To the Editor:
Re “On Russia, Biden Is the Problem,” by Kori Schake (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 12):
Ms. Schake tries to have it both ways. The thrust of her article is that President Biden hasn’t been tough enough on the Russians. But she stops short of advocating a major American military commitment to defend Ukraine.
Saber-rattling won’t stop President Vladimir Putin, and President Biden knows that. He hasn’t always framed his public answers felicitously, but his instincts are sound. It would be lunacy to confront the Russian military on virtually its home turf.
Implicitly acknowledging that Ukraine isn’t of major strategic importance to America, Ms. Schake gins up a 21st-century version of the discredited “domino theory” to justify our military involvement.
Will we never learn? Our overseas wars over the last 70 years have mostly been mistakes, sometimes disastrous mistakes. Moreover, Russia’s adventurism may well backfire, as it did in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Greg Schwed
New York
To the Editor:
“On Russia, Biden Is the Problem” is right on point. I would add, “Too much talk and not enough swagger.”
While President Vladimir Putin carefully prepares and watchfully studies President Biden, all we get is smooth talk by U.S. officials and no sense of using our military as a deterrent. It is a sign of fearfulness, the worst signal a free nation can send to a despot.
Mr. Biden must immediately change course and declare that our military may not fight inside Ukraine but will do so from wherever we are able to come to Ukraine’s support. An invasion must be met by the United States with resolute strength. Economic and trade sanctions are not enough.
David H. Peirez
Great Neck, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I’m unpersuaded by Kori Schake’s argument that President Biden made a critical mistake by declaring that the United States would not defend Ukraine militarily from a Russian invasion.
Ms. Schake’s preferred approach of threatening Russia with a military response would do far more harm than good. To be credible, such a threat would require the mobilization of American troops in Europe, increasing the risk of an actual military confrontation between nuclear powers and spooking financial markets.
And such mobilization is unlikely to deter President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine because he would calculate, correctly, that the United States does not have a sufficient national interest in defending Ukraine to justify war against Russia.
By calling the United States’ bluff, Russia would inflict incalculable damage to U.S. credibility and prestige, which is surely one of Mr. Putin’s strategic goals. President Biden is correct in making no military threats that he is unprepared to carry out.
Karl von Schriltz
McLean, Va.
Canada’s Truckers: Drawing the Line on the Right to Protest
To the Editor:
Re “Canada’s Trucker Protests Are a Test of Democracy” (editorial, Feb. 13):
As an American who has resided in Ottawa for over a decade, I found your editorial troubling. The Times appears to have missed much of the nuance of what has occurred in Ottawa and instead issued platitudes about the importance of peaceful protest. I firmly believe in nonviolent protest and have exercised that right in the United States and here in Ottawa.
However, there are aspects to this protest that many of us in Ottawa are finding antithetical to the ideals of democracy. First, the rule of law is not being upheld. Protesters with encouragement and support from foreign politicians have unlawfully occupied and blocked city streets and flagrantly violated mask and noise ordinances. Some have also harassed those who work and reside in the mixed-use neighborhood adjacent to Parliament.
Typically, when this occurs at a protest, law enforcement advises lawbreakers that they will be subject to arrest and then begins to follow through. Here in Ottawa, laws have been violated for over two weeks, and law enforcement has largely been unable or unwilling to respond so far.
The “success” of the Ottawa protesters emboldens the minority opposed to pandemic regulations to undertake illegal actions, such as the occupation of numerous crossings, including North America’s busiest at the Ambassador Bridge. One would have thought The Times might have issued a stronger warning about the potential longer-term impact on democracy for both countries.
Nancy Wasserman
Ottawa
To the Editor:
While I agree that peaceful protest needs to be protected, exactly how much “disruption” to people’s lives and livelihoods do you suggest we tolerate? How many who can’t freely travel on public infrastructure? The right to extend one’s fist ends precisely at the tip of another’s nose.
Truckers do indeed have the right to protest, but when the form of that protest encroaches on the rights and livelihoods of others, the choice for governments should be clear. Protect first the rights of those who are not trampling on the rights of others.
Nevin Lambert
Evans, Ga.
To the Editor:
What is happening in my country is not a protest; it’s an occupation. Protesters usually make their point and then disband. The leaders of the “Freedom Convoy” have decided they are above the law. This is mob rule, and the majority of Canadians are angry that government law enforcement agencies have failed to end it.
This siege is hurting individual Canadians and our economy. I wonder if the editorial board of The Times would support hundreds of huge trucks parked in the heart of Manhattan for more than two weeks blaring their horns.
Susan McAlevy
Parksville, British Columbia
Liz Cheney, a Model of Courage
To the Editor:
Re “Defiance of Trump Makes Cheney an Outcast in Her Own State” (front page, Feb. 10):
To Representative Liz Cheney: Even if you lose in the August primary, don’t fret. You still will have won big for our nation. You will have shown that it takes courage to do the right thing, knowing the risk you were taking. And it will again show us that the G.O.P. has lost its way.
But if you win re-election you will have set a model for other G.O.P. members of Congress to start standing up for what is right … not politically right, but morally right.
Richard Wollack
San Francisco
Flying Less to Benefit the Planet, and You
To the Editor:
Re “The Morning: Why We Travel” (nytimes.com, Feb. 5):
In these times of dramatic climate change, the travel narrative needs to transition from environmentally destructive flights to means of regenerative travel. The Times recently published an article encouraging people to fly less. There are other ways besides plane travel to have amazing experiences that help save the planet for future generations and give back to local communities. They start with a train, bus, bicycle or e-bike.
Traveling more slowly by bike or train actually gives you more out of the trip. You notice all the wonderful nuances and natural beauty along the way — the journey is an enriching part of the adventure. You see the world in a whole new light, meet new people and reconnect with your community instead of jetting off to somewhere else.
My partner and I are currently bicycling across the U.S. to show that local bike adventures are found in every town. So next time you are seeking new experiences, instead of booking a flight, try a train or bike!
Claire Stedden
Truth or Consequences, N.M.
