To the Editor:
Re “Giving Up Foreign Policy Pretenses,” by Ross Douthat (column, March 2):
President Trump and Vice President JD Vance are repeating a foreign policy misstep that Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s prime minister, made famous in the 1930s: appeasement.
Some may speculate that Mr. Trump is playing three-dimensional chess, or that the past 80 years could have been improved with less trade, fewer alliances and reduced globalization. However, these arguments miss a fundamental point.
Henry Kissinger, who is mentioned in Mr. Douthat’s column, had a mixed legacy of achievements. Yet it’s doubtful he would have permitted the disorganized preparation and lack of discipline that led to an obvious diplomatic failure in the Oval Office.
Ukrainians cannot afford academic debates between realpolitik and principles-based foreign policy. Their reality is brutal: invasion, the atrocities at Bucha, Russia’s abduction of their children, bombing of hospitals and systematic terrorizing of their society.
Perhaps it is Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance who need to confront their foreign policy illusions. History has repeatedly shown that appeasement fails and that ideals do matter in foreign affairs.
Hugh Ansty
Chicago
To the Editor:
Ross Douthat agrees with JD Vance’s complaints that the Europeans don’t honor free speech. And it is true that several European countries have laws against Holocaust denial, antisemitic and pro-Nazi expressions, and the like. Such laws are based on historical experiences more horrible than either the author or I could truly imagine.
But both Mr. Vance and Mr. Douthat seem to ignore that the United States also has limitations on free speech. Under the new administration, whole groups of words and thoughts are barred from classrooms and from mention in government documents — those having to do with racism, gender issues, discrimination and other systemic realities.
Philip L. Bereano
Seattle
To the Editor:
There are a number of ideas in Ross Douthat’s column with which I take exception, but one stands out most worthy of mention. How can you say President Trump’s foreign policy is in the same vein as that of previous “realist” Republicans, including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, without acknowledging that having the United States join Russia and North Korea, among others, in opposing a U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an act that neither of those former Republican presidents would have tolerated for an instant?
Steven Kuney
Jackson, Wyo.
To the Editor:
I accept Ross Douthat’s argument that Ukraine must accept something less than total victory in its war with Russia. I don’t agree, however, with Mr. Douthat’s assertion that Vice President JD Vance’s behavior in the Oval Office meeting with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was somehow helpful. It was just wrong.
Mr. Vance picked a fight by answering a question that was not addressed to him, and after he goaded President Zelensky into saying too much, Mr. Vance aired petty grievances — about Mr. Zelensky allegedly campaigning for the Democrats and not saying thank you to President Trump often enough.
Mr. Vance’s unseemly outburst did not reveal any new information about the parameters of the conflict. However, his behavior did increase the likelihood that Ukraine will be forced to settle for an outcome that provides greater rewards for Russian aggression and that our current allies will be less willing going forward to work with us in situations where cooperation makes sense for both sides.
There is a difference between making needed recalibrations in our NATO alliance and blowing up that alliance.
Derek Neal
Orland Park, Ill.
To the Editor:
Ross Douthat’s analysis implies a stark reality for NATO’s eastern flank. If America is to “recalibrate and retrench,” where does that leave Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which have anchored their security in NATO?
Mr. Douthat paints Europe as weak and ill prepared, but Eastern European allies are the exception. Poland now plans to spend 4.7 percent of its gross domestic product on defense — more than the United States, at roughly 3 percent — while the Baltics invest heavily in deterrence.
If President Trump’s foreign policy leads to withdrawal from Ukraine and reduced NATO commitments, it signals to Moscow that America is no longer a reliable security guarantor. That logic doesn’t stop at Kyiv; it extends to Riga, Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava.
Necessary realism should not become strategic abandonment. If Washington pulls back too far, NATO’s eastern border could be the next casualty of great-power retrenchment.
Brian Fabo
Bratislava, Slovakia
Musk, SpaceX and the F.A.A.
To the Editor:
Re “Breakup of SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Disrupts Florida Airports” (news article, nytimes.com, March 6):
With a combination of recklessness, greed and brash defiance of government ethics, Elon Musk is trying to bully the Federal Aviation Administration into snapping up SpaceX satellite technology as the successor to its ground-based communications system.
This is a man who, years ago, rushed his Tesla autopilot technology onto our highways, contributing to the car’s distinction as the deadliest of all brands sold in America. To this day, Teslas are involved in more accidents per 1,000 drivers than any other brand, according to Lending Tree insurance.
If Mr. Musk’s dismal record with ground-based mobility weren’t enough cause for concern, what about the explosion Thursday of his SpaceX Starship just minutes after its launch near Brownsville, Texas? Airports as far away as Philadelphia had to delay departures to avoid falling debris. This came less than two months after another SpaceX Starship blew up, and a few weeks after debris from the failed upper stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket fell over Poland.
As we saw in the tragic midair collision near Ronald Reagan National Airport in January, no margin of error can be tolerated in aviation. The last thing we need is a chainsaw-wielding anti-government cowboy telling the F.A.A. what to do.
Philip Warburg
Newton, Mass.
The writer is the author of books and articles about energy technology and environmental justice.
Cuts to U.S.A.I.D.
To the Editor:
Budget cuts, layoffs and reorganization efforts are often touted in corporate America as essential measures to reduce expenses, streamline operations and increase efficiency. Typically, decisions about where to cut costs are backed by an analysis of the return on investment for specific initiatives, with questions raised about the performance of these projects or personnel — essentially, whether the expenditure is justified by the results.
Yet when we consider the recent cuts to U.S.A.I.D., it prompts us to ask: What kind of performance data and analysis could have been conducted so swiftly? What metrics of impact and effort were used to conclude that there was a lack of efficiency?
Is the saving of millions of lives, or the transformation of individuals from merely surviving to truly thriving, not a worthwhile investment? How do you quantify the return on investment on a human life?
Nina Ali
New York
