I hope that Ukraine is not fighting in Bakhmut only for symbolic purposes. They have already proven if they are patient and sell their lives only dearly that they can regain lost ground. It is not possible to regain lost time or lives, no matter how important symbols may seem. Holding there needs to have a military purpose whether we understand it yet or not.
I would think that Ukraine would want to play defense until enough western tanks have arrived for them to play offense again (this time with a significant technological advantage).
In a complex war like this it could legitimately serve as an important overall strategic goal to hold there even if from a military and tactical perspective its value is limited. And that’s ok as long as they aren’t just pissing away men.
I just don’t have enough information to know whether it’s wise or not yet. We may not understand the implications of the battle for the war for some time.
A useful article on why Americans should care about defeating Russia and China, and why Americans should not sit on the fence as isolationists. Ukraine is "the right fight at the right time". Why Americans should care about a hostile Russia and China
The problem is, no one ever thinks “I’m being an isolationist” or “I’m deliberately appeasing the enemy.” Even the people who opposed U.S. entry into WW2 before Pearl Harbor didn’t call themselves isolationists; that was the disparaging term of their political enemies. And they did not really oppose trade or contact with either side, so I guess it wasn’t isolationism in the strict sense of the term. History, of course, went on to illustrate the difficulty of remaining neutral while continuing to protect your own national interests that run contrary to those of the aggressor states. Was it possible for us to have remained purely neutral in that war? I suppose nothing is inevitable, but it would have meant ceding Europe to Hitler and East Asia to Japan at the expense of our own trade and national security. And I don’t the think even the people we call isolationists today would have accepted that; they just naively believed that if we only protected our own interests Germany and Japan would leave us alone. Same with appeasement. Chamberlain wouldn’t have told you he was “appeasing” Hitler in 1938. He would have said he was negotiating the best deal available for all sides (except, of course, Czechoslovakia) to mitigate war. Only history would prove his detractors correct, that war was coming one way or another and the only decision was where to draw the line. In the same way, you have people who truly believe (because they want to) that if we just go hands-off and let Russia have Ukraine, then that’s where it ends. Even with the intelligence that has leaked showing Russian next steps toward Belarus and Moldova, the will to disbelieve is amazing.
Chamberlain was hugely celebrated for his deal. Neither Britain nor the West was prepared for war in any way in 1938. History taught us that the quick and easy and short-term feel good fix, will cost more than fixing the problem correctly.
That is partially true, and the present political left has tried to rehabilitate Chamberlain’s reputation by reframing Munich as “Chamberlain was smart and gave Britain an opportunity to get ready for war.” But the whole truth is in 1938 Germany was even more unprepared relative to the Western powers. Germany used that next 11 months to much greater effect than either Britain or France as evidenced by the first two years of the war. If you really want a what-if to contemplate, think of what would have happened if Hitler had had the strategic patience to wait until 1941 to push the issue with Poland. His army and more importantly his navy and Air Force would have reached their full peacetime objectives and the Western powers would probably have lost interest in any preparation within a year of Munich.
That, I think was in the nature of very desperate, wishful thinking....ultimately a huge miscalculation.
Did you forget what you posted yesterday? "If Ukraine is winning this war Russia would have never been notified of President Biden's visit. Russia and the world now have a very clear picture of US / NATO / EU involvement in the war. China now understands there will never be a NATO / US / EU resolution to this war as long as President Biden remains in office. If Ukraine is winning the war why do you need Russia's approval to visit Kyiv? President's Biden's safety in Kyiv is not a guarantee and it is clear that Ukraine with all of the allies support cannot stop the Russian assault on Kyiv. In short it is not safe to be in Kyiv period. This is a sign of desperation on the part of the US." Some serious spinning going on.
Totally agree with everything you said. My only point was that Chamberlain, contemporaneous with the deal he struck, was vastly celebrated. History shows us the deal very quickly proved to be catastrophic. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, when there is a crisis, we need to ne ready, and get ready, to meet the challenge. Punting rarely has long term positive impacts in world history.
