The war in Ukraine occupies a unique space in American news commentary. On the one hand, many prominent politicians and pundits treat it with the same black-and-white fervor with which they treat everything. But on the other hand — and this is where things get interesting — an uncommon number of pols and pundits are willing to engage with the nuances of the matter. It’s not enough to say Russia must lose. They acknowledge there are unfortunately thorny issues influencing how much aid and assistance the U.S. and NATO can supply. 

Now, were Ukraine a member of NATO, that aid would be virtually unending. In a recent show of support, NATO’s member countries lowered the threshold for Ukraine’s inclusion. To some, that might seem like a logical step to bringing the conflict to a close (does Russia really want to go to war with the west?), but the Eurasia Group Foundation’s Mark Hannah has concerns not revolving around World War III. I won’t lay out his thinking here — his column deserves a clean read — but needless to say, his position is extraordinarily thoughtful. The man’s an expert and it shows. As Ukraine wends its way to a possible NATO entry, I’ll be curious to see what else he has to say, not to mention the rebuttal.