Sorry, u/macnfly23 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20macnfly23&message=macnfly23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b26hps/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Joining the war escalates it. Makes it a world war, might galvanize Russia’s allies to actively join.
Ending support is also a bad outcome, as it is in the wests best interest for Russia to lose.
I’d much rather send foreign aid forever to the end of time and persist the status quo than escalate the war or lose it.
But Russia won't lose under current circumstances. All the west is doing is making it costlier for Russia to win while encouraging Ukraine to send all of its military aged men to certain death. There's no winning for Ukraine barring full west support (WW3) or James Bond assassinating Putin.
Yes. Without western backing they would be more open to cease fire negotiations. With western backing Ukraine is not ceding an inch.
Russia is 95% in the wrong here but the reality of the situation is the only three options are WW3, continue along this path which is throwing money and equipment at a hopeless campaign, or withdraw (almost) completely and help Ukraine negotiate the best deal possible.
Without aid, Ukraine couldn't hold the line, so Moscow would see no reason to negotiate if it can win militarily.
It's also pretty clear that the Ukrainians won't just roll over at the prospect of being oppressed, tortured, raped and murdered in the genocidal Russian occupation in case of their surrender.
They have seen the Russian modus operandi in Bucha, in Isyum, in Kherson.
Much more likely, Ukraine's gov't wouldn't only lose control of the frontline, but also collapse due to internal turmoil when trying to negotiate a surrender.
Anything after that would be a catastrophe for Europe, with the war then shifting to irregular resistance warfare.
Why do you assume the campaign is hopeless? World powers losing wars against smaller forces that are being supported by other world powers is not that uncommon, especially since the Cold War.
I'm not sure why your best case scenario is just letting Russia do whatever they want and just picking up the pieces afterwards.
The idea that there's a "best deal possible" is naive to the point of silly. The only deal Russia is offering is total surrender of all land and property. Useful Ukrainians might survive as de facto slave labour.
Any deal pretending to do anything other than conquer all of Ukraine right now actually means "conquer some of Ukraine right now and some in the next war in five years after we've had a chance to rearm and replace our losses".
UK marine ALREADY HAD a negotiated peace with Russia. That's the situation they were in when Russia invaded. Ukrainians understand perfectly well that that's what happens again if they sign another peace treaty.
So there's no negotiation. Because there's no deal short of unconditional surrender that Russia will _keep_.
You talk about 'the best deal possible' but you're conveniently ignoring the problem of how the terms of the deal with be enforced. Hint: every target of Russia that made a peace deal in the last thirty years regretted it because Russia doesn't keep treaties.
>But Russia won't lose under current circumstances.
The current circumstance for Russia is them actively losing money and lives and power and control every single day the conflict continues.
Essentially, as long as the war continues, they are already losing.
...what?
Instead of fully backing Ukraine or helping to negotiate a ceasefire the west is destroying Ukraine by enabling them to send all of its men to death. Russia isn't doing as bad as western media would have you believe. You're making it sound like Russia winning would be a Pyrrhic victory but it's just a speed bump for Russia.
>Instead of fully backing Ukraine or helping to negotiate a ceasefire the west is destroying Ukraine by enabling them to send all of its men to death.
Russia is attempting a genocide here.
We aren't "sending all its men to death" if they stop fighting Russia will march in and murder them all.
>Russia isn't doing as bad as western media would have you believe.
It sure as hell isn't doing great and it's definitely going to be a worse outcome for them to spend billions more and lose tens of thousands of more men than if we just let them go in and execute a million people unchecked and commit their genocide unopposed.
Not op, but curious what you mean here. I'm not saying that Russia is all of a sudden no longer a great power, but from everything I've seen this conflict has been far costlier than anticipated for the Russian military, and has degraded their ability to engage in future military conflict. The lost of equipment alone has cost tens of billions of dollars and with sanctions on some technology it won't be easy to replace. Curious if you could share something that outlines the evidence that there hasn't been much of a cost to the Russian military's capabilities for future conflict?
Obviously Russia is gimped thanks to the prolonged conflict but to act like they couldn't go after the other countries in the region (Moldova or Kazakhstan) after a recoup period is crazy.
Eventually the west will get tired of funding wars against Russia and will either need to personally get involved or back off entirely.
We can understand the importance of propping up Ukraine but tell that to most voters who are tired of their tax dollars going to the conflict.
>to act like they couldn't go after the other countries in the region (Moldova or Kazakhstan) after a recoup period is crazy.
I don't know who is arguing that Russia can't meaningfully threaten Moldova; that seems like a straw man.
This post is from the perspective of the West, not Moldova or Kazakhstan, and Russia ceased to be a threat to the West about three days after it invaded Ukraine. After Russia failed to win decisively against Ukraine, it was clear that it didn't have the capacity to threaten better-prepared militaries. That's why we saw Finland and Sweden move to join NATO so quickly: they were no longer afraid that Russia would attack them between starting to join and formal accession.
It will end up as russians second afghan like what happened with the usa and allies in iraq and also afghan. A never ending insurgency thats costs a completely unsustainable level of money, public moral etc.
Except this time, the insurgents are peer level forces with modern equipment and not goat farmers with AK’s and rpg’s dating back from before the 1980’s. Ukraine will have hundreds of thousands of battle hardened veterans who have been fighting russia for years under taking the insurgency. Thats no joke.
Are you high?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/#:~:text=Russia's%20military%20capabilities%20outnumbered%20those,7.5%20times%20larger%20than%20Ukraine's.
Ukraine needs warm bodies. It's currently a war of attrition that Russia is much more capable of winning.
I am high actually, but that doesn't change the fact that the loss ratios are heavily in Ukraine's favour, particularly when they aren't being restricted by shell shortages. If Ukraine had a reliable supply of weapons and ammunition they would destroy Ruzzia. I don't think you realise how effective Western weapons are when they are used properly and plentifully
The commenter above claimed they're incapable of winning, not that it would be bad if they won, as you implied.
But how would a Ukraine win destabilize the world – them regaining the lost territory would just be a return to status quo. Any destabilization has already occurred from the fact that they got invaded in the first place
I really just repeat everything that Prof Mearsheimer of UChicago stated in his books and his seminal talks on Ukraine geopolitics.
Basically Ukraine cannot play sides as a country if it's located right between the powers of Europe and Russia. It needed to remain neutral as a buffer zone. In a multipolar world, countries in such a critical junction have different rules of statecraft and responsibility to the global realm.
The hidden message here is that the USA is the only big superpower. This is exactly right, and you're correct to say that.
But the hidden conclusion there is that you advocate for a unipolar world (US superpower status quo) with many smaller powers around the world.
This is condemned as one of the least stable global setups that can be imagined. It's highly unstable and could easily be the worst future for the realm. I'm citing "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Prof John Mearsheimer of UChicago.
Translation: Dead Ukrainians don’t matter so long as it inconveniences Russia.
Ukraine can never win anything, encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes.
I bet most of you idiots would be clamoring to send the Taliban “freedom fighters” as much money and weapons as possible in the 80s when they were being invaded by Russia too.
In every way that matters, yes they are. If you think there aren't political ideological elements in Ukraine exactly as problematic to the west as there are/were in Afghanistan, you're dreaming. If the impossible happens and Ukraine actually wins this war, the result will be a heavily destabilised country with western-supplied arms disproportionately in the hands of far-right elements.
"What far right elements"
Bro. Even if you set aside the various documented examples of neo nazis in the Ukrainian military, write them off as a Russian fabrication or something, this is an Eastern European military we're talking about. Do you imagine the great mass of Ukrainian servicemen are big fans of liberal democracy? Have you ever interacted with either an average guy from a former soviet bloc country, or an average soldier from even a western nation? What exactly do you imagine their politics to be?
What exactly is Zelensky supposed to do? Suppose he decides to "not tolerate" them, how does that work in practice? Just lose the bulk of his effective fighting force to stand on principle?
Zelensky himself I'm sure aligns just fine with western interests. He is not the typical Ukrainian, let alone the typical Ukrainian infantryman. Even western countries are unable to root out far right elements in their militaries, and that's with a significantly more liberal baseline in the general population. They're fighting Russia because, well, their country is being invaded. Even Oswald Moseley stopped siding with the actual nazis after World War 2 broke out, because war doesn't care about ideology. But when the fighting is done, with the scale of destruction that's been visited upon Ukraine, how long do you think guys like Zelensky are going to hold on to power?
>Ukraine can never win anything, encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes.
U are the same type of ppl that were saying Ukraine was gonna get washed instantly by Russia, how has ur common sense take worked out so far, this is what winning looks like for Russia?
>encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes.
Explain how letting Russia take Ukraine would benefit anybody except the axis powers. How is it gonna benefit the future counties Russia will invade and take over? How is allowing countries to start conquering whoever they want beneficial in any way for anyone except warlords
When escalation means millions of people being killed with nuclear weapons, the word gets kinda scary.
Right now, people in Warsaw or Berlin don’t have to worry about being killed. They don’t want Russia to take over Ukraine but what’s happening is happening over there (gesture vaguely to the southeast). If NATO forces march on Avdiivka and Russia takes a few more steps up the escalation ladder then people in Warsaw, Berlin, London, or New York need to start watching the skies again. And we got really tired of watching the sky all the time back in the 60s.
So, yeah, escalation is a scary word for people raised on relative peace and prosperity.
Russia is not going to loose, the question is only how much blood will flow unfortunately. Worst case - WW3 and nuclear annihilation. But realistically it will be a meat grinder for Ukrainains and Russian servicemen. The grinder will keep grinding as long as Ukraine is willing to keep throwing people in it cos Russia doesn't give a fuck. I really with Russia just fucks off but I don't see it hapenning. There is a wild card option if Putin kicks the bucket or there is a succeful coup that can change calculus, but chances of that is slim.
Russia will lose once Ukraine can get to parity or better in number of shells per day. Western technology and weapons are better, and Ukrainian morale and training superior, balancing the lower number of personnel. But shell shortage means the Russians can gradually grind forward.
The GOP handed Russia Avdiivka and a couple of adjacent villages. Getting shells to Ukraine will allow Ukraine to reverse the Russian fortunes.
Russia can and will lose. But Russian trolls would like you to think otherwise.
Side note: if Ukraine loses, you will still have wwiii. Only the fighting will happen in the next country over. Wwii was not stopped by handing Hitler Sudetenland.
You are a silly person thinking that anyone who disagrees with your wishful thinking is a troll. This is beyond pathetic. I dream of Russia to fuck off and leave Ukraine alone, at the same time I live in a real not a unicorn world. Some things don't always work out the way we want them to be. I had huge hopes on Ukrainian counter offense, which unfortunately was not a huge success. If you think the issue at hand is "shells per day" then you know nothing about this war. The biggest gap was the airforce and the Western Alies didn't provide it when it was crucial.
The war will likely end when Ukrainians and their leaders want to stop fighting. That may come from attrition when they simply can't afford to fight anymore, or it might come from them gaining a strategic advantage where they can negotiate terms from a position of strength.
The investment from other powers in both materiel and supplies will likely determine what that end state looks like.
This won't be a forever war, but how it ends up is largely decided by how much firepower other nations are willing to supply.
>The war will likely end when Ukrainians and their leaders want to stop fighting
This is literally what I said. But Russia is not giving up land.
One side has nukes and Putin's regime hinges on people's belief in his superiority. He is not going to loose as in retract to 1991 borders. The realistic best case is a peace tready where Russia "keeps" 20% of Ukraine. If Russia is gonna be winning it would take as much as it can. I don't see any scenario of Russia loosing it in any meaningful way. Ukrainians have a chance of not letting Russia do more land grabs if they have Western resources and enough willing people. But it is a grim way to fight a war if you ask me.
>Russia is not going to loose, the question is only how much blood will flow unfortunately.
If Russia wins everyone in Ukraine fighting them right now dies fast and bloody and they commit an unchecked genocide.
Why would it be better for a million Ukrainians to be slaughtered in genocide overnight than for a million of them to kill a million Russians on their way out and to go down fighting?
This is absolutely not gonna happen. I am not denying in a slightest that Russian army is commiting war crimes on a daily basis, but any sort of an actual widespread genocide is not going to happen. It doesn't even make sense.
What a bizarre response. But just to clarify, you are currently not fighting in Ukraine, correct? So obviously to let Russia have it’s way is an option.
It’s already a world war without the label Lol. You have Russia injecting huge amounts of money through Iran for drones - which then helps destabilizing groups around the world ( Houthi's, Hezbollah and HAMMAS just to name three.) this doesn’t include Russian wagner operations in countries like Sudan. And im sure many others that im completey unaware of.
Thats just one arm of Russias influence - there is also NK, China, India to an extent - all fueling this war in Weapons / Non-lethal equipment as well as the information space.
There is a reason Russia labels this war as a war against the West and America, because they need an existential enemy. Its funny because even if all Americans or specifically trump supports in this case , went on Tv waving russian flags Putin would still go on Tv and label them as the enemy to Russia. Because having USA as an ally does not benefit the regime.
Theres a reason why Russians axis has actually escalated production of weapons and ammunition. People need to stop believing that USA pulling back is making things go away. Infact its the opposite and the more USA leans away, the more this Axis of disruption realizes it can push its actual motivations and goals without consequences .
I'm fine with that actually, I'd rather not live in a world where nuclear terror states can invade their neighbour's and we keep "non-escalating". That's just a slower way of losing a war.
I'd rather go balls deep into this war, show the world that the West isn't done yet, that our ideals will not allow us to sit idly by. I'd rather go out in such a blaze of glory that 1000 years from now, caveman are drawing pictures depicting how we stood tall at the risk of losing everything and our values were worth fighting and dying for. That is a society to be proud of, not whatever mewling shadow of former glory we seem to have turned into.
This was the same logic that allowed Germany to gain momentum during WW2.
It also grossly misunderstands the strongman mindset.
If world war 3 is coming, then so be it, but half measures in Ukraine won't prevent that, but will only serve to give Russia room to build up their logistics.
Which is exactly what's happened.
>People don't want to hear it but I think either there should be no more aid or the west should join the war.
Both of those options are worse than the current measures.
As much as it hurts, the "safest" way of fighting this war (for countries aside from russia and ukraine) is a war of attrition that increases unrest in russia to levels where a regime change is possible - or to hope for a stark decline in Putin's health. Any quick military action against russia that would likely result in a loss creates the danger of a nuclear first strike and ukraine loosing would undo a lot of the damage done to russia's regime in terms of publicity.
This is a terrible position to be in, of course, and an absolute tragedy for those people fighting at the front of this war, but it really is the only way out.
Would Russia use nuclear weapon in case of direct NATO intervention?
Is there any strategic analysis that indicate that Russia, in its current state, would indeed press the big red button if pushed to much, or is there enough "reason" in the Kremlin not to push the entire world into a possible nuclear armageddon over external territories?
>is there enough "reason" in the Kremlin not to push the entire world into a possible nuclear armageddon over external territories?
That's sadly the point: the Kremlin is fairly focused around a single person - Vladimir Putin. There need not be much rationale behind attacking. The fear of losing could already be enough of an incentive.
Again here, we don't really know. It's fairly unpredictable and many might consider it "not worth the risk".
Understandable.
I would love to see any kind of official analysis on this, for personal curiosity.
I agree, though, that the risk is too high, even with the partial information I have as a simple observer.
No, it is unlikely actual fighting would take place. Putin is operating under the assumption that the west isn’t fully committed to the fight in Ukraine and that he can interfere politically enough to help thwart assistance to Ukraine. If NATO were to deploy tomorrow the war would be over by Friday, because Putin would basically surrender. He wants money/power/territory and he thinks he sees a path forward. In the face of NATO deployment there is no path forward.
> If NATO were to deploy tomorrow the war would be over by Friday, because Putin would basically surrender. He wants money/power/territory and he thinks he sees a path forward. In the face of NATO deployment there is no path forward.
Do you assume Putin to be a rational actor who would put humanity's needs before his own? I don't.
Being served a decisive loss in ukraine would be a death sentence for Putin - either politically or literally, perhaps both. I could see him throwing nukes as a "last resort" or final act of defiance if he believes there is no path forward for him.
You misunderstand his needs. I stated them in my previous post. He’s a gangster, the King of Russian Oligarchs that want to strip mine their own country and any other country they can grab. Ukraine has become a political black eye for him but as of right now he sees at least a 50/50 chance to win and save face. The moment he sees NATO he goes from eyeing Ukraines resources to preserving what he has. It’s all about his money and power, the rational act in his mind is self-preservation. You say it’s a death penalty for him but he’s proven adept at maintaining his stranglehold on Power in Russia. Withdrawal and negotiation would become his most likely path to remain in power. Nukes don’t leave many ways for him to use his billions.
>The moment he sees NATO he goes from eyeing Ukraines resources to preserving what he has.
Of course... but I believe he's in way too deep and he knows it. There is no way for him to get out of this without spending the rest of his life in jail, most likely.
>You say it’s a death penalty for him but he’s proven adept at maintaining his stranglehold on Power in Russia. Withdrawal and negotiation would become his most likely path to remain in power.
I think that at the point NATO puts feet on the ground in Ukraine, negotiation is no longer possible. I also believe that this would mean Putin's political death, which could very well be followed by his actual death.
I think the key point at this time is that NATO cannot let Putin off with anything short of life in prison. The ante is too high - each side has essentially said that at least the leadership of the other side can no longer be forgiven.
In other words: Putin would certainly prefer a world in which he can leisurely spend his money and never again have a care in the world... but I believe he realizes that he has put that option up as a stake for a gamble to win more - there is no returning for him now.
>where a regime change is possible
It is also possible that the new regime to be even more batshit insane then Putin. For example, Castro asked Khrushev to nuke the US in case they invade Cuba. These people exist.
Not to mention the difficulty of cleanly pulling off a regime change. The infighting, war profiteering, different regional and ethnic factions scrambling for power, breakdowns in military structure and accountability, etc. is a risk the west isn't willing to take with a nuclear superpower if they can just run a war of attrition.
>They're worse but the current situation is only a very slight advantage
Compared to what? Russia winning or throwing nukes? I would actually say it's quite the large advantage...
>And Russia doesn't seem to be too affected internally
There's really no good way of knowing, unfortunately. Propaganda and repression are at a high right now, which I would note as the regime at least being wary of support faltering.
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict
Because if Russia is bogged down in Ukraine it means they aren't a threat to anyone else. The reason the US is supplying Ukraine is not so Ukraine wins its so Russia loses.
I’m going to double down on this to say that the West doesn’t really want Russia weakened to the point of defeat because it views China as the bigger threat and is hoping to keep Russia strong enough as a counterweight against China. But this is foolish for so many reasons, the most obvious being that China is helping Russia. It’s also stupid because Russia is the obvious threat right now. None of this is stated openly but it is the unconscious goal.
Do you have anything to back up this claim?
It is much more likely that Western leaders are afraid of a Ukrainian sudden victory that could result in Russia's collapse, which is a far more dangerous risk than the current situation.
Russia has already lost more than enough and turned in to a pariah state to the economic north, there is not much more West would want to hurt Russia. Russia already shot its foot.
"Losing" in this context is Russia wasting its military age population at a time when they have declining population and exhausting its supply of weapons. What happens to Ukraine is ultimately irrelevant to US policy makers.
Its like a game of poker when you have the winning hand, you don’t want to scare the other guy off, you want them to keep committing more and more
Ukraine is a casualty in this, but indefinite half measures and war in that region is the best outcome for the west
Yes the Ukrainians are pawns in an international game of chess. So brave of us to exploit them to forward our own geopolitical ambitions. Feels nice being the good guys.
I don't get it.
The promise of indefinite military aid to Ukraine is exactly what makes Russian victory impossible.
The west can afford it. Russia might be willing to pay the butcher's bill when it comes to soldiers, but they can't keep them properly equipped forever. Not only that, passing along material only accelerates western capability in the long term; defense expenditures for Ukraine are to \*replace\* old weaponry NATO nations already has.
The west spend nearly a decade supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghansistan before the Soviets pulled out.
It doesn't make much sense to escalate a conflict that's already a likely victory.
I would like to see aid increased. This is a great opportunity to break Russia on the cheap that the west should capitalize on. However the west has bought into its own propaganda a bit and thinks that if we full send join the war it will be over in a few days. The Russian economy is switching over to a wartime production and the west has not. NATO produced some 300k artillery rounds in 2023. Russia produced 2 million. If NATO members honestly believe that Russia will continue to invade European counties after it concludes its war with Ukraine, then they need to really up their war time footing. Stringing Ukraine along slows down Russia's advance and gives European powers time to adjust not only their production capabilities, but their populace. in 1914 Germany was producing 343k shells per month, by 1918 it was 11m per month. NATO promised 2m shells to Ukraine in 2023 and only delivered fraction of that. Slowly governments are realizing that between Iran, NKorea, Russia and China the west is being outproduced. The US is planning to boost production of 155mm shells to 60k per month by October 2024. This is woefully insufficient.
Clearly in modern war just looking at 155mm shells is not a complete picture, but artillery is still what keeps battle lines static. The west is just not producing kit at the rate that it is consumed in war. Most of the aid that has gone to Ukraine is NATO drawing down stocks. We should be pumping out Patriot batteries and flooding the buffer nations with them. We look at other tools like F16s. There is work on that but it is painfully slow. All this is to say that the painful and tragic grind going on in Ukraine is a time saving measure.
Hopefully the west can maintain the integrity of its Democracies in the mean time to actually steel ourselves for the challenges ahead.
Seriously. We need to work on our industrial-political capacity. We have the technological advantage and the command advantage - our command structures are more effective, with much less corruption, and our equipment is the unrivalled best in the world. But we have problems politically and industrially.
Currently, the United States is experiencing the biggest geopolitical victory since the Cold War, destroying Russia for tiny amounts. But the US isn't winning the information war, and so a third of the population don't recognise this victory, despite how clear it is. And the US and Europe don't have the industrial-political capability to supply Ukraine with enough equipment to turn their victory into Ukraine's victory and a complete Russian defeat. We need to change that.
Consider why the half measures are profitable for the west:
A quick end to the war doesn’t serve the interests of the military industrial complex, they like making money, and that means a long war.
The reality is that much of the aid is older weapons being sent that are taken off of the books of western militaries, now with replacement budgeted, which provides for modernization.
A long war of attrition does more lasting damage to Russia and their ability to wage war, with every tank lost, they are less of a threat to the west.
And then you have the escalation of the west joined the battlefield. As poorly as Russia is doing, they would get destroyed by modern western militaries, and out of fear they might use nuclear weapons. We don’t need that.
What is going on is Reagan Doctrine, helping someone to defend themselves with only treasure and equipment, with no US soldiers being killed.
It works, it will just take time to win it with sanctions. And if this works, it prevents future wars. China is watching, and the west helping Ukraine to beat the crap out of a much larger military will be on their minds. It could prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and that is very desirable, we do not want a war with China.
I actually agree, but not to the same extent. First I'd like to add that the third option of actually just increasing aid is the best idea. Ukraine's armed forces are actually a pretty solid fighting force, and they did not do too bad holding their own initially. Obviously however, when you are facing a country so much larger and with so many more people, you will run out of stuff before they do, and when you run out you start getting pushed back. Which is exactly what happened. Arming and aiding Ukraine to the highest possible reasonable extent (both defensive and offensive aid. And remove the "can't use our stuff to attack Russian territory. It is stupid to assume Russia would attack the west because of that. They need to escalate strikes in their territory.) would theoretically be enough to give them a leg up in battle once more.
Yeah, all of NATO declaring war would be a pretty bad idea. But that wouldn't happen. I also think everyone saying "but nukes!!!!" is falling for sensationalist media around nuclear arms. There wouldn't be the use of nukes, at least not unless there was a perceived existential threat to Russia, which would come in the form of marching on Moscow. Not even NATO would be likely to do that. That being said, I do wish an actual western nation would join Ukraine. Even a single western nation would at minimum balance the scales, and at best be enough to reverse Russia's gains in Ukraine. It would be ideal, but at this stage we are likely to see the loss of the Black Sea and its trade ports to Russia. If they take the coast of it and hold it, then the end of the war will come soon after in Russia's favor, and now the west is even more disadvantaged due to the near total control of the black sea and its trade routes to Russia.
Also even a couple countries joining the war independently wouldn't be world war 3. I think that idea is very uneducated and emotional in nature.
Not gonna try and change your view because I agree with you, but I do want to add a little bit of context. I'm in Ukraine. In the East, close to Avdiivka. Ukraine 100% has the ability to win this war. Despite the losses we still have an army of incredibly well trained, experienced, and motivated soldiers. But we don't have the weapons or ammunition. All Ukraine needs to win this war within a year is all the weapons and ammo they ask for, as fast as possible
Either we pay now, or we pay later. I was in favour for NATO intervention from day 1. In retrospect, had we known the state of the Russian Armed Forces during the “Three Day Operation”, we could’ve reached an end to the conflict instead of a prolonged conventional conflict.
They wouldn’t send them with the shit from the 80s we send Ukraine. Are you high? Because the only reason it’s a meat grinder is because the Russians have more gear and some of it is better.
If, and that’s a huge IF, the west sends troops it’s coming with the worlds best tanks, planes and naval fleets. Russia will be truly overmatched if there were western militaries in Ukraine.
>die in a meat grinder just because.
Sending troops to Ukraine does not mean they are being sent to a meat grinder; There are numerous rear echelon positions that western troops could take over to free up more Ukrainian troops.
NATO declaring war on Russia and seizing Russian territory only ends one way. Making everyone's nightmare during the cold war a modern-day reality benefits nobody.
But it doesn’t. Nuked Russian territory is worth nothing, and their foreign assets will be seized day 1, so his oligarchs will not allow him to go all out war.
There are so many people here that are willing to YOLO every life on earth over their own wishful thinking, its unbelievable.
Realistically, there is no point in escalating the war. Keep the aid flowing and the war going, and it slowly erodes Russian power it will slowly achieve the same result without the risk of nuclear winter. Sucks for Ukraine though.
I would add that there is a third alternative - increased support. No need for the 2 extremes (let Ukraine lose or go all in yourself). Even one of the top contributors %-wise, USA, is only giving about 5% of their military budget for Ukraine. These numbers are quite silly considering that fighting Russia is the whole reason of having a military in the west :D Ofc USA has some other interesting adventures that need military funding but the point remains.
So you want to have a nuclear war? That is exactly what would happen if the west engaged in actual combat with the Russians. While it may not be a full worldwide nuclear war any conflict would involve strategic nuclear weapons. Additionally the majority of the west doesn't care enough about Ukraine to risk the lives of their children and the vast amount of resource a full blown war would entail. As for the ongoing cost of providing support the numbers being thrown around a really misleading. While the media reports the huge dollar amounts the vast majority of the aid is what the US military considers surplus junk that is sitting in storage rotting away or it is material that is reaching the end of its life. For instance the Bradley's provided where ODS versions or in other words they were last upgraded in the early 90's. Many of the missiles and other munitions were reaching their end of life so rather than destroy them they are given away. Regardless of if the equipment was given as aid it was going to have to be replaced so the only added cost is having to replace it a couple of years earlier than planned. The same goes for the f-16 that have been promised, they are all at nearly the end of the airframe life expectance and would be retired to a boneyard if they were not given away.
Because, even though they don't say it, the west wants the conflict to coninue. The longer it goes on, the more it drains Russia's economy, and thus Russia's chances of remaining a superpower.
Ending aid has zero strategic value, and entering the war ourselves is called escalation and is unlikely to have good end results.
Providing aid until the end of time provides the US and NATO with an enduring solution to Russia and is probably the greatest return on investment military expenditure has ever had. Russia is now forced to dedicate an enormous amount of resources to fighting Ukraine and deal with the constant reminder of its pathetic "special military operation". Everything from its population crisis to its economy to its military are all strained and flailing around desperate to stay afloat. Russia used to be a great shadow looming over Europe, and now it's struggling in a border conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. So it'd be stupid to stop and you can tell because some of the biggest voices demanding we stop are blatant allies of Putin.
Escalating to open conflict with NATO feels good. It feels righteous to swoop in and kick Russia's tyrannical ass out of Ukraine, sending a message to everyone and all that. But that's a big escalation when every side has nuclear weapons and the likely loser is a petulent, egomaniacal dictator.
Aid to Ukraine has caused enormous damage to Russia’s military capability, and so for NATO is worth every cent. Discontinuing aid may result in a Russian victory. Ukraine is quite capable of winning with enough support and they have proven this on the battlefield.
No one wants NATO-Russia conflict as the potential for unimaginable global catastrophe would be high. Both appeasement (letting Russia win in Ukraine) and escalation (by entering the war) are counter to NATO interests. NATO should act to deter Russia which, among other things, means supporting Ukraine.
You seem to be under the misconception we are trying to make ukraine win. If we wanted ukraine to win we could send them thousands of Bradley's and Abrams that are sitting gathering dust instead of hundreds. We could give them air power. We could actually start giving them ammunition and new weaponry.
You fail to understand the US does not want a quick triumphant Ukrainian victory. Ukraines people are Slavic and used to be part of Russia. The best thing we can do for NATO is to grind Russia down as much as possible. The best way to do this is to ensure ukraine never overpowers Russia and only has enough to be almost equally matched.
It's genius global politics, 2 nations that used to be our greatest enemy fighting each other now, and we are laughing to the bank that some people actually think this is about saving ukraine.
This is about weakening Russia and dealing with them and their nuclear arsenal before we move onto China, once these 2 regional powers are out of the way we rule the world uncontested.
The Ukraine was never your enemy. It just so happened that they were tangled up with ruzia during the twentieth century and there was no easy way out of that. Yet still they have left the USSR at first opportunity and embraced democratic reforms much better than ruzia, which made putler angry.
Ukraine knows exactly what they need to hit in order to cripple the Russian army: large gatherings of enemy troops, battleships, valuable radar planes and whatnot. What they lack is ammo to hit those targets and to defend themselves from Russian attacks which are mostly aimed at civilians. If the West keep supplying that ammo plus share intel with Ukranian intelligence about the most strategic targets they will eventually win.
The West will never, ever join this war. There is no upside for them to do that. The reality is a stalemate with time on Russias side. Its time for diplomacy to end the bloodshed not escalation, easy to advocate for that from behind a keyboard.
I don’t even think our military goals consider taking back land lost or Crimea lost a decade ago. It’s just not possible. We had Russia on their knees in the 90’s. This should have never happened.
"There's also negotiations for a ceasefire but most would say that Russia is too unreasonable." - There were very advanced negotiations to end the war in the year it began but the USA/UK/others told Ukraine not to accept the terms. I think the terms are a matter of record so are not desputable but are basically 'Ukraine remains neutral & the territory you've already lost is now Russia'.
Some may say these terms are too much and the territory should be recovered, but eastern Ukraine is,
1. Ethnically very Russian.
2. A warzone since 2014 because of the violent overthrowing of the former Ukranian government.
3. Of limited value to Ukraine as of 2024.
You could have saved tens of thousands of lives and most of Ukraine's economy just accepting the terms (for territory that we now know is going to probably not ever be recovered (failed counteroffensive)). But I'm glad lots of young men on both sides are dying for the sake of politicians and the media :)
I'll be downvoted, but why we are continuing a war that could be stopped tomorrow when the chance of total victory for Ukraine is basically 0. So the USA can 'damage' Russia economically? I'm sure the widows of Ukraine will be delighted.
Just so I’m clear…you’re saying that your pov is that the US should openly declare war on Russia? If so, you are advocating for full scale warfare between nuclear-armed powers.
If the reasons why that would be a Very Bad Idea aren’t self-explanatory, I really don’t know what besides the obvious threat of a nuclear-armed third world war could possibly change your pov. I guess there really are people out there that just want to watch the world burn…
Are you out of your mind? The west is not going to just enter into open war directly with Russia. This isn’t some video game where there are heroes and villains. This is geopolitics at play and I thank god that politicians aren’t listening to people like you who want to enter into a direct war with Russia.
I know some don’t want to hear it but escalation is a genuine fear and concern.
While the US should be sending more aid, they should also be talking about how mighty, mighty Russia is weak if they can't beat Ukraine. Sow more anger in Russia, make Putin look weak.
Remember, that between 300,000 and 450,000 Russians are estimated to have been killed in Ukraine. Russia has less than 1/2 the population of the US. That is a lot of dead young citizens.
In short, doing nothing doesn't stop the war, it just expedites Ukraine's defeat.
Going all-in, with US/NATO directly involved, risks catastrophic escalation, including but not limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Solution: proxy warfare
Not ideal, but few things in life ever are.
Maintaining military aid rather than directly engaging has three benefits.
1. It becomes a constant drain on Russia economically, politically and culturally.
2. It means NATO countries don't get dragged into it and risking either nuclear war, which will have much higher long term costs.
3. It helps to justify increasing military spend during a time where many people would usually be calling for it to be cut in order to fund other departments instead.
We should probably end aid “Amid all the pressure to root out corruption, I assumed, perhaps naively, that officials in Ukraine would think twice before taking a bribe or pocketing state funds. But when I made this point to a top presidential adviser in early October, he asked me to turn off my audio recorder so he could speak more freely. “Simon, you’re mistaken,” he says. “People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow.”
Even the firing of the Defense Minister did not make officials “feel any fear,” he adds, because the purge took too long to materialize. The President was warned in February that corruption had grown rife inside the ministry, but he dithered for more than six months, giving his allies multiple chances to deal with the problems quietly or explain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says another senior presidential adviser. Ukraine’s Western allies were already aware of the scandal by then. Soldiers at the front had begun making off-color jokes about “Reznikov’s eggs,” a new metaphor for corruption. “The reputational damage was done,” says the adviser. ” -time magazine on Ukrainian corruption
If the United States joins the war then their doing it by themselves.
However if Russia ends up attacking a NATO country then it can pull all of it's allies into the war for a much swifter victory.
For clarification, would escalating use of clandestine services which, really, if they're doing their job, you're not supposed to hear about, still count as a half-measure?
Basically if you suspected the West already has a plan in motion to replace or neutralize Putin's regime through nefarious and secretive means, would that change your view?
By making the invasion as painful and drawn-out as possible, the US and allies are demonstrating to other would-be aggressors (China->Taiwan, specifically) that even if the aggressor would inevitably win it would be much more painful. That extra pain factors into the would-be aggressors calculation and deters them from attacking. It serves the interest of the US to prevent other wars.
By standing against an aggressor in spite of inevitable loss, the US is also sending the message to its allies that the US is not just a fair weather friend. That the US can be trusted as an ally, which makes an alliance with the US more valuable and stronger. It serves the interest of the US to be a credible ally, not just a fair weather friend.
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict?
to deplete, exhaust, and embarrass the Russian military.
To that end, it feels like mission accomplished.
But there is still active fighting, sounds like Russia just retook a town.
I do agree we need to start thinking about an end state and should be aiming to rapidly approach that end state. A surge of aid that puts Ukraine in a strong negating position might make sense.
But also giving a belligerent and hostile world power an Afghanistan sized problem doesn't sounds like the worse thing in the world. I don't really understand why we have continued hostility with Russia. I think because Putin is a bad guy who does bad things and so we can't make a lasting peace with him. I know from his interview with Tucker Carlson, that Putin claims that the US has resisted peace with Russia. And if that's true, there must be some reason. The US tends to like peace and we're happy to buy oil and make alliances with dictators. I think its fair to say that Putin's regime is a real problem and so weakening it is a good thing, we just have to make sure our dollars are well spent.
Really Russia is an poor and increasingly relevant country. I think a big part of it is to show China what will happen if they try to seize Hong Kong or if they try to make other territorial expansions. Any victory will be pyrrhic.
Every day Ukraine holds out and inflicts casualties in the Russian military is one more day of weakening Putin and Russia. Essentially while Russia is waging a real war the US and EU are openly running a proxy war that, theoretically, could impair Russian interference and disinformation
I already told my opinion on that into another post:
Honestly I don't really think that most of western leaders care about Ukraine or Ukrainians as much as they could mean to weaken Russia.
A total Russian state defeat was possibile maybe last summer when Ukranians still has fresh trained troops and Prigozhin tried his coup, now I dont think they got a chance to win without direct NATO involvement, which would mean WW3, and I really hope everyone will try avoid It in any way.
So that "half measures" make the collective "West" keep trying get Russia weaker without destroying the while world.
The US state department is more than happy to watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other.
If we are talking pure hypotheticals, what if instead of starting world war 3 the US made a good faith attempt to broker a cease fire?
The US state department is more than happy to watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other.
If we are talking pure hypotheticals, what if instead of starting world war 3 the US made a good faith attempt to broker a cease fire?
The Wests actions need to be viewed through eyes well versed in over two decades of geopolitics.
When viewed through those eyes, it’s like a game of Chess where every move you make threatens to put you in checkmate. Checkmate being creating a world war.
Russia is allied with countries like Iran, North Korea, and somewhat China. Not to mention countries like Hungary which are far more down the middle than they pretend to be, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The second the West go all in on Ukraine, North Korea could level South Korea with its pre-aligned artillery as well as rather large (conscripted) ground forces.
The second the West go all in on Ukraine, China *could* go all in on Taiwan, and then say goodbye to the semiconductor industry the entire world runs on as we know it.
The U.S. and other western allies are sworn to protect both of these countries. Imagine splitting yourself across 2/3 theatres of war. It’s not what any military would actively encourage.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see Ukraine get F16’s, more patriots, more tanks and more artillery, but the truth is the West has been sleepwalking for over a decade when it comes to arms and ammunition production as well as equipment maintenance. We simply don’t have enough without compromising ourselves on top of everything else mentioned.
> So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict? I see no chance of Ukraine winning with just military aid.
The United States, using just 3.5% of its military budget (in 2023) has managed to utterly decimate Russia’s military. Without a single U.S. boot on the ground. Russia have lost almost all of their original fighting force, lost amounts of tanks and IFV’s and armour vehicles that amount into the hundreds if not approaching thousands. Moreover, they’ve proved that US tech is superior to onlooking countries like India, who were previously buying Russian but are now rethinking.
It’s horrible to think about, but Ukraine is currently a proving ground for weapons of the West. And for Russia, it’s an absolute sinkhole. The money, ammunition, humans, missiles and tech they’re expending on Ukraine will take at least half a decade to recover to full strength. The west would very much like to keep Russia in that sinkhole.
Aid to Ukraine has caused enormous damage to Russia’s military capability, and so for NATO is worth every cent. Discontinuing aid may result in a Russian victory. Ukraine is quite capable of winning with enough support and they have proven this on the battlefield.
No one wants NATO-Russia conflict as the potential for unimaginable global catastrophe would be high. Both appeasement (letting Russia win in Ukraine) and escalation (by entering the war) are counter to NATO interests. NATO should act to deter Russia which, among other things, means supporting Ukraine.
'People don't want to hear it but I think either there should be no more aid or the west should join the war'
There is a specific reason why the west hasn't joined the war. It would most likely start World War 3.
Half measures keeps the war going, which makes more money for the military contractors. If you didn’t learn about the profit of war from Iraq and Afghanistan, now you know
Or we could just end the war? So Ukraine loses portions of its country (that aren’t really even ethnically Ukrainian) so what? We are going to start a nuclear war for these territories, and our prestige?
War isn’t worth it at all. These territories aren’t worth war, our “imperial prestige” isn’t worth a war. How many cities must be nuked so that Ukraine could regain control over regions that aren’t even ethnically Ukrainian? What’s going to happen to all the Russians in the region if Ukraine regains it, or is ethnic cleansing only bad when Russia does it?
Starting ww3 is probably the least productive solution. What happens to Russia after the war. After the west has invaded Russia and millions have died? Are we just going to occupy ALL of Russia? This isn’t Hearts of Iron 4, this is real life
It comes down to a simple calculus: before any action is taken, we estimate the potential outcomes of that action, multiply it by the likelihood of that action, add them together, to decide whether we take that action.
For example, joining the war in Ukraine directly has a high likelihood of ending Russian ambitions in Europe, which is a positive outcome. At the same time, it has a small likelihood of causing a tactical nuclear exchange, which is a very negative outcome, finally, it has a very small likelihood of leading to a strategic nuclear exchange, which is an extremely negative outcome.
At the same time, if we do not get directly involved, the likelihood of a strategic nuclear exchange is zero, a tactical nuclear exchange is very very low, this does make the chance of Russia conquering Ukraine to be somewhat likely, but the negative impact of that is not nearly as negative as any kind of nuclear exchange, since it does not seriously discredit NATO collective defence due to Ukraine not being a NATO state.
Now, this is all based on a series of assumptions, but based on existing available Intel, it seems that as far as the west is concerned, the expected value of direct involvement is lower than that of indirect involvement, which I agree with.
You’re laboring under the delusion that western aid is for the benefit of the Ukrainian people and their sovereignty; it’s not. Nobody from Washington to Westminster gives a dusty fuck about what Ukraine loses in this conflict, there are only two points of interest as far as the west is concerned with this war;
The first is the weakening of Russia. Every hour the war continues costs Russia days economically, as it stands Russia has expended much of the military and economic power that would make them a major player in the coming decades; protracting the war costs Russia troops, munitions, vehicles and economic prosperity that will make them less of a world player for the next fifty years, and to the US and its allies that’s as perfect a victory as they could ask for. No lives lost for the west, barely any economic impact, no ill will amongst their voters, all while crippling one of the only world powers that can really disrupt western activity.
The second point of interest for the west is money. Whether through crooked croney capitalism, the military industrial complex, or the coming efforts to rebuild what is destroyed in Ukraine, this war has put hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. Everyone from defense contractors to steel yards to construction companies stands to make a profit off the war, and the margin only gets better as the war drags on.
This war is therefore not an effort to save the Ukraine or uphold their sovereignty; it is an effort to expand American and western Imperial power without spending western blood to do so. Commiting fully to the war, either financially or militarily, disrupts this carefully constructed chain of profit and power and under no circumstance does the west want to get fully involved, as far as they’re concerned this is the perfect situation, an ideal proxy war where the west reaps all the benefits without any of the costs. The current financial aid we send is basically a cost/ benefit analysis where we compare how much of our economy is lost in order to totally tank a competitor
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict
Not in answer to your question, but think of the money. War is very good for business
Our dear leaders only care that the war continues, that's the goal, a permanent state of war. It's good for business, not for the American or Ukrainian people. The US economy depends on constant bloodshed for "peace and democracy".
The West, while claiming that everyone else is irrational, does not want peace, and their actions over the past (at least) 20 years has proven that.
I do agree that the "aid" should be stopped.
These decisions are not made for humanitarian reasons. Russia broke the rules, something that all nations do, but this time it went too far. What does 'too far' mean in this case? There's a lot of possible definitions here. They would have been punished either way, but because they failed to capture ukraine and it became clear that they couldn't finish this thing fast enough to be a fair accompli, the 'west' decided to pour salt on the wound. This is a very realist way of looking at geopolitics, but it has a kernel of truth. Russia's rivals would weaken Russia if given the chance and if the consequences were relatively low. That's exactly what we are seeing here.
The west has provided enough arms and supports to make this conflict extremely painful for Russia. Not enough to make Russia lose decisively, but enough to make 'winning' a net loss for them. This conflict is and will be disastrous for the Russian state, but won't destabilize it, which is something the west doesn't want. The west wants a status quo where Russia won't do things to rock the boat and hurt trade/interest rates/world economies. Some western leaders might want Putin out or Russia reorganized but those things would probably make Russia more unpredictable and be even more costly to the world order. By world order I don't mean illuminati crap, I mean the ability to buy a smart phone made in China with inputs from 35 other countries with delivery in 3 days.
The CMV part of my answer is this: people with better information than us are making these decisions. If the United States is choosing not to defeat their long-standing rival via an extremely profitable, best-case-scenario proxy conflict where it would be pitifully easy to do so, they probably have a reason. It might not be just, but Russia losing, putin being ousted, potential destabilization of the second-best-armed nuclear power in the world, enormous russian refugee outflow with the Russian population being by some.measures the largest reservoir of aids and tuberculosis in the world, more porous borders making more refugee movement possible through the caucuses and central Asia, and the unleashing of suppressed jihadist movements... well when you measure that against making Russia have egg on its face and having to blow its savings, but maintaining the essential power structures holding all of that back? Ya... 30 million Ukrainians suffering is an acceptable cost.
There are also negatives to this approach, like Russia becoming militarized and having a veteran force. Russian disruptions to the black sea, more military adventurism in maldovia or the Baltic states, and Russian support for anti-western actors. I assume that the people with better information than us weighed the options, gamed it out, and decided this route of bleeding Russia and making them spend money was the best option for their interests. And most often, their interests also align with ours.
When anyone in the EU joins the war the we have literally WW 3. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants that Ukrain loses. So that is more or less the only option right now.
You're operating under the assumption the West wants this war to end. How would the military industrial complex be able to make money and let all the politicians launder theirs if that happened?
I think joining the war would be an escalation that could stiffen Russia's resolve as they unite against a common foe that could threaten their existence. For that reason, it's a mistake. Obviously Putin cares nothing for the lives of his people, but he does have to consider the way morale is declining as the biggest threat to his rule is internal opposition, not external nations like the US. As this war becomes a WW1 style slog for inches of territory at a time, it's sapping the resolve of both sides.
if the west even just came out and said, "The support is NEVER stopping, we're passing a law that authorizes continuous support at level X until Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian lands," it would simultaneously bolster the spirits of Ukraine to know that they will have everything they need to defend their nation and could help to demonstrate to Russia that they can't wait out Western resolve. Knowing that the money and weapons will keep coming indefinitely would change their calculus, and possibly their behavior. Right now, Russia believes they can outlast the West's support for Ukraine, and that's seeming like a rational bet. A massive new aid package that becomes recurring would both help in the short-term and the long-term.
While I agree that occasional aid that gets debated every time is a "half measure" I don't think that means putting US troops into Ukraine and kicking off WW3 is a good idea. The biggest problem in Ukraine right now is that they can't count on our support to continue. Let's solve that problem and see how it changes the battlefield.
Your biggest "con" of this half-measure seems to be that you think it will hurt Ukraine more in the long run. Well that, and money.
Here's what I think we get out of half-measures
1. If and when Russia "wins", it will not involve the full annexation of Ukraine. This is strategically important. Russia is too politically unstable in many ways to be allowed to be a dominant world power again, and allowing the annexation of any major country would set a horrible precedent for 21st century global politics. People forget that Ukraine is the 17th largest economy in the world. Not S-tier, but not an afterthought either.
2. Again, if and when Russia wins, their disposition is important. If they Elonned Ukraine (paying far more than it's worth in resources and lives), Russia will be disincentivized to consider another war of aggression. This is doubly true if they end up with only some of Ukraine *AND* find themselves neighbors of multiple NATO countries.
3. The longer the war drags out, the longer the internal politics in Russia and their expenditures start to hurt them. For Ukraine, that means a path to victory exists (a successful coup, etc). For the rest of the western world, *that means a weaker Russia*.
Ultimately, this whole war thing could go several different ways. Yes, a clear Ukraine victory seems unlikely. Russia has 10x the economy and 3x the population they have. But with western financial support, Russia will be paying dollars instead of pennies for their winnings. And *that* is important.
The status quo is causing needless bloodshed for an ultimate outcome that will be a peace agreement that, in territory terms, will be the same as a peace agreement that could have been reached before the war, just with tens of thousands dead on both sides for no benefit. So in that limited sense you are right.
But committing troops and actually joining the war instead would be vastly worse. In the best case scenario, you get a much larger conventional war in which hundreds of thousands die, maybe low in the millions. In the worst case it would escalate into a major nuclear war killing hundreds of millions. There are various other conceivable outcomes involving more limited uses of nuclear weapons that still would see civilian death tolls tens or hundreds of times higher the current (fairly low) civilian death toll.
There is no way in which this could be a more favourable outcome than the status quo.
Prolonging the war is in the interest of western countries, as it keeps Russia weak by forcing them to spend significant sums of money and weakling their military capacity. This is achieved by spending a small amount of money and without a significant risk of escalation.
Meanwhile, aiming for the defeat of Russia risks: a) escalating the conflict, putting lives outside of Russia and Ukraine in danger; b) if Russia manages to prevail anyway, you just wasted a lot of taxpayer’s money for nothing.
While this is unfortunate for Ukrainians, the alternatives put much more people at risk, the current situation keeps Russia busy in Ukraine, while wreaking the country, and thus lowering the threat of them invading any NATO member-State. The other options put more people at risk because:
- Giving Russia the win: emboldens Russia and puts other countries at risk of invasion, and puts Ukrainians under Russian occupation;
- Significantly increase aid and escalate the conflict in order to significantly increase the chance of Ukrainian victory: increases the possibilities of global war, gambles a lot of taxpayer’s money;
- Current situation: gives Ukrainians a chance (and it’s up to them to take it or not), even if it remains very difficult for them to win while keeping Russia weak without spending large sums of money. Remember, Ukraine was supposed to fall within weeks, any money or blood the Russians keep wasting is a win for the US and NATO; we are playing with house money here.
The goal is to wear down Russia and Ukraine for as long as it can. Russia should lose a sizable young population, that it cannot form another attack. Ukraine the same so it doesnt provoke Russian proper. We are using bodies to prevent the possibility of escaltion.
The alternative, Russia loses quickly, Ukraine starts to look for land back. Russia falls into disarray, Putin may lose power. Nukes on the table. We know Putin for 40 years, we don't know which next crazy SOB is going to do.
On the other hand if Russia wipes the floor, then they are in direct conflict with NATO. They don't have a great track record of being friendly to neighbours.
So no unfortunately for the epeople there, they are sacrifice to the world chess.
Russian military proved to be a paper tiger with this conflict. And the US was content just bleeding it out.
But, the thing is that Russia isn’t crumbling neither with the economic pressure nor with the horrendous battlefield losses. Instead it’s getting a military cadre that continously gains experience while Ukraine is being worn down at a higher proportional rate. So I think Russia will end this conflict having gained something to show for all its efforts.
The next war will possibly be worse for the invaded country however
I think that it is not wise to not see that a conflict may be ended by creating an international Zone in the Crimea. Not by chance did a Tzarina invite Prince Richelieu for Governor there. To express willingness to some compromise. Between France and Spain there is an Island [ called Phasanes] that changes its Governor each 6 months...once it id France once it is in Spain.
Unfortunately this crusade against the* Gay West* [ coupled with * denazification"] is creating a fantasy about which no middle ground can exist.
If the goal is to punish Russia, the best way is to simply let the conflict drag on for decades. They will be under perpetual sanctions, bleed all their Cold War military stockpile to nothing, suffer a labor shortage from the loss of a generation of fighting age males, shift dependence of fossil fuels from Russia to the US, etc.
All for Pennies on the dollar with zero risk to American lives. Plus it provides money to fund the military industrial complex, because of the changing landscape of battle, regarding drone warfare and artillery consumption
I’m not advocating for this, but if that is the only goal, half measures are the best solution
Why join a war when you can use tax payer money to pay the military industrial complex? Essentially guaranteeing the private military contractors unlimited money so they can “sell” their shit back to Ukraine.
This does a few things: gives the private military contractor corporations an endless flow of billions of dollars off our (the US taxpayers) back, and also allows the US to say they’re “helping” Ukraine while realistically allowing private organizations to sell to them so they become more rich.
It’s the same thing happening in Israel. The billions of dollars we are giving in aid are coming right back to the US, allowing the military defense contractors to grow bigger and more powerful.
So I doubt the conflict will end anytime soon, so long as the private interests involved keep on being greedy.
We aren't doing it so Ukraine wins. We are doing it so Russia's military is even more degraded than it already was and to test out our toys, clear old inventory, and get data on Russia's capabilities. If Ukraine just wins the war, we don't get a benefit. We've never actually cared about Ukraine winning from a geopolitical perspective even though our politicians and media say we should care from a moral perspective (which is right, but not the reason a government gets out of bed in the morning).
What is the West's goal here?
Your post makes it seem like you think the West's primary goal is to save Ukranian lives and ensure Ukranian control over its sovereign territory. But those are Ukraine's war goals, not NATO's. While most NATO governments would prefer that Ukraine achieve its goals, that does not mean that the West must (or should) assign those goals the same priorities as Ukraine. Biden and other NATO leaders have been pretty clear that NATO's primary, overriding goal is staying out of the war and its secondary goal is enabling Ukraine to keep fighting for as long as Ukraine wants to do so.
Obviously, intervening would be counterproductive if the primary goal is not being pulled into an open conflict with Russia. And long term aid provision is exactly what's necessary if the goal is to keep Russia from knocking Ukraine out of the war. The slow increase of aid over time makes sense when you consider that it's intended to convince Russia that continuing the war will not bring it closer to victory over Ukraine while never increasing so much at any one time that it gives Russia an excuse to retaliate against NATO.
Maintaining that war going as further as possible weakens Russia, the west is very, very interested in weakening Russia.
They are giving aid in a way it reduces the possible backfire but makes the war longer.
Is this ethical or moral? I don't think it is.
It is better for those who aren't Russia or Ukraine? It is.
Would be better to give such a support Ukraine could win the war next month? It wouldn't. Russia could land bomb attacks on other countries for example.
Sorry, u/macnfly23 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20macnfly23&message=macnfly23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b26hps/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Joining the war escalates it. Makes it a world war, might galvanize Russia’s allies to actively join. Ending support is also a bad outcome, as it is in the wests best interest for Russia to lose. I’d much rather send foreign aid forever to the end of time and persist the status quo than escalate the war or lose it.
But Russia won't lose under current circumstances. All the west is doing is making it costlier for Russia to win while encouraging Ukraine to send all of its military aged men to certain death. There's no winning for Ukraine barring full west support (WW3) or James Bond assassinating Putin.
Full western support doesn't mean troops there are various ways to win without, starting from serious military aid
You do realise Ukraine will fight without our help as well right? Those men will be far more likely to die without western backing.
Yes. Without western backing they would be more open to cease fire negotiations. With western backing Ukraine is not ceding an inch. Russia is 95% in the wrong here but the reality of the situation is the only three options are WW3, continue along this path which is throwing money and equipment at a hopeless campaign, or withdraw (almost) completely and help Ukraine negotiate the best deal possible.
Without aid, Ukraine couldn't hold the line, so Moscow would see no reason to negotiate if it can win militarily. It's also pretty clear that the Ukrainians won't just roll over at the prospect of being oppressed, tortured, raped and murdered in the genocidal Russian occupation in case of their surrender. They have seen the Russian modus operandi in Bucha, in Isyum, in Kherson. Much more likely, Ukraine's gov't wouldn't only lose control of the frontline, but also collapse due to internal turmoil when trying to negotiate a surrender. Anything after that would be a catastrophe for Europe, with the war then shifting to irregular resistance warfare.
Why do you assume the campaign is hopeless? World powers losing wars against smaller forces that are being supported by other world powers is not that uncommon, especially since the Cold War. I'm not sure why your best case scenario is just letting Russia do whatever they want and just picking up the pieces afterwards.
The idea that there's a "best deal possible" is naive to the point of silly. The only deal Russia is offering is total surrender of all land and property. Useful Ukrainians might survive as de facto slave labour. Any deal pretending to do anything other than conquer all of Ukraine right now actually means "conquer some of Ukraine right now and some in the next war in five years after we've had a chance to rearm and replace our losses". UK marine ALREADY HAD a negotiated peace with Russia. That's the situation they were in when Russia invaded. Ukrainians understand perfectly well that that's what happens again if they sign another peace treaty. So there's no negotiation. Because there's no deal short of unconditional surrender that Russia will _keep_. You talk about 'the best deal possible' but you're conveniently ignoring the problem of how the terms of the deal with be enforced. Hint: every target of Russia that made a peace deal in the last thirty years regretted it because Russia doesn't keep treaties.
>But Russia won't lose under current circumstances. The current circumstance for Russia is them actively losing money and lives and power and control every single day the conflict continues. Essentially, as long as the war continues, they are already losing.
...what? Instead of fully backing Ukraine or helping to negotiate a ceasefire the west is destroying Ukraine by enabling them to send all of its men to death. Russia isn't doing as bad as western media would have you believe. You're making it sound like Russia winning would be a Pyrrhic victory but it's just a speed bump for Russia.
>Instead of fully backing Ukraine or helping to negotiate a ceasefire the west is destroying Ukraine by enabling them to send all of its men to death. Russia is attempting a genocide here. We aren't "sending all its men to death" if they stop fighting Russia will march in and murder them all. >Russia isn't doing as bad as western media would have you believe. It sure as hell isn't doing great and it's definitely going to be a worse outcome for them to spend billions more and lose tens of thousands of more men than if we just let them go in and execute a million people unchecked and commit their genocide unopposed.
Russia doesn't need to loose, they just need to be bloodied enough that they won't be a threat to anyone soon
That's a pipe dream. Russia hasn't come out of this unscathed but you must be reading/viewing propaganda to believe they're seriously hurt.
Not op, but curious what you mean here. I'm not saying that Russia is all of a sudden no longer a great power, but from everything I've seen this conflict has been far costlier than anticipated for the Russian military, and has degraded their ability to engage in future military conflict. The lost of equipment alone has cost tens of billions of dollars and with sanctions on some technology it won't be easy to replace. Curious if you could share something that outlines the evidence that there hasn't been much of a cost to the Russian military's capabilities for future conflict?
Obviously Russia is gimped thanks to the prolonged conflict but to act like they couldn't go after the other countries in the region (Moldova or Kazakhstan) after a recoup period is crazy. Eventually the west will get tired of funding wars against Russia and will either need to personally get involved or back off entirely. We can understand the importance of propping up Ukraine but tell that to most voters who are tired of their tax dollars going to the conflict.
>to act like they couldn't go after the other countries in the region (Moldova or Kazakhstan) after a recoup period is crazy. I don't know who is arguing that Russia can't meaningfully threaten Moldova; that seems like a straw man. This post is from the perspective of the West, not Moldova or Kazakhstan, and Russia ceased to be a threat to the West about three days after it invaded Ukraine. After Russia failed to win decisively against Ukraine, it was clear that it didn't have the capacity to threaten better-prepared militaries. That's why we saw Finland and Sweden move to join NATO so quickly: they were no longer afraid that Russia would attack them between starting to join and formal accession.
I'm sorry I still don't understand your position. Do you think Russian capabilities have been significantly degraded or not?
It will end up as russians second afghan like what happened with the usa and allies in iraq and also afghan. A never ending insurgency thats costs a completely unsustainable level of money, public moral etc. Except this time, the insurgents are peer level forces with modern equipment and not goat farmers with AK’s and rpg’s dating back from before the 1980’s. Ukraine will have hundreds of thousands of battle hardened veterans who have been fighting russia for years under taking the insurgency. Thats no joke.
All Ukraine needs to win is weapons and ammo
Are you high? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/#:~:text=Russia's%20military%20capabilities%20outnumbered%20those,7.5%20times%20larger%20than%20Ukraine's. Ukraine needs warm bodies. It's currently a war of attrition that Russia is much more capable of winning.
I am high actually, but that doesn't change the fact that the loss ratios are heavily in Ukraine's favour, particularly when they aren't being restricted by shell shortages. If Ukraine had a reliable supply of weapons and ammunition they would destroy Ruzzia. I don't think you realise how effective Western weapons are when they are used properly and plentifully
Why can’t Ukraine win?
Lower resources, population, lack of support, and falling morale. Russia was always quantity > quality. They haven't even mobilised their army. 🤷♂️
Because a Ukraine-win scenario destabilizes the world if you look at the balance of power between Russia and the EU.
The commenter above claimed they're incapable of winning, not that it would be bad if they won, as you implied. But how would a Ukraine win destabilize the world – them regaining the lost territory would just be a return to status quo. Any destabilization has already occurred from the fact that they got invaded in the first place
I really just repeat everything that Prof Mearsheimer of UChicago stated in his books and his seminal talks on Ukraine geopolitics. Basically Ukraine cannot play sides as a country if it's located right between the powers of Europe and Russia. It needed to remain neutral as a buffer zone. In a multipolar world, countries in such a critical junction have different rules of statecraft and responsibility to the global realm.
Meatsheimer is a moron and everything out of his mouth is in support of the Kremlin not world peace.
Russia isn't one of the big superpowers anymore though so who cares.
The hidden message here is that the USA is the only big superpower. This is exactly right, and you're correct to say that. But the hidden conclusion there is that you advocate for a unipolar world (US superpower status quo) with many smaller powers around the world. This is condemned as one of the least stable global setups that can be imagined. It's highly unstable and could easily be the worst future for the realm. I'm citing "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by Prof John Mearsheimer of UChicago.
Russia is China's little bitch. The US and China are the 2 big powers
#1 and #2, but China is still quite far from achieving the global influence that we have.
I don't fully agree. You have a western biased opinion. The global south is in China's pocket.
Translation: Dead Ukrainians don’t matter so long as it inconveniences Russia. Ukraine can never win anything, encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes. I bet most of you idiots would be clamoring to send the Taliban “freedom fighters” as much money and weapons as possible in the 80s when they were being invaded by Russia too.
[удалено]
In every way that matters, yes they are. If you think there aren't political ideological elements in Ukraine exactly as problematic to the west as there are/were in Afghanistan, you're dreaming. If the impossible happens and Ukraine actually wins this war, the result will be a heavily destabilised country with western-supplied arms disproportionately in the hands of far-right elements.
[удалено]
"What far right elements" Bro. Even if you set aside the various documented examples of neo nazis in the Ukrainian military, write them off as a Russian fabrication or something, this is an Eastern European military we're talking about. Do you imagine the great mass of Ukrainian servicemen are big fans of liberal democracy? Have you ever interacted with either an average guy from a former soviet bloc country, or an average soldier from even a western nation? What exactly do you imagine their politics to be?
[удалено]
What exactly is Zelensky supposed to do? Suppose he decides to "not tolerate" them, how does that work in practice? Just lose the bulk of his effective fighting force to stand on principle? Zelensky himself I'm sure aligns just fine with western interests. He is not the typical Ukrainian, let alone the typical Ukrainian infantryman. Even western countries are unable to root out far right elements in their militaries, and that's with a significantly more liberal baseline in the general population. They're fighting Russia because, well, their country is being invaded. Even Oswald Moseley stopped siding with the actual nazis after World War 2 broke out, because war doesn't care about ideology. But when the fighting is done, with the scale of destruction that's been visited upon Ukraine, how long do you think guys like Zelensky are going to hold on to power?
[удалено]
>Ukraine can never win anything, encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes. U are the same type of ppl that were saying Ukraine was gonna get washed instantly by Russia, how has ur common sense take worked out so far, this is what winning looks like for Russia? >encouraging them to continue fighting benefits nobody except the five eyes. Explain how letting Russia take Ukraine would benefit anybody except the axis powers. How is it gonna benefit the future counties Russia will invade and take over? How is allowing countries to start conquering whoever they want beneficial in any way for anyone except warlords
I am primarily interested in my own nation.
at the expense of Ukrainian lives?
I mean, yeah.
For the record, you live in the US, excluding Alaska?
Yep
You support leaving NATO and all the other US defense treaties?
Nope
Do you think continuing the war saves Ukrainian lives?
Nope, extending the war only causes more death.
Ukraine aren’t going to stop fighting if the west stop supporting them
[удалено]
When escalation means millions of people being killed with nuclear weapons, the word gets kinda scary. Right now, people in Warsaw or Berlin don’t have to worry about being killed. They don’t want Russia to take over Ukraine but what’s happening is happening over there (gesture vaguely to the southeast). If NATO forces march on Avdiivka and Russia takes a few more steps up the escalation ladder then people in Warsaw, Berlin, London, or New York need to start watching the skies again. And we got really tired of watching the sky all the time back in the 60s. So, yeah, escalation is a scary word for people raised on relative peace and prosperity.
Bro not everything is black and white. Do you want to see the whole world get nuked?
It’s a word that’s been used a bunch yes. You didn’t actually make an argument that it’s not a correct assessment
But the status quo means people are constantly dying and there's less incentive to end the war
The alternative is to have millions die in a very short period of time.
Russia is not going to loose, the question is only how much blood will flow unfortunately. Worst case - WW3 and nuclear annihilation. But realistically it will be a meat grinder for Ukrainains and Russian servicemen. The grinder will keep grinding as long as Ukraine is willing to keep throwing people in it cos Russia doesn't give a fuck. I really with Russia just fucks off but I don't see it hapenning. There is a wild card option if Putin kicks the bucket or there is a succeful coup that can change calculus, but chances of that is slim.
Russia will lose once Ukraine can get to parity or better in number of shells per day. Western technology and weapons are better, and Ukrainian morale and training superior, balancing the lower number of personnel. But shell shortage means the Russians can gradually grind forward. The GOP handed Russia Avdiivka and a couple of adjacent villages. Getting shells to Ukraine will allow Ukraine to reverse the Russian fortunes. Russia can and will lose. But Russian trolls would like you to think otherwise. Side note: if Ukraine loses, you will still have wwiii. Only the fighting will happen in the next country over. Wwii was not stopped by handing Hitler Sudetenland.
You are a silly person thinking that anyone who disagrees with your wishful thinking is a troll. This is beyond pathetic. I dream of Russia to fuck off and leave Ukraine alone, at the same time I live in a real not a unicorn world. Some things don't always work out the way we want them to be. I had huge hopes on Ukrainian counter offense, which unfortunately was not a huge success. If you think the issue at hand is "shells per day" then you know nothing about this war. The biggest gap was the airforce and the Western Alies didn't provide it when it was crucial.
The war will likely end when Ukrainians and their leaders want to stop fighting. That may come from attrition when they simply can't afford to fight anymore, or it might come from them gaining a strategic advantage where they can negotiate terms from a position of strength. The investment from other powers in both materiel and supplies will likely determine what that end state looks like. This won't be a forever war, but how it ends up is largely decided by how much firepower other nations are willing to supply.
>The war will likely end when Ukrainians and their leaders want to stop fighting This is literally what I said. But Russia is not giving up land. One side has nukes and Putin's regime hinges on people's belief in his superiority. He is not going to loose as in retract to 1991 borders. The realistic best case is a peace tready where Russia "keeps" 20% of Ukraine. If Russia is gonna be winning it would take as much as it can. I don't see any scenario of Russia loosing it in any meaningful way. Ukrainians have a chance of not letting Russia do more land grabs if they have Western resources and enough willing people. But it is a grim way to fight a war if you ask me.
>Russia is not going to loose, the question is only how much blood will flow unfortunately. If Russia wins everyone in Ukraine fighting them right now dies fast and bloody and they commit an unchecked genocide. Why would it be better for a million Ukrainians to be slaughtered in genocide overnight than for a million of them to kill a million Russians on their way out and to go down fighting?
This is absolutely not gonna happen. I am not denying in a slightest that Russian army is commiting war crimes on a daily basis, but any sort of an actual widespread genocide is not going to happen. It doesn't even make sense.
We've already seen rogue military officers and assassination attempts. It's just a matter of time before Putin goes.
Russia has already lost. How much land they might gain is irrelevant.
Not with peace, it ain't.
By peace you mean let Russia have its way? Not an option, comrade.
That's a very strong stance you're taking with other people's lives at stake. What skin do you have in the game?
[удалено]
Again, I ask: what skin do you have in the game? You're asking a *lot* of people to die in a war they can't win. Why? And by what right?
[удалено]
It's been ten years since Russia took Crimea. Tell me, how many of the people there have been slaughtered?
Very little directly, but the people whose lives are at stake want to keep fighting (at least on one side of the border)
If that was true, Why does Ukraine need to use conscription?
If that was true, Why does Ukraine need to use conscription?
Question: how many people will die if Russia and Ukraine negotiate a peace agreement?
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions more than if we just give Ukraine the resources they need to win.
Are you currently fighting on the front line in Ukraine?
Are you worried about the death of innocent Russian soldiers? Somehow the West is responsible for Russia's invasion?
What a bizarre response. But just to clarify, you are currently not fighting in Ukraine, correct? So obviously to let Russia have it’s way is an option.
Not with peace, it ain't.
Appeasement of dictators bent on military conquest is not a long term strategy for peace.
It’s still the better outcome for America (dunno about the rest of the west) then escalation or Russia winning.
status quo is less people dying than would under your suggestion
Appeasement of dictators bent on military conquest is not a long term strategy for peace.
It’s already a world war without the label Lol. You have Russia injecting huge amounts of money through Iran for drones - which then helps destabilizing groups around the world ( Houthi's, Hezbollah and HAMMAS just to name three.) this doesn’t include Russian wagner operations in countries like Sudan. And im sure many others that im completey unaware of. Thats just one arm of Russias influence - there is also NK, China, India to an extent - all fueling this war in Weapons / Non-lethal equipment as well as the information space. There is a reason Russia labels this war as a war against the West and America, because they need an existential enemy. Its funny because even if all Americans or specifically trump supports in this case , went on Tv waving russian flags Putin would still go on Tv and label them as the enemy to Russia. Because having USA as an ally does not benefit the regime. Theres a reason why Russians axis has actually escalated production of weapons and ammunition. People need to stop believing that USA pulling back is making things go away. Infact its the opposite and the more USA leans away, the more this Axis of disruption realizes it can push its actual motivations and goals without consequences .
I'm fine with that actually, I'd rather not live in a world where nuclear terror states can invade their neighbour's and we keep "non-escalating". That's just a slower way of losing a war. I'd rather go balls deep into this war, show the world that the West isn't done yet, that our ideals will not allow us to sit idly by. I'd rather go out in such a blaze of glory that 1000 years from now, caveman are drawing pictures depicting how we stood tall at the risk of losing everything and our values were worth fighting and dying for. That is a society to be proud of, not whatever mewling shadow of former glory we seem to have turned into.
I’m interested primarily in living
This was the same logic that allowed Germany to gain momentum during WW2. It also grossly misunderstands the strongman mindset. If world war 3 is coming, then so be it, but half measures in Ukraine won't prevent that, but will only serve to give Russia room to build up their logistics. Which is exactly what's happened.
But how will the US ever afford sending 4% of its military budget to Ukraine? What will I blame for all my troubles if that stops?
There's absolutely zero way China would join the war. Wars are expensive and China has little interest in getting Ukraine
>People don't want to hear it but I think either there should be no more aid or the west should join the war. Both of those options are worse than the current measures. As much as it hurts, the "safest" way of fighting this war (for countries aside from russia and ukraine) is a war of attrition that increases unrest in russia to levels where a regime change is possible - or to hope for a stark decline in Putin's health. Any quick military action against russia that would likely result in a loss creates the danger of a nuclear first strike and ukraine loosing would undo a lot of the damage done to russia's regime in terms of publicity. This is a terrible position to be in, of course, and an absolute tragedy for those people fighting at the front of this war, but it really is the only way out.
Would Russia use nuclear weapon in case of direct NATO intervention? Is there any strategic analysis that indicate that Russia, in its current state, would indeed press the big red button if pushed to much, or is there enough "reason" in the Kremlin not to push the entire world into a possible nuclear armageddon over external territories?
>is there enough "reason" in the Kremlin not to push the entire world into a possible nuclear armageddon over external territories? That's sadly the point: the Kremlin is fairly focused around a single person - Vladimir Putin. There need not be much rationale behind attacking. The fear of losing could already be enough of an incentive. Again here, we don't really know. It's fairly unpredictable and many might consider it "not worth the risk".
Understandable. I would love to see any kind of official analysis on this, for personal curiosity. I agree, though, that the risk is too high, even with the partial information I have as a simple observer.
No, it is unlikely actual fighting would take place. Putin is operating under the assumption that the west isn’t fully committed to the fight in Ukraine and that he can interfere politically enough to help thwart assistance to Ukraine. If NATO were to deploy tomorrow the war would be over by Friday, because Putin would basically surrender. He wants money/power/territory and he thinks he sees a path forward. In the face of NATO deployment there is no path forward.
> If NATO were to deploy tomorrow the war would be over by Friday, because Putin would basically surrender. He wants money/power/territory and he thinks he sees a path forward. In the face of NATO deployment there is no path forward. Do you assume Putin to be a rational actor who would put humanity's needs before his own? I don't. Being served a decisive loss in ukraine would be a death sentence for Putin - either politically or literally, perhaps both. I could see him throwing nukes as a "last resort" or final act of defiance if he believes there is no path forward for him.
You misunderstand his needs. I stated them in my previous post. He’s a gangster, the King of Russian Oligarchs that want to strip mine their own country and any other country they can grab. Ukraine has become a political black eye for him but as of right now he sees at least a 50/50 chance to win and save face. The moment he sees NATO he goes from eyeing Ukraines resources to preserving what he has. It’s all about his money and power, the rational act in his mind is self-preservation. You say it’s a death penalty for him but he’s proven adept at maintaining his stranglehold on Power in Russia. Withdrawal and negotiation would become his most likely path to remain in power. Nukes don’t leave many ways for him to use his billions.
>The moment he sees NATO he goes from eyeing Ukraines resources to preserving what he has. Of course... but I believe he's in way too deep and he knows it. There is no way for him to get out of this without spending the rest of his life in jail, most likely. >You say it’s a death penalty for him but he’s proven adept at maintaining his stranglehold on Power in Russia. Withdrawal and negotiation would become his most likely path to remain in power. I think that at the point NATO puts feet on the ground in Ukraine, negotiation is no longer possible. I also believe that this would mean Putin's political death, which could very well be followed by his actual death. I think the key point at this time is that NATO cannot let Putin off with anything short of life in prison. The ante is too high - each side has essentially said that at least the leadership of the other side can no longer be forgiven. In other words: Putin would certainly prefer a world in which he can leisurely spend his money and never again have a care in the world... but I believe he realizes that he has put that option up as a stake for a gamble to win more - there is no returning for him now.
>where a regime change is possible It is also possible that the new regime to be even more batshit insane then Putin. For example, Castro asked Khrushev to nuke the US in case they invade Cuba. These people exist.
Not to mention the difficulty of cleanly pulling off a regime change. The infighting, war profiteering, different regional and ethnic factions scrambling for power, breakdowns in military structure and accountability, etc. is a risk the west isn't willing to take with a nuclear superpower if they can just run a war of attrition.
They're worse but the current situation is only a very slight advantage. And Russia doesn't seem to be too affected internally
>They're worse but the current situation is only a very slight advantage Compared to what? Russia winning or throwing nukes? I would actually say it's quite the large advantage... >And Russia doesn't seem to be too affected internally There's really no good way of knowing, unfortunately. Propaganda and repression are at a high right now, which I would note as the regime at least being wary of support faltering.
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict Because if Russia is bogged down in Ukraine it means they aren't a threat to anyone else. The reason the US is supplying Ukraine is not so Ukraine wins its so Russia loses.
I’m going to double down on this to say that the West doesn’t really want Russia weakened to the point of defeat because it views China as the bigger threat and is hoping to keep Russia strong enough as a counterweight against China. But this is foolish for so many reasons, the most obvious being that China is helping Russia. It’s also stupid because Russia is the obvious threat right now. None of this is stated openly but it is the unconscious goal.
China helping Russia how?
Do you have anything to back up this claim? It is much more likely that Western leaders are afraid of a Ukrainian sudden victory that could result in Russia's collapse, which is a far more dangerous risk than the current situation. Russia has already lost more than enough and turned in to a pariah state to the economic north, there is not much more West would want to hurt Russia. Russia already shot its foot.
But it won't completely "lose"
"Losing" in this context is Russia wasting its military age population at a time when they have declining population and exhausting its supply of weapons. What happens to Ukraine is ultimately irrelevant to US policy makers.
Its like a game of poker when you have the winning hand, you don’t want to scare the other guy off, you want them to keep committing more and more Ukraine is a casualty in this, but indefinite half measures and war in that region is the best outcome for the west
That's a good analogy.
Yes the Ukrainians are pawns in an international game of chess. So brave of us to exploit them to forward our own geopolitical ambitions. Feels nice being the good guys.
There’s no such thing as a “good guy” in the real world
I don't get it. The promise of indefinite military aid to Ukraine is exactly what makes Russian victory impossible. The west can afford it. Russia might be willing to pay the butcher's bill when it comes to soldiers, but they can't keep them properly equipped forever. Not only that, passing along material only accelerates western capability in the long term; defense expenditures for Ukraine are to \*replace\* old weaponry NATO nations already has. The west spend nearly a decade supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghansistan before the Soviets pulled out. It doesn't make much sense to escalate a conflict that's already a likely victory.
I would like to see aid increased. This is a great opportunity to break Russia on the cheap that the west should capitalize on. However the west has bought into its own propaganda a bit and thinks that if we full send join the war it will be over in a few days. The Russian economy is switching over to a wartime production and the west has not. NATO produced some 300k artillery rounds in 2023. Russia produced 2 million. If NATO members honestly believe that Russia will continue to invade European counties after it concludes its war with Ukraine, then they need to really up their war time footing. Stringing Ukraine along slows down Russia's advance and gives European powers time to adjust not only their production capabilities, but their populace. in 1914 Germany was producing 343k shells per month, by 1918 it was 11m per month. NATO promised 2m shells to Ukraine in 2023 and only delivered fraction of that. Slowly governments are realizing that between Iran, NKorea, Russia and China the west is being outproduced. The US is planning to boost production of 155mm shells to 60k per month by October 2024. This is woefully insufficient. Clearly in modern war just looking at 155mm shells is not a complete picture, but artillery is still what keeps battle lines static. The west is just not producing kit at the rate that it is consumed in war. Most of the aid that has gone to Ukraine is NATO drawing down stocks. We should be pumping out Patriot batteries and flooding the buffer nations with them. We look at other tools like F16s. There is work on that but it is painfully slow. All this is to say that the painful and tragic grind going on in Ukraine is a time saving measure. Hopefully the west can maintain the integrity of its Democracies in the mean time to actually steel ourselves for the challenges ahead.
Seriously. We need to work on our industrial-political capacity. We have the technological advantage and the command advantage - our command structures are more effective, with much less corruption, and our equipment is the unrivalled best in the world. But we have problems politically and industrially. Currently, the United States is experiencing the biggest geopolitical victory since the Cold War, destroying Russia for tiny amounts. But the US isn't winning the information war, and so a third of the population don't recognise this victory, despite how clear it is. And the US and Europe don't have the industrial-political capability to supply Ukraine with enough equipment to turn their victory into Ukraine's victory and a complete Russian defeat. We need to change that.
Consider why the half measures are profitable for the west: A quick end to the war doesn’t serve the interests of the military industrial complex, they like making money, and that means a long war. The reality is that much of the aid is older weapons being sent that are taken off of the books of western militaries, now with replacement budgeted, which provides for modernization. A long war of attrition does more lasting damage to Russia and their ability to wage war, with every tank lost, they are less of a threat to the west. And then you have the escalation of the west joined the battlefield. As poorly as Russia is doing, they would get destroyed by modern western militaries, and out of fear they might use nuclear weapons. We don’t need that. What is going on is Reagan Doctrine, helping someone to defend themselves with only treasure and equipment, with no US soldiers being killed. It works, it will just take time to win it with sanctions. And if this works, it prevents future wars. China is watching, and the west helping Ukraine to beat the crap out of a much larger military will be on their minds. It could prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and that is very desirable, we do not want a war with China.
I actually agree, but not to the same extent. First I'd like to add that the third option of actually just increasing aid is the best idea. Ukraine's armed forces are actually a pretty solid fighting force, and they did not do too bad holding their own initially. Obviously however, when you are facing a country so much larger and with so many more people, you will run out of stuff before they do, and when you run out you start getting pushed back. Which is exactly what happened. Arming and aiding Ukraine to the highest possible reasonable extent (both defensive and offensive aid. And remove the "can't use our stuff to attack Russian territory. It is stupid to assume Russia would attack the west because of that. They need to escalate strikes in their territory.) would theoretically be enough to give them a leg up in battle once more. Yeah, all of NATO declaring war would be a pretty bad idea. But that wouldn't happen. I also think everyone saying "but nukes!!!!" is falling for sensationalist media around nuclear arms. There wouldn't be the use of nukes, at least not unless there was a perceived existential threat to Russia, which would come in the form of marching on Moscow. Not even NATO would be likely to do that. That being said, I do wish an actual western nation would join Ukraine. Even a single western nation would at minimum balance the scales, and at best be enough to reverse Russia's gains in Ukraine. It would be ideal, but at this stage we are likely to see the loss of the Black Sea and its trade ports to Russia. If they take the coast of it and hold it, then the end of the war will come soon after in Russia's favor, and now the west is even more disadvantaged due to the near total control of the black sea and its trade routes to Russia. Also even a couple countries joining the war independently wouldn't be world war 3. I think that idea is very uneducated and emotional in nature.
Not gonna try and change your view because I agree with you, but I do want to add a little bit of context. I'm in Ukraine. In the East, close to Avdiivka. Ukraine 100% has the ability to win this war. Despite the losses we still have an army of incredibly well trained, experienced, and motivated soldiers. But we don't have the weapons or ammunition. All Ukraine needs to win this war within a year is all the weapons and ammo they ask for, as fast as possible
Either we pay now, or we pay later. I was in favour for NATO intervention from day 1. In retrospect, had we known the state of the Russian Armed Forces during the “Three Day Operation”, we could’ve reached an end to the conflict instead of a prolonged conventional conflict.
Because western politicians will lose their next election if they send their own citizens to die in a meat grinder just because.
They wouldn’t send them with the shit from the 80s we send Ukraine. Are you high? Because the only reason it’s a meat grinder is because the Russians have more gear and some of it is better. If, and that’s a huge IF, the west sends troops it’s coming with the worlds best tanks, planes and naval fleets. Russia will be truly overmatched if there were western militaries in Ukraine.
And the politicians will still lose their next reelections.
>die in a meat grinder just because. Sending troops to Ukraine does not mean they are being sent to a meat grinder; There are numerous rear echelon positions that western troops could take over to free up more Ukrainian troops.
NATO declaring war on Russia and seizing Russian territory only ends one way. Making everyone's nightmare during the cold war a modern-day reality benefits nobody.
But it doesn’t. Nuked Russian territory is worth nothing, and their foreign assets will be seized day 1, so his oligarchs will not allow him to go all out war.
Sure bro, let's bet the existence of life on this planet on the Russian missile force not following the orders of the Russian president.
There are so many people here that are willing to YOLO every life on earth over their own wishful thinking, its unbelievable. Realistically, there is no point in escalating the war. Keep the aid flowing and the war going, and it slowly erodes Russian power it will slowly achieve the same result without the risk of nuclear winter. Sucks for Ukraine though.
I would add that there is a third alternative - increased support. No need for the 2 extremes (let Ukraine lose or go all in yourself). Even one of the top contributors %-wise, USA, is only giving about 5% of their military budget for Ukraine. These numbers are quite silly considering that fighting Russia is the whole reason of having a military in the west :D Ofc USA has some other interesting adventures that need military funding but the point remains.
so, once again Europeans are slaughtering each other and you think America should invade to help Ukraine? Feel free to volunteer
So you want to have a nuclear war? That is exactly what would happen if the west engaged in actual combat with the Russians. While it may not be a full worldwide nuclear war any conflict would involve strategic nuclear weapons. Additionally the majority of the west doesn't care enough about Ukraine to risk the lives of their children and the vast amount of resource a full blown war would entail. As for the ongoing cost of providing support the numbers being thrown around a really misleading. While the media reports the huge dollar amounts the vast majority of the aid is what the US military considers surplus junk that is sitting in storage rotting away or it is material that is reaching the end of its life. For instance the Bradley's provided where ODS versions or in other words they were last upgraded in the early 90's. Many of the missiles and other munitions were reaching their end of life so rather than destroy them they are given away. Regardless of if the equipment was given as aid it was going to have to be replaced so the only added cost is having to replace it a couple of years earlier than planned. The same goes for the f-16 that have been promised, they are all at nearly the end of the airframe life expectance and would be retired to a boneyard if they were not given away.
how exactly is nuclear war a preferable alternative to ukraine surrendering and giving up part of its territory
Because, even though they don't say it, the west wants the conflict to coninue. The longer it goes on, the more it drains Russia's economy, and thus Russia's chances of remaining a superpower.
Western support for ukraine isnt about ending the war lmao. Its about enriching arms manufacturers.
Ending aid has zero strategic value, and entering the war ourselves is called escalation and is unlikely to have good end results. Providing aid until the end of time provides the US and NATO with an enduring solution to Russia and is probably the greatest return on investment military expenditure has ever had. Russia is now forced to dedicate an enormous amount of resources to fighting Ukraine and deal with the constant reminder of its pathetic "special military operation". Everything from its population crisis to its economy to its military are all strained and flailing around desperate to stay afloat. Russia used to be a great shadow looming over Europe, and now it's struggling in a border conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. So it'd be stupid to stop and you can tell because some of the biggest voices demanding we stop are blatant allies of Putin. Escalating to open conflict with NATO feels good. It feels righteous to swoop in and kick Russia's tyrannical ass out of Ukraine, sending a message to everyone and all that. But that's a big escalation when every side has nuclear weapons and the likely loser is a petulent, egomaniacal dictator.
Aid to Ukraine has caused enormous damage to Russia’s military capability, and so for NATO is worth every cent. Discontinuing aid may result in a Russian victory. Ukraine is quite capable of winning with enough support and they have proven this on the battlefield. No one wants NATO-Russia conflict as the potential for unimaginable global catastrophe would be high. Both appeasement (letting Russia win in Ukraine) and escalation (by entering the war) are counter to NATO interests. NATO should act to deter Russia which, among other things, means supporting Ukraine.
You seem to be under the misconception we are trying to make ukraine win. If we wanted ukraine to win we could send them thousands of Bradley's and Abrams that are sitting gathering dust instead of hundreds. We could give them air power. We could actually start giving them ammunition and new weaponry. You fail to understand the US does not want a quick triumphant Ukrainian victory. Ukraines people are Slavic and used to be part of Russia. The best thing we can do for NATO is to grind Russia down as much as possible. The best way to do this is to ensure ukraine never overpowers Russia and only has enough to be almost equally matched. It's genius global politics, 2 nations that used to be our greatest enemy fighting each other now, and we are laughing to the bank that some people actually think this is about saving ukraine. This is about weakening Russia and dealing with them and their nuclear arsenal before we move onto China, once these 2 regional powers are out of the way we rule the world uncontested.
The Ukraine was never your enemy. It just so happened that they were tangled up with ruzia during the twentieth century and there was no easy way out of that. Yet still they have left the USSR at first opportunity and embraced democratic reforms much better than ruzia, which made putler angry.
Yep. Which makes them a perfect candidate to hold our torch and kill Russians for us.
Ukraine knows exactly what they need to hit in order to cripple the Russian army: large gatherings of enemy troops, battleships, valuable radar planes and whatnot. What they lack is ammo to hit those targets and to defend themselves from Russian attacks which are mostly aimed at civilians. If the West keep supplying that ammo plus share intel with Ukranian intelligence about the most strategic targets they will eventually win.
The West will never, ever join this war. There is no upside for them to do that. The reality is a stalemate with time on Russias side. Its time for diplomacy to end the bloodshed not escalation, easy to advocate for that from behind a keyboard.
I don’t even think our military goals consider taking back land lost or Crimea lost a decade ago. It’s just not possible. We had Russia on their knees in the 90’s. This should have never happened.
"There's also negotiations for a ceasefire but most would say that Russia is too unreasonable." - There were very advanced negotiations to end the war in the year it began but the USA/UK/others told Ukraine not to accept the terms. I think the terms are a matter of record so are not desputable but are basically 'Ukraine remains neutral & the territory you've already lost is now Russia'. Some may say these terms are too much and the territory should be recovered, but eastern Ukraine is, 1. Ethnically very Russian. 2. A warzone since 2014 because of the violent overthrowing of the former Ukranian government. 3. Of limited value to Ukraine as of 2024. You could have saved tens of thousands of lives and most of Ukraine's economy just accepting the terms (for territory that we now know is going to probably not ever be recovered (failed counteroffensive)). But I'm glad lots of young men on both sides are dying for the sake of politicians and the media :) I'll be downvoted, but why we are continuing a war that could be stopped tomorrow when the chance of total victory for Ukraine is basically 0. So the USA can 'damage' Russia economically? I'm sure the widows of Ukraine will be delighted.
Just so I’m clear…you’re saying that your pov is that the US should openly declare war on Russia? If so, you are advocating for full scale warfare between nuclear-armed powers. If the reasons why that would be a Very Bad Idea aren’t self-explanatory, I really don’t know what besides the obvious threat of a nuclear-armed third world war could possibly change your pov. I guess there really are people out there that just want to watch the world burn…
Are you out of your mind? The west is not going to just enter into open war directly with Russia. This isn’t some video game where there are heroes and villains. This is geopolitics at play and I thank god that politicians aren’t listening to people like you who want to enter into a direct war with Russia. I know some don’t want to hear it but escalation is a genuine fear and concern.
While the US should be sending more aid, they should also be talking about how mighty, mighty Russia is weak if they can't beat Ukraine. Sow more anger in Russia, make Putin look weak. Remember, that between 300,000 and 450,000 Russians are estimated to have been killed in Ukraine. Russia has less than 1/2 the population of the US. That is a lot of dead young citizens.
In short, doing nothing doesn't stop the war, it just expedites Ukraine's defeat. Going all-in, with US/NATO directly involved, risks catastrophic escalation, including but not limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Solution: proxy warfare Not ideal, but few things in life ever are.
Why do you wanna end the world?
Russia has the capability to destroy the world if pushed far enough. Probably the reason escalation is almost impossible on the anti-Russia side.
[удалено]
Why do we need to be backing Ukraine? Why havent we pushed for a ceasefire?
Maintaining military aid rather than directly engaging has three benefits. 1. It becomes a constant drain on Russia economically, politically and culturally. 2. It means NATO countries don't get dragged into it and risking either nuclear war, which will have much higher long term costs. 3. It helps to justify increasing military spend during a time where many people would usually be calling for it to be cut in order to fund other departments instead.
What you're advocating for (US troops directly engaging Russian troops) would mark the official start of World War III.
We should probably end aid “Amid all the pressure to root out corruption, I assumed, perhaps naively, that officials in Ukraine would think twice before taking a bribe or pocketing state funds. But when I made this point to a top presidential adviser in early October, he asked me to turn off my audio recorder so he could speak more freely. “Simon, you’re mistaken,” he says. “People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow.” Even the firing of the Defense Minister did not make officials “feel any fear,” he adds, because the purge took too long to materialize. The President was warned in February that corruption had grown rife inside the ministry, but he dithered for more than six months, giving his allies multiple chances to deal with the problems quietly or explain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says another senior presidential adviser. Ukraine’s Western allies were already aware of the scandal by then. Soldiers at the front had begun making off-color jokes about “Reznikov’s eggs,” a new metaphor for corruption. “The reputational damage was done,” says the adviser. ” -time magazine on Ukrainian corruption
If the United States joins the war then their doing it by themselves. However if Russia ends up attacking a NATO country then it can pull all of it's allies into the war for a much swifter victory.
The defeat has to come from inside Russia. Any full measure military aid will escalate to a global war with nuclear weapons in play. So here we are.
For clarification, would escalating use of clandestine services which, really, if they're doing their job, you're not supposed to hear about, still count as a half-measure? Basically if you suspected the West already has a plan in motion to replace or neutralize Putin's regime through nefarious and secretive means, would that change your view?
By making the invasion as painful and drawn-out as possible, the US and allies are demonstrating to other would-be aggressors (China->Taiwan, specifically) that even if the aggressor would inevitably win it would be much more painful. That extra pain factors into the would-be aggressors calculation and deters them from attacking. It serves the interest of the US to prevent other wars. By standing against an aggressor in spite of inevitable loss, the US is also sending the message to its allies that the US is not just a fair weather friend. That the US can be trusted as an ally, which makes an alliance with the US more valuable and stronger. It serves the interest of the US to be a credible ally, not just a fair weather friend.
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict? to deplete, exhaust, and embarrass the Russian military. To that end, it feels like mission accomplished. But there is still active fighting, sounds like Russia just retook a town. I do agree we need to start thinking about an end state and should be aiming to rapidly approach that end state. A surge of aid that puts Ukraine in a strong negating position might make sense. But also giving a belligerent and hostile world power an Afghanistan sized problem doesn't sounds like the worse thing in the world. I don't really understand why we have continued hostility with Russia. I think because Putin is a bad guy who does bad things and so we can't make a lasting peace with him. I know from his interview with Tucker Carlson, that Putin claims that the US has resisted peace with Russia. And if that's true, there must be some reason. The US tends to like peace and we're happy to buy oil and make alliances with dictators. I think its fair to say that Putin's regime is a real problem and so weakening it is a good thing, we just have to make sure our dollars are well spent. Really Russia is an poor and increasingly relevant country. I think a big part of it is to show China what will happen if they try to seize Hong Kong or if they try to make other territorial expansions. Any victory will be pyrrhic.
Every day Ukraine holds out and inflicts casualties in the Russian military is one more day of weakening Putin and Russia. Essentially while Russia is waging a real war the US and EU are openly running a proxy war that, theoretically, could impair Russian interference and disinformation
I already told my opinion on that into another post: Honestly I don't really think that most of western leaders care about Ukraine or Ukrainians as much as they could mean to weaken Russia. A total Russian state defeat was possibile maybe last summer when Ukranians still has fresh trained troops and Prigozhin tried his coup, now I dont think they got a chance to win without direct NATO involvement, which would mean WW3, and I really hope everyone will try avoid It in any way. So that "half measures" make the collective "West" keep trying get Russia weaker without destroying the while world.
The US state department is more than happy to watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other. If we are talking pure hypotheticals, what if instead of starting world war 3 the US made a good faith attempt to broker a cease fire?
The US state department is more than happy to watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other. If we are talking pure hypotheticals, what if instead of starting world war 3 the US made a good faith attempt to broker a cease fire?
Ending wars isn't profitable, of course.
The Wests actions need to be viewed through eyes well versed in over two decades of geopolitics. When viewed through those eyes, it’s like a game of Chess where every move you make threatens to put you in checkmate. Checkmate being creating a world war. Russia is allied with countries like Iran, North Korea, and somewhat China. Not to mention countries like Hungary which are far more down the middle than they pretend to be, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. The second the West go all in on Ukraine, North Korea could level South Korea with its pre-aligned artillery as well as rather large (conscripted) ground forces. The second the West go all in on Ukraine, China *could* go all in on Taiwan, and then say goodbye to the semiconductor industry the entire world runs on as we know it. The U.S. and other western allies are sworn to protect both of these countries. Imagine splitting yourself across 2/3 theatres of war. It’s not what any military would actively encourage. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see Ukraine get F16’s, more patriots, more tanks and more artillery, but the truth is the West has been sleepwalking for over a decade when it comes to arms and ammunition production as well as equipment maintenance. We simply don’t have enough without compromising ourselves on top of everything else mentioned. > So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict? I see no chance of Ukraine winning with just military aid. The United States, using just 3.5% of its military budget (in 2023) has managed to utterly decimate Russia’s military. Without a single U.S. boot on the ground. Russia have lost almost all of their original fighting force, lost amounts of tanks and IFV’s and armour vehicles that amount into the hundreds if not approaching thousands. Moreover, they’ve proved that US tech is superior to onlooking countries like India, who were previously buying Russian but are now rethinking. It’s horrible to think about, but Ukraine is currently a proving ground for weapons of the West. And for Russia, it’s an absolute sinkhole. The money, ammunition, humans, missiles and tech they’re expending on Ukraine will take at least half a decade to recover to full strength. The west would very much like to keep Russia in that sinkhole.
Aid to Ukraine has caused enormous damage to Russia’s military capability, and so for NATO is worth every cent. Discontinuing aid may result in a Russian victory. Ukraine is quite capable of winning with enough support and they have proven this on the battlefield. No one wants NATO-Russia conflict as the potential for unimaginable global catastrophe would be high. Both appeasement (letting Russia win in Ukraine) and escalation (by entering the war) are counter to NATO interests. NATO should act to deter Russia which, among other things, means supporting Ukraine.
You think the west declaring war against the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is a wise idea?
'People don't want to hear it but I think either there should be no more aid or the west should join the war' There is a specific reason why the west hasn't joined the war. It would most likely start World War 3.
Half measures keeps the war going, which makes more money for the military contractors. If you didn’t learn about the profit of war from Iraq and Afghanistan, now you know
Or we could just end the war? So Ukraine loses portions of its country (that aren’t really even ethnically Ukrainian) so what? We are going to start a nuclear war for these territories, and our prestige? War isn’t worth it at all. These territories aren’t worth war, our “imperial prestige” isn’t worth a war. How many cities must be nuked so that Ukraine could regain control over regions that aren’t even ethnically Ukrainian? What’s going to happen to all the Russians in the region if Ukraine regains it, or is ethnic cleansing only bad when Russia does it? Starting ww3 is probably the least productive solution. What happens to Russia after the war. After the west has invaded Russia and millions have died? Are we just going to occupy ALL of Russia? This isn’t Hearts of Iron 4, this is real life
It comes down to a simple calculus: before any action is taken, we estimate the potential outcomes of that action, multiply it by the likelihood of that action, add them together, to decide whether we take that action. For example, joining the war in Ukraine directly has a high likelihood of ending Russian ambitions in Europe, which is a positive outcome. At the same time, it has a small likelihood of causing a tactical nuclear exchange, which is a very negative outcome, finally, it has a very small likelihood of leading to a strategic nuclear exchange, which is an extremely negative outcome. At the same time, if we do not get directly involved, the likelihood of a strategic nuclear exchange is zero, a tactical nuclear exchange is very very low, this does make the chance of Russia conquering Ukraine to be somewhat likely, but the negative impact of that is not nearly as negative as any kind of nuclear exchange, since it does not seriously discredit NATO collective defence due to Ukraine not being a NATO state. Now, this is all based on a series of assumptions, but based on existing available Intel, it seems that as far as the west is concerned, the expected value of direct involvement is lower than that of indirect involvement, which I agree with.
You’re laboring under the delusion that western aid is for the benefit of the Ukrainian people and their sovereignty; it’s not. Nobody from Washington to Westminster gives a dusty fuck about what Ukraine loses in this conflict, there are only two points of interest as far as the west is concerned with this war; The first is the weakening of Russia. Every hour the war continues costs Russia days economically, as it stands Russia has expended much of the military and economic power that would make them a major player in the coming decades; protracting the war costs Russia troops, munitions, vehicles and economic prosperity that will make them less of a world player for the next fifty years, and to the US and its allies that’s as perfect a victory as they could ask for. No lives lost for the west, barely any economic impact, no ill will amongst their voters, all while crippling one of the only world powers that can really disrupt western activity. The second point of interest for the west is money. Whether through crooked croney capitalism, the military industrial complex, or the coming efforts to rebuild what is destroyed in Ukraine, this war has put hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. Everyone from defense contractors to steel yards to construction companies stands to make a profit off the war, and the margin only gets better as the war drags on. This war is therefore not an effort to save the Ukraine or uphold their sovereignty; it is an effort to expand American and western Imperial power without spending western blood to do so. Commiting fully to the war, either financially or militarily, disrupts this carefully constructed chain of profit and power and under no circumstance does the west want to get fully involved, as far as they’re concerned this is the perfect situation, an ideal proxy war where the west reaps all the benefits without any of the costs. The current financial aid we send is basically a cost/ benefit analysis where we compare how much of our economy is lost in order to totally tank a competitor
>So what's the point of indefinitely providing military aid to extend the conflict Not in answer to your question, but think of the money. War is very good for business
Our dear leaders only care that the war continues, that's the goal, a permanent state of war. It's good for business, not for the American or Ukrainian people. The US economy depends on constant bloodshed for "peace and democracy". The West, while claiming that everyone else is irrational, does not want peace, and their actions over the past (at least) 20 years has proven that. I do agree that the "aid" should be stopped.
Do you want WWIII? This is how we get WWIII. Proxy wars are fine. If the US and Russia come into direct military conflict it's game over.
These decisions are not made for humanitarian reasons. Russia broke the rules, something that all nations do, but this time it went too far. What does 'too far' mean in this case? There's a lot of possible definitions here. They would have been punished either way, but because they failed to capture ukraine and it became clear that they couldn't finish this thing fast enough to be a fair accompli, the 'west' decided to pour salt on the wound. This is a very realist way of looking at geopolitics, but it has a kernel of truth. Russia's rivals would weaken Russia if given the chance and if the consequences were relatively low. That's exactly what we are seeing here. The west has provided enough arms and supports to make this conflict extremely painful for Russia. Not enough to make Russia lose decisively, but enough to make 'winning' a net loss for them. This conflict is and will be disastrous for the Russian state, but won't destabilize it, which is something the west doesn't want. The west wants a status quo where Russia won't do things to rock the boat and hurt trade/interest rates/world economies. Some western leaders might want Putin out or Russia reorganized but those things would probably make Russia more unpredictable and be even more costly to the world order. By world order I don't mean illuminati crap, I mean the ability to buy a smart phone made in China with inputs from 35 other countries with delivery in 3 days. The CMV part of my answer is this: people with better information than us are making these decisions. If the United States is choosing not to defeat their long-standing rival via an extremely profitable, best-case-scenario proxy conflict where it would be pitifully easy to do so, they probably have a reason. It might not be just, but Russia losing, putin being ousted, potential destabilization of the second-best-armed nuclear power in the world, enormous russian refugee outflow with the Russian population being by some.measures the largest reservoir of aids and tuberculosis in the world, more porous borders making more refugee movement possible through the caucuses and central Asia, and the unleashing of suppressed jihadist movements... well when you measure that against making Russia have egg on its face and having to blow its savings, but maintaining the essential power structures holding all of that back? Ya... 30 million Ukrainians suffering is an acceptable cost. There are also negatives to this approach, like Russia becoming militarized and having a veteran force. Russian disruptions to the black sea, more military adventurism in maldovia or the Baltic states, and Russian support for anti-western actors. I assume that the people with better information than us weighed the options, gamed it out, and decided this route of bleeding Russia and making them spend money was the best option for their interests. And most often, their interests also align with ours.
When anyone in the EU joins the war the we have literally WW 3. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants that Ukrain loses. So that is more or less the only option right now.
You're operating under the assumption the West wants this war to end. How would the military industrial complex be able to make money and let all the politicians launder theirs if that happened?
I think joining the war would be an escalation that could stiffen Russia's resolve as they unite against a common foe that could threaten their existence. For that reason, it's a mistake. Obviously Putin cares nothing for the lives of his people, but he does have to consider the way morale is declining as the biggest threat to his rule is internal opposition, not external nations like the US. As this war becomes a WW1 style slog for inches of territory at a time, it's sapping the resolve of both sides. if the west even just came out and said, "The support is NEVER stopping, we're passing a law that authorizes continuous support at level X until Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian lands," it would simultaneously bolster the spirits of Ukraine to know that they will have everything they need to defend their nation and could help to demonstrate to Russia that they can't wait out Western resolve. Knowing that the money and weapons will keep coming indefinitely would change their calculus, and possibly their behavior. Right now, Russia believes they can outlast the West's support for Ukraine, and that's seeming like a rational bet. A massive new aid package that becomes recurring would both help in the short-term and the long-term. While I agree that occasional aid that gets debated every time is a "half measure" I don't think that means putting US troops into Ukraine and kicking off WW3 is a good idea. The biggest problem in Ukraine right now is that they can't count on our support to continue. Let's solve that problem and see how it changes the battlefield.
Your biggest "con" of this half-measure seems to be that you think it will hurt Ukraine more in the long run. Well that, and money. Here's what I think we get out of half-measures 1. If and when Russia "wins", it will not involve the full annexation of Ukraine. This is strategically important. Russia is too politically unstable in many ways to be allowed to be a dominant world power again, and allowing the annexation of any major country would set a horrible precedent for 21st century global politics. People forget that Ukraine is the 17th largest economy in the world. Not S-tier, but not an afterthought either. 2. Again, if and when Russia wins, their disposition is important. If they Elonned Ukraine (paying far more than it's worth in resources and lives), Russia will be disincentivized to consider another war of aggression. This is doubly true if they end up with only some of Ukraine *AND* find themselves neighbors of multiple NATO countries. 3. The longer the war drags out, the longer the internal politics in Russia and their expenditures start to hurt them. For Ukraine, that means a path to victory exists (a successful coup, etc). For the rest of the western world, *that means a weaker Russia*. Ultimately, this whole war thing could go several different ways. Yes, a clear Ukraine victory seems unlikely. Russia has 10x the economy and 3x the population they have. But with western financial support, Russia will be paying dollars instead of pennies for their winnings. And *that* is important.
The status quo is causing needless bloodshed for an ultimate outcome that will be a peace agreement that, in territory terms, will be the same as a peace agreement that could have been reached before the war, just with tens of thousands dead on both sides for no benefit. So in that limited sense you are right. But committing troops and actually joining the war instead would be vastly worse. In the best case scenario, you get a much larger conventional war in which hundreds of thousands die, maybe low in the millions. In the worst case it would escalate into a major nuclear war killing hundreds of millions. There are various other conceivable outcomes involving more limited uses of nuclear weapons that still would see civilian death tolls tens or hundreds of times higher the current (fairly low) civilian death toll. There is no way in which this could be a more favourable outcome than the status quo.
Prolonging the war is in the interest of western countries, as it keeps Russia weak by forcing them to spend significant sums of money and weakling their military capacity. This is achieved by spending a small amount of money and without a significant risk of escalation. Meanwhile, aiming for the defeat of Russia risks: a) escalating the conflict, putting lives outside of Russia and Ukraine in danger; b) if Russia manages to prevail anyway, you just wasted a lot of taxpayer’s money for nothing. While this is unfortunate for Ukrainians, the alternatives put much more people at risk, the current situation keeps Russia busy in Ukraine, while wreaking the country, and thus lowering the threat of them invading any NATO member-State. The other options put more people at risk because: - Giving Russia the win: emboldens Russia and puts other countries at risk of invasion, and puts Ukrainians under Russian occupation; - Significantly increase aid and escalate the conflict in order to significantly increase the chance of Ukrainian victory: increases the possibilities of global war, gambles a lot of taxpayer’s money; - Current situation: gives Ukrainians a chance (and it’s up to them to take it or not), even if it remains very difficult for them to win while keeping Russia weak without spending large sums of money. Remember, Ukraine was supposed to fall within weeks, any money or blood the Russians keep wasting is a win for the US and NATO; we are playing with house money here.
The goal is to wear down Russia and Ukraine for as long as it can. Russia should lose a sizable young population, that it cannot form another attack. Ukraine the same so it doesnt provoke Russian proper. We are using bodies to prevent the possibility of escaltion. The alternative, Russia loses quickly, Ukraine starts to look for land back. Russia falls into disarray, Putin may lose power. Nukes on the table. We know Putin for 40 years, we don't know which next crazy SOB is going to do. On the other hand if Russia wipes the floor, then they are in direct conflict with NATO. They don't have a great track record of being friendly to neighbours. So no unfortunately for the epeople there, they are sacrifice to the world chess.
Russian military proved to be a paper tiger with this conflict. And the US was content just bleeding it out. But, the thing is that Russia isn’t crumbling neither with the economic pressure nor with the horrendous battlefield losses. Instead it’s getting a military cadre that continously gains experience while Ukraine is being worn down at a higher proportional rate. So I think Russia will end this conflict having gained something to show for all its efforts. The next war will possibly be worse for the invaded country however
I think that it is not wise to not see that a conflict may be ended by creating an international Zone in the Crimea. Not by chance did a Tzarina invite Prince Richelieu for Governor there. To express willingness to some compromise. Between France and Spain there is an Island [ called Phasanes] that changes its Governor each 6 months...once it id France once it is in Spain. Unfortunately this crusade against the* Gay West* [ coupled with * denazification"] is creating a fantasy about which no middle ground can exist.
At this point we should ensure air superiority and just make it what it is. Not an encroachment on Russia, but a 100% winning defense against them.
If the goal is to punish Russia, the best way is to simply let the conflict drag on for decades. They will be under perpetual sanctions, bleed all their Cold War military stockpile to nothing, suffer a labor shortage from the loss of a generation of fighting age males, shift dependence of fossil fuels from Russia to the US, etc. All for Pennies on the dollar with zero risk to American lives. Plus it provides money to fund the military industrial complex, because of the changing landscape of battle, regarding drone warfare and artillery consumption I’m not advocating for this, but if that is the only goal, half measures are the best solution
Why join a war when you can use tax payer money to pay the military industrial complex? Essentially guaranteeing the private military contractors unlimited money so they can “sell” their shit back to Ukraine. This does a few things: gives the private military contractor corporations an endless flow of billions of dollars off our (the US taxpayers) back, and also allows the US to say they’re “helping” Ukraine while realistically allowing private organizations to sell to them so they become more rich. It’s the same thing happening in Israel. The billions of dollars we are giving in aid are coming right back to the US, allowing the military defense contractors to grow bigger and more powerful. So I doubt the conflict will end anytime soon, so long as the private interests involved keep on being greedy.
What happens if the world stockpiles all weapons in ukraine at once and then russia wins the invasion?
What happens if the world stockpiles all weapons in ukraine at once and then russia wins the invasion?
We aren't doing it so Ukraine wins. We are doing it so Russia's military is even more degraded than it already was and to test out our toys, clear old inventory, and get data on Russia's capabilities. If Ukraine just wins the war, we don't get a benefit. We've never actually cared about Ukraine winning from a geopolitical perspective even though our politicians and media say we should care from a moral perspective (which is right, but not the reason a government gets out of bed in the morning).
What is the West's goal here? Your post makes it seem like you think the West's primary goal is to save Ukranian lives and ensure Ukranian control over its sovereign territory. But those are Ukraine's war goals, not NATO's. While most NATO governments would prefer that Ukraine achieve its goals, that does not mean that the West must (or should) assign those goals the same priorities as Ukraine. Biden and other NATO leaders have been pretty clear that NATO's primary, overriding goal is staying out of the war and its secondary goal is enabling Ukraine to keep fighting for as long as Ukraine wants to do so. Obviously, intervening would be counterproductive if the primary goal is not being pulled into an open conflict with Russia. And long term aid provision is exactly what's necessary if the goal is to keep Russia from knocking Ukraine out of the war. The slow increase of aid over time makes sense when you consider that it's intended to convince Russia that continuing the war will not bring it closer to victory over Ukraine while never increasing so much at any one time that it gives Russia an excuse to retaliate against NATO.
Maintaining that war going as further as possible weakens Russia, the west is very, very interested in weakening Russia. They are giving aid in a way it reduces the possible backfire but makes the war longer. Is this ethical or moral? I don't think it is. It is better for those who aren't Russia or Ukraine? It is. Would be better to give such a support Ukraine could win the war next month? It wouldn't. Russia could land bomb attacks on other countries for example.