Sanctions do work. Even if (suppose the author's claims are accurate) they fail to convince the tyrant, they strengthen the unity and resolve among allies who together fight against evil, ensuring no conflict of interest exists where some of the allies still trade with the enemy thus depend on it to some extent.

Also, they send a clear message to other tyrants who should review their sums before embarking on destructive operations where they wouldn't then be able to retract their aggression without losing face.

Thanks Armchair Critic for the article- interesting.

You said that Kagan's a NeoCon not sure how that works with Victoria Nuland working for the Democrats from memory- sounds like potential "controlled opposition" to me. But I guess NeoCon's are by definition disillusioned Democrats- perhaps there's a bit of Ayn Rand Libertarianism in there somewhere. Hebrew's seem to vote Democrat but are philosophically more Libertarian and WASPy in a sense- perhaps Jewish people saw the greatness in WASPiness as Ayn Rand seems to have or perhaps they just felt that they had a kindred spirit- in a sense- maybe it's opportunism- self deception under the auspices of creationism or "objectivist productionism or objectivism". Rand said that she was inspired when she first saw New York in 1925- I tend to believe that she had what she felt were honest intentions- but were they- in their full context.

The article talks about Kagan's view of Trump.

Obviously both of their backgrounds and personal lives influence their worldviews- which is probably why Trump believes in MAGA and isolationism- conservation of the ancestral roots of America from a time when travel was more difficult and cultures were more separated.

Trump has some Hebrew connections too living in New York and having a Hebrew son in law. In a sense you could say that Kagan and Trump have very similar views- but perhaps Kagan is a little more subtle- which is one of the reasons why they perhaps don't agree. Every sentence in this article seems to contain subtle complexity.

Trump is very- perhaps extremely- decisive and doesn't suffer fools.

Interesting that Kagan comes from Brown.

Trump appears to be of the view that if other members of NATO (and the UN and other international institutions which sometimes attack and subvert the US) don't pull their weight why should the US support it- he seems to be trying to browbeat the other parties into action- "hostile negotiations"- against obfuscation tactics. The US has been talking of its disproportionate support for the international order for some years.

Trump perhaps sees patience and soft tactics forms of avoidance and vacillation- similar to Neville Chamberlain. Not that Chamberlain was necessarily wrong- it's just not the way Trump gets things done.

Armchair Critic- I'd be interested to read your view of the article.

ttbn and Johnathan,

Your belief that Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine if they had just promised never to join NATO is more than a little naive.

NATO wasn't on the table when he invaded Crimea and the two Eastern regions and given that he has lied continuously so far about his motives I don't that he had any intention other than invading Ukraine.

I believe that Putin is now begging China for weapons...