Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Tl;dr I’m right. Lots of historically irrelevant narrative from conflicts almost a century old. Anyone who disagrees with the official western narrative is, automatically, parroting Russian narrative.
Support for Ukraine is western states is because without adequate commitment and support - which the US have consistently not given - it’s simply a fools errand. And the best justification is it keeps Russia away from Poland. While strategically a noble aim, sacrificing a generation of Ukrainian men seems like the kind of thing you should at least have their consent for.
|
Mmmhmm. The biggest state-on-state armed conflict in history has nothing to tell us about the biggest-state-on-state armed conflict that has since occurred. Obviously. Tl:dr …. Your argument’s holed below the water line, but that’s what happens when you get your opinions from Russian botnets.
It is by no means a fools errand. The White House is presently preoccupied with worrying about a total Russian collapse at least as much as it worries about someone in Moscow going mad and authorising a small nuclear detonation. They remember USSR 1991 and they don’t want it to happen to the motherland. For that reason, they give Ukraine what it needs to survive (which, incidentally, is somewhat less than they are treaty-bound to do as a result of persuading Ukraine to give Russia all its nukes) but not what it needs to win.
I happen to think the policy is flawed because Russia has doubled down and is going to destroy itself trying to take Ukraine either way. It is suffering a bad case of sunk cost fallacy. The question is whether that happens quickly or slowly, and whether half-hearted Western aid emboldens the likes of China vis a vis Taiwan.