I realized I owe you answer on the implied question here: Why should we waste resources on supporting Ukraine if they’re just going to lose anyway? It’s a bit of a cynical question, so it deserves an equally cynical answer: Because it erodes Russian resources, in particular Russian manpower. In my opinion, we are now on a collision course with Russia, perhaps China, too. As I have said, I would prefer to fight Russia now, directly, while China is still on the sidelines, and while we can easily humble Russia without having to target inside Russia itself. But that does not appear to be likely, so the indirect approach is the next best thing. All of the Russian lives, fuel, munitions, and foodstuffs they spend subjugating Ukraine will not be available when they make their inevitable move against the Baltics.
NATO deterrence only works if Russia believes NATO will hold. There is definitely a non 0 chance NATO will collapse if say Poland was invaded. Which is why putting out the front and helping Ukraine is vital for deterrence purposes…. Even if we ultimately are ok with conceding Ukraine
The best part...as Russian supplies dwindle it's incredibly difficult to replace with the sanctions in place.
Thanks for the reply. What you view as cynical I view as practical. To me it is a erosion of resources and manpower on all sides of the war. There is no disagreement that we are on a collision course that threatens to involve more than Russia. The premise is China is on the sidelines and will either remain so or take some significant time to mobilize. In my opinion actions taken by China to date show they are not sitting idle but are mobilizing as well. My assessment is China sees the US as expending resources while they continue to grow the military prowess. A weakened US would most certainly be welcomed by China. As we continue the indirect approach China licks their chops.
Well, resources, yes. Manpower, no. The U.S. may lose a handful of volunteers here and there, and maybe a few clandestine sorts that we will never know about. But on the whole our contributions cost treasure, not lives. If we are being honest, even if we tipped in with air and naval power now, the losses would be Russian in massive disproportionality. That is, of course, assuming they would not use nuclear weapons, and I do assume that for reasons long gone over in this thread. Now when you referenced manpower losses “on all sides,” maybe you meant the losses the Ukrainians are taking. If so, I’ll point out (coldly, practically, or cynically as you like), that those losses are Russian, too, in the sense of an inevitable showdown with Russia. Russia’s desired end state for this campaign is to bring Ukraine fully into the fold of a new Russian Empire, by whatever name. Their aim, despite the hyperbole, is not to destroy the Ukrainian people, their land, or their industry. They want all of that brought in, as intact as possible, to their war machine. Every Ukrainian they kill now is one fewer soldier for their ranks, one fewer worker for their industry, or one fewer farmer in their fields. Now I’ll be clear, again, that is not what I want. I want to help Ukraine beat Russia now and save their country. The attrition I describe is what cowardly, feckless, militarily ignorant politicians like Jake Sullivan force me to settle for.
As others have said on here, I honestly don't think Russia anticipated this level of support from the rest of West in their invasion of Ukraine. And why should they? They attacked and massacred countless people in Chechnya for over a decade. Did the same in Syria as well. For some reason, the world didn't appear to be too troubled by those actions and the deaths of those innocent civilians (or at the very least didn't provide any level of material support), but yet appear to be now. Russia figured this would be another waltz in the park.
Chechnya is within the borders of Russia. Russian operations in Syria were at the invitation of the Syrian government. And previous Russian operations in Georgia and Ukraine were so fast and limited in objective that the world barely had time to react before they were over. What Russia has done here crosses a major line, incomparable to previous military operations since they took advantage of WW2 chaos to invade several neighbors 1939 and 1940.
You lose manpower due to lack of resource. You can't man something you don't have. There is no doubt concerning our naval and aerial prowess the issue would be China viewing this as an act of war between the US and Russia. Certainly the world view would also be the same. Not something I want to entertain and certainly isn't something NATO wants to entertain. Such action would be a unilateral decision that would force NATO and European nations into a war nobody wants. There goes leadership and prestige out the door. We both agree lives on both sides of the fence (Russian / Ukrainian) are being lost. That is the result of war. To believe an entire Russian population wouldn't mobilize if the US were to intervene is a bit of a stretch. If anything they would take the same approach as Ukraine and throw an entire population into the mix. I can't say the same would occur on behalf of the US as many will view it as the wrong place / wrong time.
Point being that Russia was able to get away with war crimes and attack an innocent civilian population with no consequence. I’m not sure why the invitation by a dictatorship to attack a civilian population minimizes Russian exposure here. In both circumstances, countless civilian lives were lost and world stood by. But I see what you are saying: Going forward, Russia should stick with massacring civilians a) within their borders (even if that area has always been a separatist region) and/or only massacre on invitation. Otherwise, it might cause a global uproar.
Great job Russia. Now Israel sending weapons including the Iron Dome to Ukraine. This comes on the heels of lifting restrictions of Israeli weapons being sent to Ukraine by other countries. Bravo LOL
I was referencing only the world’s reaction to Russian aggression in this case and contrasting it to the world’s more muted response to previous Russian military operations. If it’s war crimes we are talking about, then my position remains the same as when I first posted on the subject earlier in this thread: War crimes are for losers, not winners. If you want to charge Russia with war crimes, then Russia has to first be beaten, then its government has to fall, and then its new government has to hand over said war criminals. Otherwise, it doesn’t mean anything except in the realm of information operations. The British did not start planning the Nuremberg Trials while they were evacuating Dunkirk. First, they needed to win the war.
