WHAT TO DO TO GET THE RUSSIANS OUT OF UKRAINE

(Prime Minister Zelenskyy meeting in Kiev March 15, 2022, with prime ministers brave enough to fly there through Russian bombardment) 

Dear Editor: (to New York Times)  March 15, 2022

I hold no public office.   I'm not a celebrity, and I'm not an expert in any field.  I have no cachet. I'm just a guy sitting in front of a computer set up on his dining room table.  So I more than realize how remote the possibility that these words will see print in your newspaper.   I have, however, studied history, including biographies of many great historical figures and leaders, including Jefferson, Adams, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others, and including histories of wars over the last thousand years, having majored in the subject in college and having read for pleasure in the 49 years since.   Which is why, knowing how many intelligent, knowledgeable, and well meaning people are in the top positions in our government, it is frustrating to watch western countries, including the United States, have both a failure of imagination and of will in dealing with a rogue dictatorship, Russia.   Had Europe and the U.S. acted eight years ago when Russia first invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea, had they cut off all shipments of Russian oil and gas, all air travel, international financial connections, and sanctioned Putin's oligarchs,  we wouldn't be where we are now.

So on the remote chance this will see the light of day and actually be read by someone who can- and will- act to get us out of the current crisis, I write.   And remember this:  as a then Senator John F. Kennedy said in Indianapolis on April 12, 1959:  “The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word ‘crisis.’ One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity.”   (Turns out, per a professor at my old college, he was linguistically wrong, but this happens to be one of those aphorisms which is useful, right or wrong.)

But to get out of this unfolding train wreck of a human catastrophe in Ukraine we need to act both short term and long term.   In the short term we need to stop playing poker with Putin by showing him all of our cards in advance, telling him everything we won't do and never leaving him guessing or worried about what we might do.  By taking off the table a NATO military response that would be wholly confined to the geographic borders of Ukraine,  we have given carte blanche  to Russia's attacks on civilians and cities.   Instead of giving up before even trying to stymie the invasion, NATO should inform the Russians both to its leaders and in messages that will be delivered directly to the Russian people (somehow I'm fairly confident we have the technology to do that; if a brave Russian television employee,  Marina Ovsyannikova, can hold up a sign on live television that tells the viewers that they are being lied to, surely we  have the capacity to do something more far reaching)  that NATO will be sending relief columns by both truck and train to every besieged and shelled city.  The rescuers will be armed only with defensive weapons and will not fire on any Russian troops unless fired upon.  They will deliver food, medical supplies and personnel, portable generators, drinking water, and everything else that Ukraine  needs except for weapons.  

Moreover, the brave trip to Kiev of the Polish, Czech and Slovenian prime ministers should inspire President Biden to do likewise and announce that he will be flying to visit President Zelenskyy for several days.   Does anyone seriously think Putin would risk war with the United States by firing on our president?   And if Putin did, shouldn't our president be willing to risk making the same sacrifice he may have to ask of members of our military, especially in the cause of peace and of preventing genocide? 

In one swoop, without facing the Hobson's choice of two unpalatable extremes- doing nothing and watching helplessly as civilians are slaughtered, starved, and conquered, or enforcing a no-fly zone and risking triggering war with Russia (which would not be a "World War" by any stretch of the meaning of that phrase, but which would be calamitous nonetheless), NATO and leaders of its countries will have stopped the Russian invasion in its tracks,  stopped the barrage of missiles and shells on Ukraine's cities, all with means which are solely non-violent, but which show both imagination and courage.   Because it would be Russia that would be risking a full NATO overwhelming response that would wipe out their forces in Ukraine in a matter of days, if not hours, if they fire on peaceful relief columns or the leaders of NATO countries, including our President.   And it will be on Putin to try to figure out if it's a bluff, risking everything, including his life, if he guesses wrong.

    Long term we should make it clear as soon as the firing stops that we will not end any sanctions until Russia has not only stopped the invasion, but has removed its troops from all of occupied Ukraine, including the Crimea and the eastern provinces.   Finally, we should not restore full status to Russia on the world stage until it has delivered Putin to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes, and it has made reparations to Ukraine for the loss of life and the destruction of cities.

From my dining room table...  

Sincerely yours,

James Finkelstein

Attorney at Law

but just a guy sitting at a computer in his dining room

(post script:  they didn't run it, of course.  But at least Biden made it all the way to Poland and to refugee camps this week)