10-14-2022, 03:50 PM
Count me in on saying "HELL NO" to appeasement of any kind. This is for many reasons, some of which have been better stated already.
To reward naked force with even a partial victory ensures we will see more of it in the future, so it is wrong from a utilitarian standpoint, even if stopping fighting sooner saves lives in the short term.
It is likely politically untenable for Zelensky and couldn't be sold to the Ukranian populace (beyond maybe not reclaiming Crimea)
It is also morally wrong, for obvious reasons.
In my opinion, the best way to "quickly" resolve this conflict is to increase support to the point where Russian victory becomes impossible and losses untenable. That line may be higher/further along then we would like, but it does exist. I say quickly in quotes, because it will likely be quick only relative to the slower resolution of a grinding war with less western support, since clearly the Ukranians aren't rolling over even if we lessen our support. Furthermore, this conflict has made abundantly clear that any true Russia V Nato conflict would likely end exceedingly poorly for Russia, which may be the best form of deterrence.
To those that say we can't afford it, that is absolutely ridiculous. This is the cheapest "war" our country has ever partaken in. The ukranians, with the assistance of a relatively miniscule portion of our military budget, are degrading Russia's war making capacity in a fashion far disproportionate to our investment. As morbid as it is to say, this is the best value in military spending the US has had in a LOOONG time. That is before you consider that much of what we donated was stock that was already either out of or about to be out of active service, so "donating" it is equivalent to giving the change you find in in the couch cushions. Not only that, but we are actually economic profiteers of this conflict. As net oil exporters, our gas/oil industry is in a brobdingnagian boom. As the arsenal of democracy, military manufacturer, boom times are both now and in the near future.
Because Russia is un-invadable for both nuclear and logistic reasons, what "victory" likely entails is pushing the Russians out of Ukraine and hopefully Crimea. Of course, that would not stop russian missle or long range fires over the border, so for the war to truly end there needs to be some form of russian acceptance. My preferred approach would be to use western aid to push the russians out of ukraine, and then set up an internationally secured border a la Korean DMZ. It can be made clear that long range fires from Russia into Ukraine, including those that target western forces, will be responded to in kind.
To reward naked force with even a partial victory ensures we will see more of it in the future, so it is wrong from a utilitarian standpoint, even if stopping fighting sooner saves lives in the short term.
It is likely politically untenable for Zelensky and couldn't be sold to the Ukranian populace (beyond maybe not reclaiming Crimea)
It is also morally wrong, for obvious reasons.
In my opinion, the best way to "quickly" resolve this conflict is to increase support to the point where Russian victory becomes impossible and losses untenable. That line may be higher/further along then we would like, but it does exist. I say quickly in quotes, because it will likely be quick only relative to the slower resolution of a grinding war with less western support, since clearly the Ukranians aren't rolling over even if we lessen our support. Furthermore, this conflict has made abundantly clear that any true Russia V Nato conflict would likely end exceedingly poorly for Russia, which may be the best form of deterrence.
To those that say we can't afford it, that is absolutely ridiculous. This is the cheapest "war" our country has ever partaken in. The ukranians, with the assistance of a relatively miniscule portion of our military budget, are degrading Russia's war making capacity in a fashion far disproportionate to our investment. As morbid as it is to say, this is the best value in military spending the US has had in a LOOONG time. That is before you consider that much of what we donated was stock that was already either out of or about to be out of active service, so "donating" it is equivalent to giving the change you find in in the couch cushions. Not only that, but we are actually economic profiteers of this conflict. As net oil exporters, our gas/oil industry is in a brobdingnagian boom. As the arsenal of democracy, military manufacturer, boom times are both now and in the near future.
Because Russia is un-invadable for both nuclear and logistic reasons, what "victory" likely entails is pushing the Russians out of Ukraine and hopefully Crimea. Of course, that would not stop russian missle or long range fires over the border, so for the war to truly end there needs to be some form of russian acceptance. My preferred approach would be to use western aid to push the russians out of ukraine, and then set up an internationally secured border a la Korean DMZ. It can be made clear that long range fires from Russia into Ukraine, including those that target western forces, will be responded to in kind.