To the Editor:
Re “The Biden Administration Is Escalating the War in Ukraine,” by Christopher Caldwell (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 9):
As Vladimir Putin continues to escalate his war against the civilian population of Ukraine with indiscriminate bombing of apartment houses, hospitals, schools and vital infrastructure, Mr. Caldwell attempts to mount an argument that it is the Biden administration that is wrongly escalating the conflict.
He writes that “Russians say this is a war in which Russia is fighting for its survival and against the United States in an unfair global order in which the United States enjoys unearned privileges.”
Mr. Caldwell’s thesis seems to be that if we leave Ukraine in a relatively weakened military position, peace will come through negotiations. We learned almost a century ago how that kind of appeasement strategy is a recipe for disaster.
It is Mr. Putin who is now fighting for his own survival, not the survival of Russia. And there is no reason to believe that he can or will settle on terms that do not involve the acquisition of substantial Ukrainian territory.
Is that an outcome that serves the interests of the United States, Europe or the rest of the free world? I don’t think so.
Mark A. Jacoby
Palm Beach, Fla.
To the Editor:
Christopher Caldwell’s essay criticizing the Biden administration for its military support of Ukraine and calling for negotiations appears to equate the invader and the invaded.
To refer to history as justification for naked aggression covers Vladimir Putin’s desire to reconstitute Russian and Soviet empires. It’s dictatorship versus democracy.
By helping Ukraine, NATO and the Biden administration are defending more than Ukraine. They are defending free nations formerly under Russian domination and beyond.
To negotiate now would give Mr. Putin time to renew Russia’s military in order to attack Ukraine with greater force.
Peace, which we all desire, will come when aggression is repelled.
Aaron Krauss
Margate, N.J.
To the Editor:
Christopher Caldwell’s concerns about further escalation in Ukraine are entirely legitimate and on point. The U.S. is funneling increasingly powerful weaponry to the Ukrainian Army and shows no sign of stopping until Kyiv achieves its war objectives. American weapons, to put it bluntly, are killing Russian soldiers.
Questions about the pandemic
When will the pandemic end? We asked three experts — two immunologists and an epidemiologist — to weigh in on this and some of the hundreds of other questions we’ve gathered from readers recently, including how to make sense of booster and test timing, recommendations for children, whether getting covid is just inevitable and other pressing queries.
But it’s important to note that the Biden administration has thus far been successful in treading the line between assisting Ukraine’s war effort and avoiding the kind of escalation that could draw NATO and Russia into a direct confrontation. The Russian Army has its hands full dealing with a vigilant, highly motivated Ukrainian military and is in no position to expand the war by fighting 30 NATO members simultaneously.
Yet as worn out as the Russian Army is, the U.S. and its allies in Europe should not underestimate Vladimir Putin’s commitment to succeeding in the war — or at least producing something that can be sold as a win back home. This is why rumors of some U.S. officials supporting a Ukrainian military offensive into Crimea are wholly irresponsible.
Unlike other areas of Ukraine’s east and south, Russia has effectively controlled the strategic peninsula for nearly a decade. Just as important, Crimea is integrally tied to Mr. Putin’s own legacy as a leader. Losing it is simply not an option for him — and nobody should dismiss his willingness to take extraordinary measures, including possibly dabbling with nuclear weapons, to keep it.
As difficult as it is for some to admit, the interests of the U.S. and Ukraine aren’t totally aligned. A battle over Crimea could bring those differences to the forefront.
Daniel R. DePetris
New Rochelle, N.Y.
The writer is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank based in Washington.
Keep Masks Mandatory in Hospitals in New York State
To the Editor:
Re “New York Drops Masking Rule for Hospitals” (news article, Feb. 12):
I am appalled by the audacity of Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York State’s acting health commissioner, Dr. James McDonald, in removing the mask mandate in health settings in the state.
This will put medically fragile people and seniors at greater risk of Covid and its more dire consequences. The government has a responsibility to protect all of its citizens.
Dr. McDonald admits that “the pandemic is not over.” Why then are decisions being made as though it is?
The decision to leave masking rules up to each health facility is harmful and ill advised; it must be reversed.
How much of an inconvenience is it to wear a mask for one hour for a doctor’s appointment, knowing that you could be saving someone’s life?
Vitalah Gayle Simon
Armonk, N.Y.
Averting Future Pandemics
Mr. Kristof highlights the true costs of large-scale pig production, while Ms. Tufekci discusses the danger of H5N1 mutation through industrial poultry production.
As someone who has worked since 2006 on avian influenza and emerging pandemic threats in Africa and Southeast Asia, I was struck by the relationship between these pieces. As we assess the risks of future pandemics, it is useful to take a step back to examine the underlying elements of the threat.
The demand for animal protein and its production is a major source of risk for future influenza and coronavirus outbreaks. Since pigs and poultry are proven conduits for spillover to humans, viral surveillance at these production facilities must be a national and international priority.
Jerry Martin
Gaithersburg, Md.
The writer is former director of USAID’s Preparedness and Response Project.
Turning to YouTube: Yes! Or Is It Maybe?
To the Editor:
Re “There Already Is a Better Search Engine Than Google, and It’s Not ChatGPT,” by Farhad Manjoo (column, Feb. 4):
I am an 80-year-old woman living alone. I turn to YouTube first whenever something goes amiss in my home — mostly in the area of technology and sometimes even with recalcitrant appliances. I know enough to turn off the power sources to my appliances before I let YouTube help me do its magic.
Aside from the feeling of satisfaction I get from solving an annoying problem, YouTube relieves me of the burden of calling my sons for help. Although they always are willing to come to my aid, I know how exasperating an elderly, needy mother can be.
And besides, my sons are fast approaching the age where they too will have to turn to their super-savvy kids for help.
Nancy Wergeles
Marina del Rey, Calif.
To the Editor:
While I absolutely agree that watching YouTube videos is very helpful to learn how to do a pirouette or fix the kitchen drainpipe, I take issue with it as a go-to research tool.
There are already way too many kids (and probably adults) who have neither the ability or stamina to read through a lengthy article for you to suggest that they further reduce their skill level by having them learn from videos instead of words.
This former English teacher encourages reading.
Mindi Lo Cicero
Yonkers, N.Y.