1. Ukraine cannot beat Russia no matter how many arms we send them.
2. If the U.S. is committed to Ukraine, we will get drawn further and further into the conflict.
3. U.S. troops will be directly involved in fighting Russia (if they aren’t already).
That sounds like the definition of WW3, and it will only escalate.
How do we get out of this?
People say, “you can’t let a bully get his way.” “We can’t let Putin keep what he stole.”
Maybe in some fantasy, Barbie world, but in real world everything comes down to this: at what cost?
It would be better to have peace — even if that means that Russia gets all the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine — than to keep going on the path we’re going, which will lead to a nuclear war.
I would like to pin this insanity on the idiot in the White House, but he’s just one shuffling, bumbling part of the coalition of morons who are leading us down this path. And many of them are Republicans and so-called “conservatives.”
So you recommend the policy of appeasement. One will do well to remember that such a policy only emboldened Hitler, resulting in WW II which culminated in the first usage of the atomic bomb. The wisdom of Churchill would no doubt suggest that the surest path to WW III, resulting in the ultimate nuclear catastrophe, would be to appease Putin. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
So in this non-fantasy world, there’s literally nothing we can or should do to stop Russia from doing literally whatever it wants to whoever it wants?
“Maybe in some fantasy world” Putin takes just eastern Ukraine and doesn’t consider the lack of response a green light to do anything he wants without effective opposition (not to mention Xi’s ability to notice the same thing). At what point has he gone too far, and what do we do THEN?
It also depends what you mean by “beat Russia.” If you mean conquer Moscow or reduce the entire Russian Army to rubble, no, they can’t. But what if it’s enough to price the venture beyond what Russia is willing to pay?
And why is #3 inevitably true?
1., it’s a well-worn path to start by supplying arms, then sending advisers, then a few troops, etc. We already have a big presence in Poland to support this war. Mission creep is a very well-established thing, and we’re already seeing that in Ukraine. It’s very likely it will continue.
2., even without mission creep on our part, it would be horribly easy for this conflict to spread to neighboring NATO countries — like the airstrips we’re manning in Poland, or even just a few stray bombs — and then we’d be under an obligation to get invovled. That is very dangerous.
So, #s 1 and 2 present a very clear danger of us getting into a war with Russia. The best way to avoid that is to stop the conflict.
But the U.S. doesn’t seem interested in stopping the conflict. We kinda like it. We are (they claim) degrading Russia’s military. We’re killing lots of Ukrainians in the process, but … hey, at least they’re not (yet) U.S. soldiers. I think that’s pretty sick.
From what I’ve seen, we’re not degrading Russia’s military. Rather, we’re encouraging a mobilization. Children in schools are learning military drills.
And while I don’t know enough about the facts of this, some people say we are degrading our own stockpiles of arms and will not be able to replace them as fast as we’re expending them on Ukraine.
All those things argue for stopping this conflict soon.
About “beating Russia,” you ask “But what if it’s enough to price the venture beyond what Russia is willing to pay?”
Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to “pay” an enormous price. I don’t think Ukraine has the slightest chance of pushing them beyond their limit.
So then when we have to get into it in Hungary or Poland because of our treaty obligations under NATO, we’ll have to do all the same stuff anyway, from a worse position.
It sounds like you’re assuming it’s inevitable that we’ll fight Russia.
It is inevitable if they are not stopped, and who else is going to stop them? The only other possibility is the fall of Putin and his replacement with someone very different.
It’s not an open question whether Russia as ruled by Putin intends to grab as much of Europe as they can swallow. Putin and his cronies have been explicit about this. What else is going to prevent the swallowing other than someone fighting them?
QUOTE: So, #s 1 and 2 present a very clear danger of us getting into a war with Russia. The best way to avoid that is to stop the conflict.
So, how does the US stop the conflict?
QUOTE: Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to “pay” an enormous price. I don’t think Ukraine has the slightest chance of pushing them beyond their limit.
Is there ever a limit to Russia’s aggression in which will not be acceptable to the US? If so, what should the US do if Russia goes beyond that limit, given their willingness to pay an enormous price?
How do we stop the conflict? That’s a question for diplomats, I suppose, but first we have to want to stop the conflict. It seems like the people in charge don’t want that, except on completely unrealistic terms. (I’ve heard there have been opprtunities to end the conflict, and that the U.S. pressured Ukraine not to accept, but I don’t know how true that is.)
Is there a limit on “acceptable” Russian aggression? Of course there is. For example, we’ve already committed ourselves to defend NATO countries if they are attacked.
QUOTE: It seems like the people in charge don’t want that, except on completely unrealistic terms.
Short of fully accepting Vivek Ramaswamy’s non-remedy, it doesn’t seem there’s an option to stop, given Russia’s aggression…even if US leaders wanted to. Seems to be a “pay-me-now” or “pay-me-later” scenario. Likely better to pay it now and attempt to manage it at this level.