LETTER: On Ukraine, is glass half empty or half full?

In response to your recent editorial, “Tanks for nothing entangle U.S., Ukraine”:

You ask if President Joe Biden “has a coherent strategy for ending the Ukraine war.” The strategy of NATO (including the United States) for ending the Ukraine has evolved as Ukraine continues to rebuff Russia’s attempts to invade and capture the whole of Ukraine. A year ago, most people around the world believed that the government of Ukraine would flee to the West leaving Ukraine to Russia. Who would have believed that Zelenskyy would stand and fight?

With help from the West, Ukraine has removed that “make Russia great again” grin from the face of Vladimir Putin. While Russia is weaponizing winter by destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure and civilian housing, it’s preparing for a full frontal on Ukraine from Belarus (in the north), the east and south. Providing NATO tanks could discourage Russia from attacking and may even bring the country to the negotiation table earlier. Ukraine has earned the right to negotiate the end of this war.

You state, “Providing tanks increases the possibility of regional or global conflict.” Does this mean that you believe Russia has the right to conquer Ukraine? I would argue that Russia (post-World War II) has been all about regional and global conflict.

You state, “Complicating the situation is Ukrainian corruption. This week nine senior Ukrainian officials lost their positions amid scandals.” Zelenskyy was elected president because he promised to clean up corruption. He could have done like many other national leaders and ignored corruption reports allowing corruption to continue, but those officials were removed.

Concerning Ukraine, I’m a glass half-full person. Maybe you could consider joining me?