On the October issue:

Ukrainian Victory—or Defeat?

To the Editor:
Ukraine is not our ally. They have never and will never defend the U.S. or our interests anywhere in the world. We have zero obligation to anything or anyone in this war. Or perhaps we do have an obligation, considering we fomented it by pushing for NATO expansion. Our priority should be peace and life, not war and more death. We need a true leader—not an enabler—who can negotiate a settlement now.
Dan Sheedy
Algonquin, Illinois

To the Editor:
In advocating for greater military assistance to Ukraine, Abe Greenwald suggests that America open its arsenal “and place no restrictions on Ukrainians’ use of our weapons,” allowing them to use our weapons against “all military targets in Russia” (“Why Won’t We Let Ukraine Win?,” October).  However, Greenwald grossly underestimates the risk of provoking a Russian nuclear response. He merely suggests that Putin won’t do so because “Putin doesn’t want a full-on war with the West.”

However, it seems unlikely that the Russians will leave Ukraine with their tails between their legs if the Ukrainians start bombing targets deep inside Russia. Greenwald points out that Putin is “monstrous.” It is naive to think that the “monstrous” Putin will simply concede loss rather than attempt to win the war with nuclear weapons.

Even a very limited use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia inside Ukraine would be enough to get the West to stand down and hand Ukraine to Russia. Once the West sees that Russia actually will use nuclear weapons, it will lose its will to continue arming Ukraine, not wanting to risk its own nuclear destruction.
David Ozeran
Tustin, California

To the Editor:
To any student of history, the lessons of the Munich Crisis of 1938 are a near mirror image of Ukraine in 2024: The British and the French were so fearful of Hitler that they even criticized the Czechoslovakian government for resisting Hitler’s notion of taking the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany. The Czechs were willing to fight; the French and British were not. Emboldened after his Munich victory, Hitler next swallowed all of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland. That the Biden administration cannot see the fecklessness and futility of its approach to Ukraine will simply mean a bigger price to be paid in the future, in Europe and in Taiwan.
Jack Kay
Milford, Massachusetts

To the Editor:
The Obama/Biden/Harris doctrine of appeasement, incentivization, and talk as a winning strategy does not work against tyrannical regimes such as those in Russia and Iran. “Kicking the can” down this road only makes things worse. Abe Greenwald’s excellent article makes this very clear. Ukrainians are unnecessarily suffering and may
lose because of this doctrine. 

Additionally, if this approach continues, Iran will get its nuclear weapons and so, too, will other unstable powers.
David Kafton
Richmond, California

Abe Greenwald writes:
Dan Sheedy is factually incorrect. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers fought with the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Ukraine also granted the U.S. access to its air bases during the war in Afghanistan. And Ukrainians served as part of a larger NATO-led force there, as well. Which, in itself, speaks quite well for Ukraine, NATO, and the cause of the latter’s expansion. 

Neither David Ozeran nor I know with certainty how Vladimir Putin thinks. But not every monstrous leader is a madman; and Putin, while a risk-taker, has always evinced a keen sense of calculation. This is why he chose to move on Ukraine when he did. He calculated that the U.S. was in retreat. He doesn’t strike me as a man who wants to risk certain loss to the West by launching a nuclear weapon. And the matter of his accepting a battlefield defeat can only be shaped by facts on the ground. Let’s change those facts.

While I share Jack Kay’s ultimate conviction about the dangers of the course we’re on, I’d caution against broad comparisons with 1938. Russia is already facing a slog in its effort to expand, and that’s partly because of the assistance (however slow and fragmentary) of Ukraine’s allies.

I thank David Kafton for his kind letter. My only quibble with his prediction of a nuclear-armed Iran is that it would also require Israel to adopt the failed U.S. strategy that he describes. And that won’t happen.

Tucker’s Demons

To the Editor:
Meir Y. Soloveichik’s column on Tucker Carlson provided me with an excellent tool to explain to others the fundamental emptiness and evil that are passing as popular news and opinion by Tucker and his ilk (“Tucker Screwtape,” October). While I never listen to Tucker Carlson because I deem him a popular idiot, I have read The Screwtape Letters more than once and appreciate the timeless power of C.S. Lewis’s rendering of evil presenting as good. I’ll also note, as a practicing Catholic, that I have found Rabbi Soloveichik’s work and words inspiring and enlightening, and I have used them to augment several of my study-group discussions.
Lillian Oppenheimer
Lake Oswego, Oregon

Bibi Blame

To the Editor:
Great article by Eli Lake about the misdirection of fault for the fate of the hostages taken on October 7 (“Blaming Bibi First,” October).  Benjamin Netanyahu has flaws, but he alone prevents the loss of the war and hence the survival of Hamas, which would be the practical effects of an immediate ceasefire.  He acts not from lack of feeling for the hostages but because ousting Hamas is the only way Israel can hope to protect its nearly 10 million citizens from future massacres. This achievement is impressive particularly in view of American pressure, as the article notes.

Contrary to the article, however, the pressure exerted within Israel has not been severe.  Two examples are noted.  First, the Histadrut Labor Union strike was called for one day only, because the head of the union knew he did not have general backing. Indeed, Israel’s Labor Court shut down the strike at 2:30 P.M., so it was more like an eight-hour strike that convinced no one. Second, Yair Lapid’s repeated calls to crash the government have all failed, and, in fact, the polls show that Lapid’s party will likely lose 50 percent of its seats in the next election. 

The people of Israel have tremendous love for the hostages and empathy for their families, but we are sufficiently mature to understand what is at stake when dealing with Hamas.
Larry M. Goldstein
Modi’in, Israel

Eli Lake writes:
I thank Larry M. Goldstein for his letter. One of the perils of journalism, even at a monthly magazine of opinion, is that we are forced to write in the moment. And when I wrote that piece on blaming Bibi, I didn’t know that Yair Lapid’s party looked as if it would be losing in the polls. I didn’t know that Israel was about to undertake a series of brilliant operations that would decapitate Hamas and Hezbollah. And I didn’t know that the Histadrut would not be striking in the future. I take your points, and in hindsight I think you are correct. At the time though, the Israeli outrage at the murders of the hostages seemed like it would be more enduring than it was. Thank you for reading. 

Pedants, Unite!

To the Editor:
As a former English teacher, I read with delight Joseph Epstein’s “A Pedant’s Progress” (October).  I, too, have had to catch myself, correcting another’s grammar. Should I or should I not? Guess it always depends on the person and the situation. I’m so happy to know that there are still those who do care about the English language, its rules, and its exceptions.  

What I got most out of Epstein’s essay is his humor—especially regarding John Simon’s Stop sign. I’m only surprised he didn’t mention a classic of grammar—Strunk and White’s Elements of Style, a grammar classic that has served as foundation for me. 

Thank you again for a thoughtful essay.
Jenene Stookesberry
Denver, Colorado

To the Editor:
Joseph Epstein’s article on pedantry was informative and great fun to read. I am a physicist and have my own pedantic pet peeves. Namely, the misuse of the word “quantum” as in “quantum leap.”

A quantum change has two main characteristics. It is discontinuous and invariably tiny. A 30 percent increase in the price of gasoline is upsetting, maybe inconvenient, and definitely large, but it is not a quantum leap. A one-cent increase in the price of a postage stamp, on the other hand, would certainly qualify as a quantum leap. It is both discontinuous and small.

My best to Joseph Epstein, who invariably succeeds in adding a continuous and significant increase to my erudition.

Never just a quantum leap.
Mel Kreitzer
Cincinnati, Ohio

Kamala’s Gift

To the Editor:
Christine Rosen offers strong analysis of how little we know about Kamala Harris’s replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee for president (“The Kamala Cookbook,” October). But considering the overwhelming power of identity politics in the Democratic Party, it’s unthinkable that Democratic power brokers would have shunted Harris aside unless they could replace her with another woman of color. The position was Harris’s for the asking.
Burton Diamond
Boca Raton, Florida