In the past few days, sources and contacts in Ukraine have sent me videos. The images are disturbing. Dead people. Blown-apart people. Pieces of people. Bloody partial corpses. Bodies in positions you could not imagine. The remains are not covered. Next to some are suitcases or bags. They were on the way somewhere, perhaps hoping to reach safety. Men, women, children. These are human beings who have been killed by Vladimir Putin’s illegal strikes on civilian targets. You may have seen similar footage or photographs, though from what I’ve watched on television and Twitter, many news organizations are not showing the most gruesome material. (The New York Times on Monday did devote nearly half the front page to a photo of the dead civilians pictured above—showing the victims without their bodies covered.) Is this out of respect for the deceased? Out of respect for the sensibilities of viewers and readers? In any event, this war is occurring when almost everyone is a one-person camera crew. Hundreds—thousands—of videos like these have been created this past week and zoomed across the planet. The killing and devastation are being chronicled practically in real time. And we can watch. As people are slaughtered.

How does—how will—this affect our response to the horror? It is hard to witness these scenes and not think, We must do something. Anyone with a trace of empathy would want to help. But will joining the conflict prevent more of this death, or might it widen the conflagration and cause greater destruction and perhaps even the ultimate nightmare of nuclear confrontation? This is the progressive’s dilemma.

For decades, American liberals have embodied two impulses: oppose war and assist people overseas. They march against military action, and, according to polls, they support increasing foreign aid. Conservatives, conversely, have often ranted against overseas aid—Donald Trump proposed slashing it in his budgets—and generally been more supportive of military intervention. What happens when the desire to help and the dread of war clash? Standing by as the killing continues in Ukraine feels wrong. (Of course, we have stood by during conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere.) Yet taking up arms would entail risk (perhaps the biggest risk of all) and could cost much. Would you sacrifice your own life or that of a loved one to protect Ukrainians? If not, can you ask another American or someone else to do so? The United States and other nations are right to provide supplies and various forms of assistance to Ukraine and to pressure Putin through sanctions and other means. But it is hard to track the daily bloodshed and not do more—to not act on the rage and outrage. The questions keep bouncing. Ukrainians are calling for the US and Europeans to impose a no-fly-zone that would block Russian warplanes from the battle area. Is that not the least we can do to save lives? Or would that trigger a larger war and even more dead? Detonate a nuclear war? Then again, should we acquiesce to Putin’s nuclear blackmail and allow him to murder civilians and destroy a democratic nation?

I am torn. Former chess champion Garry Kasparov presents a strong case for direct US and NATO military action, noting that Putin has essentially declared war on Europe and that the difference between supplying weaponry to Ukraine and patrolling its skies is not going to affect his calculations: “This is already World War III. Putin started it long ago & Ukraine is only the current front. He will escalate anyway, and it's even more likely if he succeeds in destroying Ukraine because you have again convinced him you won't stop him even though you could.” Put simply, Putin must be halted before it’s too late. Kasparaov has long been an anti-Putin hawk, but his argument deserves consideration—though it can be trumped by the belief that nuclear conflict should never be risked, even if that means witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe. Does such a concern reward a megalomaniacal and villainous leader who threatens nuclear calamity? Sadly, it does. A hostage-taker willing to blow everything up can gain an advantage. But here’s a Kasparov thread laying out his reasoning:

Tom Nichols, a professor at the US Naval War College and a Never-Trump conservative, has been an eloquent advocate of an opposing approach: stay calm and move slow. In The Atlantic, he writes:

In my rage, I want someone somewhere to do something. I have taught military and national-security affairs for more than a quarter century, and I know what will happen when a 40-mile column of men and weapons encircles a city of outgunned defenders. I want all the might of the civilized world—a world of which Putin is no longer a part—to obliterate the invading forces and save the people of Ukraine.

But, he adds, “I still counsel caution and restraint, a position I know many Americans find impossible to understand. Every measure of our outrage is natural, as are the calls for action. But emotions should never dictate policy. As President Joe Biden emphasized in his State of the Union address, we must do all we can to aid the Ukrainian resistance and to fortify NATO, but we cannot become involved in military operations in Ukraine.”

Nichols notes that we often stand by and watch. Be it Prague in 1968, Rwanda in 1994, or Syria, more recently. We have not gone to war—or even applied sanctions—over China’s genocidal assault on the Uyghurs. “This is not the first humanitarian outrage we’ve seen,” he points out. “The day may come, and sooner than we expect, when we have to fight in Europe, with all the risks that entails. If we are to plunge into a global war between the Russians and the West, however, it needs to be based on a better calculus than pure rage.” And he offers this strategic analysis: “[T]he only way Putin can save himself from his own fiasco is to bait the West into an attack. Nothing would help him more, at home or abroad, than if the United States or any other NATO country were to enter direct hostilities with Russian forces. Putin would then use the conflict to rally his people and threaten conventional and nuclear attacks against NATO. He would become a hero at home, and Ukraine would be forgotten.”

I lean toward Nichols’ position, though I worry that not intervening to stop Putin in Ukraine in itself could lead to a wider and worse war. At a minimum—and this is not without its own risks—the United States and Europe should continue to offer significant support to the Ukrainians. The New York Times reports that this effort is well underway: “In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities. So far, Russian forces have been so preoccupied in other parts of the country that they have not targeted the arms supply lines, but few think that can last.” And US Cyber Command operatives are poised to “interfere with Russia’s digital attacks and communications.” The West is also sharing satellite intelligence and communication intercepts with Ukraine. On Sunday, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said NATO nations had the go-ahead to send fighter jets to Ukraine—and the United States might replace aircraft transferred to Ukraine.

Kasparov’s argument is that all of this is already damn close to being at war with Russia. At some point, won’t the Russian military target these supply lines? Consequently, would a no-fly-zone make a difference in Putin’s calculations? If it resulted in US or NATO planes engaging in air battles with Russian fighters, perhaps so. In the chaos and uncertainty of war, you can’t know beforehand.

But even with all this assistance, it still seems not enough is being done. In the last few days, I’ve been in touch with a 59-year-old American named Sergey Nevstruyev, who was born and raised in Ukraine and who served as a paratrooper in the Soviet special forces in the 1980s. He owns construction and remodeling businesses in Charlotte, North Carolina, and he recently flew to Poland and headed to Kyiv, where he is now a major in a Ukrainian battalion. He tells me that Ukrainian fighting forces are in desperate need of basic supplies: gloves, helmets, bullet-proof vests, ammo, and medical material. Some of the soldiers in the 27-person unit he commands don’t go out on patrol because they lack body armor. There is room in the US-European response to tighten the sanctions on Moscow further, and, according to Nevstruyev, more can be done to get basic supplies to Ukrainian fighters.

I wrote about him three days ago, and he has asked me to share his plea for help.

What to do in Ukraine is a vexing debate. While we ponder, we can help those who have fled and those who are assisting the refugees. Vox published a handy guide on groups to support. Unfortunately, donating will not address the moral concerns, resolve the strategic questions, or satisfy the desire for action that comes from seeing blown-up bodies on the streets of Ukraine.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

The Watch, Read, and Listen List

West Side Story. A natural reaction to the news that Steven Spielberg was remaking the classic American musical was, why bother? Certainly, the magnificent 1961 film was limited by the cultural attitudes and stereotypes of its day. That’s often the case with popular art. Trying to reposition it within today’s sensibilities was a mug’s game. Yet the result seems (relatively) worth the film’s $100 million budget. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner tweaked the story and reworked the order of the songs, and reviewers, viewers, and fans of the original will, no doubt, have issues. (The New Yorker’s Richard Brody does. He completely—and eloquently—panned the film.) The new version has the Puerto Rican characters speaking both English and Spanish, with no subtitles for the Spanish. (Spielberg wanted both languages to be on even par.) The tribal animus between the Jets and the Sharks is now intensified by the pressures of gentrification: The few city blocks they fight each other to control are being razed to make way for Lincoln Center and luxury housing. Everybody’s being screwed, but they don’t see that. (Nice touch: Leonard Bernstein, who composed the music for West Side Story, was the musical director for the New York Philharmonic, which moved into Lincoln Center.) Doc, the kindly old owner of the drugstore that serves as the Jets’ hangout, has been replaced by Valentina, his widow, played by Rita Moreno, who starred in the 1961 production. Consequently, Tony and Maria now have a role model for forging their forbidden romance as a white Latina couple. Keeping with this shift, Spielberg and Kushner hand Moreno the show’s melancholic but aspirational “Somewhere.” The song was originally the property of Tony and Maria, who yearn for somewhere they and their love can exist safe from prejudice and hate. This time around, when Valentina performs the number, she’s speaking for all Latinos and immigrants. One of the most beautiful and haunting love songs has become an anthem. Is that an improvement?

Spielberg’s West Side Story is visually gorgeous, a masterclass in the use of color in film. The showstopping numbers—“America,” the rumble—are exciting, imaginatively shot. The leads, though, are not as strong as the supporting actors. Insufficient chemistry fizzles between Ansel Elgort and Rachel Zegler as Tony and Maria. But Ariana DeBose (Anita), David Alvarez (Bernardo), and Mike Faist (Riff) should be arrested for stealing the show. Love or hate the reformulation, the movie ought to be watched just to experience their dynamic star-turns. I’m not sure if West Side Story, a staple of high school musicals across the land, needed to be reintroduced to kids. Yet if Spielberg’s take spreads some of the best American music ever crafted to people not yet familiar with it, this renovation will pay off.

Inventing Anna. This Netflix series based on the real-life tale of Anna Delvey, the 20-something Manhattanite who pretended to be a German heiress while attempting to borrow millions of dollars to finance an arts-and-schmooze space for the superrich, is an odd piece of work. The nine-episode show is ostensibly an exploration and critique of Instagram culture and how it spurs relentless self-branding. Yet it also feels like a celebration of its target. Ambiguity runs through the series, created by the unstoppable Shonda Rhimes. Is Delvey (real name: Anna Sorokin) the hero? The villain? Are we rooting for her? Or do we want her to go from haute couture to the hoosegow? And the folks around her. Should we like them? There’s the journalist Vivian Kent (based on New York writer Jessica Pressler and played by the marvelous Anna Chlumsky of Veep). She skips over several ethical lines and ends up a champion of Delvey—and neglects her family. Delvey’s lawyer, Todd Spodek (Arian Moayed—a.k.a. Stewy from Succession) also becomes obsessed with Delvey—and neglects his family. And Delvey’s friends—true pals or hangers-on who relish posting pics on social media of their fast-lane life with Delvey? I’m not sure we’re on anyone’s side.

Everyone loves a good con story. Look at all the content inspired by Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos chicanery: multiple podcasts, several books, and, coming soon, an Apple+ TV dramatic series. It’s fascinating to see how Delvey (Julia Garner from the gripping Ozark series) scammed Wall Street investors, art dealers, realtors, architects, chefs, and fancy hotels. Yes, if you had her audacity, you, too, could come this close to having an investment bank hand you $20 million without a penny of collateral. Of course, you’d have to forge documents and set up an elaborate scheme in which you could change your voice and place a phone call that makes it seem you’re a financial adviser from Europe. The series is driven by parallel tensions: Do we care about Delvey or not? And is this an important tale of life in money-driven high society or just a meaningless one-off episode of greed and stupidity? Real stuff or binge fluff? Each episode opens with a caveat: “This whole story is completely true. Except for all the parts that are completely made up.” It’s a tad infuriating, for if you’re going to spend nine hours with Delvey and her swindle, you want to know which of the rich details are real. Of course, this is not a documentary. So we’re left to wonder which outrageous parts of the story truly transpired. Truth or fiction aside, Inventing Anna is a guilty-pleasure contemplation of fame and status—or the drive for them. The series, which seeks an explanation for Delvey, who ended up serving several years in prison and who now resides in an ICE detention facility awaiting deportation, lands on the proposition that what she most wanted was to be famous, and it has helped her achieve that.

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

March 5, 2022: Once again, Merrick Garland should tell us if the DOJ is investigating Trump for his attempted coup; Dumbass Comment of the Week (winner: Ben Shapiro); masks and freedoms, the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 1, 2022: From CPAC to Ukraine—how the right went from wrong to crazy; rebranding this newsletter; and more.

February 26, 2022: How we let Ukraine—and the world—down; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Useful Idiots Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 23, 2022: Yoko Ono (finally?) gets the credit she deserves; a Trump-Russia fantasy; The Slow Hustle takes on the hard case of a Baltimore cop-killing; and more.

February 19, 2022: A masterclass in both-sidesism from Washington Post columnist Matt Bai; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 15, 2022: Why is John Fogerty serenading Trump crony Steve Wynn?; can Trump be barred from running for president because he flushed documents down the toilet?; The Woman in the House Across the Street From the Girl in the Window doesn’t know if she’s in a parody or not; Elvis Costello tells us to listen to Ian Prowse; and more.

February 12, 2022: Would you want to look at photos of a massacre?; rebranding This Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 8, 2022: The Trump coup: Maybe we can’t handle the truth; Steve Martin and Martin Short shine in Only Murders in the Building; Invasion’s odd but conventional take on the sci-fi/alien-attack genre; and more.

February 5, 2022: Can we call Trump’s race war a “race war”?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann and Rick Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 1, 2022: Please tell me: Why is Michael Flynn crazy?; an impressive film about Nicolas Cage and his pig; Wajahat Ali’s impressive memoir about growing up Muslim and nonwhite in America; and more.

January 29, 2022: The inside story of the banning of Maus—it’s dumber than you think; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; and MoxieCam™; and more.

January 25, 2022: The snowflake-ization of the right; would you buy cryptocurrency from this man (Steve Bannon)?; Belfast, a feel-good movie about a civil war; Elvis Costello’s delightful and cynical new album; and more.