Letter to the editor: Non-intervention may be best for peace

Mysticism is poorly understood. Properly engaged, it’s like an old television variety show, not unlike “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In” or “The Carol Burnett Show.” Naturally, this requires an explanation.

I was gazing into my crystal ball this morning and, as usual, faces of world leaders appeared between scenes of global chaos. Guest stars included Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden and Kanye West, with fast one-liners from the mostly posthumous cast of “Gilligan’s Island.” Too, I was getting appearances from the late Phyllis Diller, also from Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Ukraine. The spirits were really putting on a gala event inside that glass sphere, size of a pool ball.

My ball was indicating that though well intentioned, it may be better the public not take sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The brutality is appalling, and people are right to want it to stop, but it is possible that by siding with Ukraine, and by providing Ukraine with military hardware, the U.S. could escalate the war and continue the fighting longer than necessary.

It’s possible the best hope for peace is a fast surrender to the admittedly brutal Russia. Please recall how U.S. intervention in the Middle East has meant unending violent conflict. There are domestic issues to consider, too. Please consider the risk of both imported and domestic terrorism here.

Maybe the U.S. government and citizens will better serve the cause of peace by way of non-intervention.

Bruce Reisner

Perry South