[Goose]

Behind paywall, but probably a few of you can access.   

Gist is that our strategy in Ukraine of containing the expansion of Russia and Russian power is working, and we should stick with it.

https://www.wsj.com/world/ignore-the-def...=wknd_pos1

I agree with the main theme of the article. There is no shortcut, Ukrainian victory will come with steady western support over the course of many years.

Unfortunately I don't subscribe to the WSJ so I can't read the article. I do agree that bogging Russia down in Ukraine has significantly reduced her standing as a world power. They are clearly not the "juggernaut" the wanted the word to believe they were. Unfortunately Russia is demonstrating that if you have nuclear weapons, maybe the "normal" rules don't apply to you. That situation is very bad for humanity. It validates Kim Jong Un's decisions. It leads Iran to the same place. This greatly increases the odds of "adventurism" by both smaller nascent nuclear powers and Russia herself. That in turn leads to the probability of a miscalculation leading to a nuclear exchange. Not good at all.

The OP and I have beat to death the discussion of how long Ukraine can/will continue the fight vs how long Russia can/will. It is interesting that the supposed "great power" Russia is relying on Iranian ballistic missiles to continue the fight. It is also somewhat dependent on military items from North Korea it seems. The bad news here is that it is allowing all three nations to realize the problems they face and possibly address them. That is not good for the US and NATO. It also creates a situation where Russia and Putin may need a "next war" to maintain their alliances and keep internal discontent from breaking out. Making Russia weaker (or even revealing how weak it is) may make adventurism seem mandatory to preserving the status quo.

Whatever one believes about Ukraine's "staying power", one has to be greatly concerned about the ability and willingness of "the west" to stay the course. There are obvious political issues in the US. Germany has similar (and in some ways worse) political questions. France has internal political issues that will at least for awhile make it difficult to concern themselves with Ukraine. The UK is more or less "solid", but if the US isn't I don't expect the UK to "go it alone".

In any case, if Ukraine fails to "win" this war, where winning is defined as ejecting Russia from its territory and establishing a somewhat reliable security situation going forward, the results for the US will be quite bad (on may levels). Belarus is going to be absorbed by Russia quite soon. This is not an "if". If Ukraine "wins", that perhaps will not occur. Ukraine falling to Russia would reinforce the belief that the US is not a reliable insurance policy and Europe, particularly former Warsaw Pact nations, need to get on Putin's bandwagon ASAP. Will "everyone" do that? No, but some (probably more than we expect) will. We do have "skin" in this game, "fair" or not.

[Goose]

Behind paywall, but probably a few of you can access.   

Gist is that our strategy in Ukraine of containing the expansion of Russia and Russian power is working, and we should stick with it.

https://www.wsj.com/world/ignore-the-def...=wknd_pos1

I agree with the main theme of the article. There is no shortcut, Ukrainian victory will come with steady western support over the course of many years.

Unfortunately I don't subscribe to the WSJ so I can't read the article. I do agree that bogging Russia down in Ukraine has significantly reduced her standing as a world power. They are clearly not the "juggernaut" the wanted the word to believe they were. Unfortunately Russia is demonstrating that if you have nuclear weapons, maybe the "normal" rules don't apply to you. That situation is very bad for humanity. It validates Kim Jong Un's decisions. It leads Iran to the same place. This greatly increases the odds of "adventurism" by both smaller nascent nuclear powers and Russia herself. That in turn leads to the probability of a miscalculation leading to a nuclear exchange. Not good at all.

The OP and I have beat to death the discussion of how long Ukraine can/will continue the fight vs how long Russia can/will. It is interesting that the supposed "great power" Russia is relying on Iranian ballistic missiles to continue the fight. It is also somewhat dependent on military items from North Korea it seems. The bad news here is that it is allowing all three nations to realize the problems they face and possibly address them. That is not good for the US and NATO. It also creates a situation where Russia and Putin may need a "next war" to maintain their alliances and keep internal discontent from breaking out. Making Russia weaker (or even revealing how weak it is) may make adventurism seem mandatory to preserving the status quo.

Whatever one believes about Ukraine's "staying power", one has to be greatly concerned about the ability and willingness of "the west" to stay the course. There are obvious political issues in the US. Germany has similar (and in some ways worse) political questions. France has internal political issues that will at least for awhile make it difficult to concern themselves with Ukraine. The UK is more or less "solid", but if the US isn't I don't expect the UK to "go it alone".

In any case, if Ukraine fails to "win" this war, where winning is defined as ejecting Russia from its territory and establishing a somewhat reliable security situation going forward, the results for the US will be quite bad (on may levels). Belarus is going to be absorbed by Russia quite soon. This is not an "if". If Ukraine "wins", that perhaps will not occur. Ukraine falling to Russia would reinforce the belief that the US is not a reliable insurance policy and Europe, particularly former Warsaw Pact nations, need to get on Putin's bandwagon ASAP. Will "everyone" do that? No, but some (probably more than we expect) will. We do have "skin" in this game, "fair" or not.