It's more like the logic the US used in arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan than the logic we used in Vietnam. As for WWI, that was the result of what happened when the great powers of the world sought to carve up the world through imperialism and make every corner of it part of their empires. That is what I'm trying to avoid returning to.
If we sign on to/preside over a peace treaty that involves Ukraine recognizing that the territory Russia has taken is now part of Russia, how does that not constitute "recognizing" that Russia now owns that territory? And if we make peace on the posture that Trump is espousing - where the war is Ukraine's fault and not Russia's - how is that going to make China think there's any chance of the US intervening militarily if they want to take Taiwan?
And I guess we just disagree about what "Continuing to fight until the enemy is completely defeated" means. I'm not suggesting we have to put Russia to the sword and capture Moscow to force an unconditional surrender. Just back Ukraine up when it says there can be no peace until Russia leaves Ukrainian soil. Make clear that it is Russia, and only Russia, who is prolonging this war by refusing to leave. Again, sometimes you have to be willing to maintain your resolve in a smaller war to avoid a bigger one. Putin is counting on Ukraine and the West lacking the resolve to stay in the fight. Trump is giving him exactly what he wants. Anyone who thinks Putin's territorial ambitions will end after a treaty that recognizes Russian sovereignty over a portion of Ukraine is a fool.
1. I said WWI tactics, not geostrategy. As I understand it, the battle lines are pretty firm right now, like in WWI. Nobody is able to gain much either way, because it's the modern equivalent of trench warfare.
2. You're losing an argument to gt and calla with the refusal to acknowledge that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad. The question you keep evading, because you can't answer it, is "how do you dislodge Russia?" And if you can't answer that question, then the position of "but we must fight until we have expelled them" makes no sense. No matter how many times you jump in the air, even if you jump your highest and strongest, you are not going to fly.
3. Let's be clear about what I'm not saying:
a. admit that Ukraine was the aggressor. That's obviously ridiculous and has no place.
b. broadcast that we're trying to prevent Ukraine from fighting. That's obviously an intent to load the deck in Russia's favor. Don't do that.
c. Internationally recognize the territory as part of Russia. That Russia controls the territory is obvious. But international recognition is usually the touchstone for all territorial concepts. If a bunch of sovereign citizens take over a wildlife refuge and declare themselves an independent country, and the UN takes a vote of member states declaring the refuge to be an independent country, then it is. Then when the US takes back the refuge, we will be seen as occupying a sovereign nation. It doesn't really matter that the claim is ridiculous -- except in the sense that a ridiculous claim like that would never get international backing.
4. What does it mean to not recognize the territory? Well, several things. It means we can continue to isolate Russia. They can live with sanctions forever if that's what they want to do, but we won't lift the sanctions until they leave (and if Trump lifts them, his successor can reimpose them). No membership in G7. Exclusions of Russian athletes from Olympic Games. So on and so forth. Those won't immediately cause Russia to leave, but it severely raises the cost of an invasion.
Is it as good as repelling the invasion? It is not. But the reality is that repelling the invasion is incredibly costly, not guaranteed to work, and we can get a similar bang with many fewer bucks.
We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight. We surely shouldn't be shutting down intelligence sharing. But insisting that it's war without end unless Russia retreats seems to me like a boxer, having been kneed in the balls and then, when doubled over, gets pummeled with three uppercuts and goes down insisting on fighting to the end to avoid rewarding the low blow. It's great in theory, but in reality it's just going to lead to the boxer getting pummeled some more.
5. I'm not expressing any opinion right now on the specific situation on the ground in Ukraine. I don't know it. I'm just commenting on the general theory and approach.
uk.news.yahoo.com
