Yes, this. People who think I'm wrong about Ukraine: does Ukraine have a military path to victory on their own terms, absent a major escalation (Western troops and/or air power)? Even if they ever did (doubtful), does our ongoing level of support drag out an unwinnable conflict?
lot of people seem to be skipping over the “US support” element of this post and going straight to moralizing about the nature of the conflict. war profiteers have never had it so easy
Was Russia the aggressor? Of course! Does Ukraine have the right to defend itself? Yes, they do. I'm talking about the motivations of the US, and specifically about the LEVEL of support they committed to while carefully avoiding getting more deeply involved.
Very super duper extremely carefully, and then more and more carefully as it went on, turning the volume lower and lower until it became an incredibly well-funded soft background burble that could theoretically go on forever.
This theory would hold water if you're talking about the US funding the Contras, but it's not suspicious the US wouldn't want to dedicate "troops/air support" in direct conflict with another nuclear super power. Lockheed Martin is not a hero here but the dynamics are totally different.
I obviously don't think we should have escalated, but it was pretty obvious from the start that all we'd accomplish at the level of the support we've provided is to turn this into a grinding attrition like USSR in Afghanistan, and that didn't end up well
Repeating: The original tweet is about the position the left should take, not if the US Military Industrial Complex is good or wise.
Second, arming Afghani guerilla fighters and sending military aid to the legitimately elected government of Ukraine is a totally different starting condition.
OK, but short of volunteering like the Lincoln Brigade to fight in Ukraine, how do you separate the 'left position' from the reality that the US Military Industrial Complex is totally dictating the situation and blowback from this stuff is always horrible?
Support when my country does good things and oppose when it does bad things? I'm one person, that's about all I can do. If the US *accidentally* does a good thing I'll support it and push for more. But posting about how Russia could be reasoned with on a day they bombed a hospital is a bad take.
The counterfactual to western support isn't likely a quick and bloodless Russian victory but a long, grinding and deadly insurgency. Chechnya didn't get any western weapons and how did that work out for the Chechens?
The deterrent effect of arming a democratic society that wants to fight back against invasion is absolutely worth it.
You also can't ignore that this is the second invasion in 10 years. If we aren't willing to help arm Ukraine against a larger adversary, what's stopping them from invading again?
I'm aware. My point is that Russia will not invade NATO countries because our treaty obligations would trigger WWIII. If they invade any other countries in the region I'm not clear why that's my problem.
So your stance is that we should not try to dissuade big countries from invading smaller ones via arms supply, unless they are treaty partners?
That's a straightforward belief, but seems deeply fucked to me.
There are possible circumstances where I could support it. However, I never believed Ukraine had any chance for a meaningful victory with the level of support we were giving them, and we should have pushed hard for a settlement early on, when they had a better negotiating position.
I think the piece you're missing is that the West's response to Russia's invasion is likely going to be viewed by China as a proxy for what they can expect if/when they do the same to Taiwan. Quick resolution and limited concessions vs long drawn out conflict? What would we want China to expect?
