, I wrote about that in my very first book, Cold Warriors, explaining that Eisenhower entered the 1952 race largely to keep Taft from getting the Republican nomination.
do you think perhaps Eisenhower underappreciated how corrosive a more interventionist policy would be to the American political system?
or how the system logically builds upon itself in the direction of ever more expansion without the kind of measure restraint that Eisenhower himself practiced.
There's no simple solution to Ukraine. Putin is an a-hole tyrant using propaganda about Ukraine to prop up his crappy petro-state. Although, it's increasigly to hide his hundreds of thousands of dead/wounded and declining economy.
But Putin has nuclear weapons. Any hard Ukrainian push with Western arms increases the horrific likelihood of nuke use. So Ukraine will probably lose territory in any ceasefire agreement. Russia's nukes aren't going anywhere.
It all just sucks. Good luck to Trump to sort it out.
enjoying your book on Lindbergh vs Roosevelt wondering if you have or will ever write about Taft vs Eisenhower and the disagreement they had about Americas role in the world.
I first became aware of Taft position while I was writing a paper in college - my paper for an east Asian history class quickly became a summary of American foreign policy of the last 80 years.
As a matter of fact, I wrote about that in my very first book, Cold Warriors, explaining that Eisenhower entered the 1952 race largely to keep Taft from getting the Republican nomination.
do you think perhaps Eisenhower underappreciated how corrosive a more interventionist policy would be to the American political system?
or how the system logically builds upon itself in the direction of ever more expansion without the kind of measure restraint that Eisenhower himself practiced.