Let’s have a war!

[KUTradition]

What do you think a not-stupid Ukraine policy looks like?

How about trying to win?

How do we win a conflict we're not officially involved in?

And for the record, what does "winning" look like?

do you not think that winning = a sovereign Ukraine, free from russian occupation?

(with or without crimea)

[Mjl]

Among other things, it would include a rapid expansion of domestic energy production, détente with Saudi Arabia, and a coordinated, concerted effort to drive the price of oil back under $40 pb. It would involve a willingness to play peace broker between Putin and Zelensky, shutting Xi out of the process and ensuring that Zelensky understands that we cannot give him a blank check. It would require that we either abandon sanctions and "soft power" entirely or actually enforce them. Most notably, it would make clear that our involvement ends with the Russia-Ukraine dispute and is, therefore, not about "regime change" or war crimes or any other punitive measures.

In other words, our sanctions are garbage compared to the ability to neuter them by tanking the price of oil? In principal sounds great but it seems like it would take longer than Ukraine can last.

I think this also assumes that we're ok with Russia annexing Donbas. [Thinking]..
[Shrugs].

It's an interesting point of view.

[Mjl]

I think where I'm hung up on that is that we did nothing when they annexed Crimea. When do we start doing something? Or, is the idea that it has to be in tandem with tanking oil prices because that's what would really weaken Russia

[KUTradition]

so, no accountability for the apparent kidnappings?

no support for the ICC?

[KUTradition]

I think where I'm hung up on that is that we did nothing when they annexed Crimea. When do we start doing something?

this is exactly why i see an issue with allowed additional annexation

give an inch…

[Mjl]

How about trying to win?

How?

NATO doing more than supplying weapons and training would be needed - and that gets scary.

It is scary, but if we ____ around long enough, Putin will wait and wear everyone helping Ukraine, out. And that's not to mention the effect having an ever-growing isolationist, Pro-Putin block, in the US republican party. Plus, the longer we're tied up in Ukraine, the more Xi will be tempted to advance on Taiwan, to take advantage of the situation.

I'm not advocating American combat troops on the ground, but I think we should flood the zone with the military equipment Ukraine needs to turn the tide, instead of letting this fester for another 5, 10, 20 years. If we do, it will not only help in Ukraine, but be a large deterrent to China in the future.


At least, that's my much abbreviated, amateur, arm-chair general, schpeel.

I think if I combine your take and DC's it's - if you're going to do something, really do it. The current policy just maintains an endless war.

[DCHawk1]

How about trying to win?

How do we win a conflict we're not officially involved in?

And for the record, what does "winning" look like?

do you not think that winning = a sovereign Ukraine, free from russian occupation?

(with or without crimea)

Sure. But what about Crimea? Does Ukraine join NATO? Where can Putin put troops? Can Putin remain in power? What's to stop him from doing this again? How do we get him to leave occupied Ukrainian territory? What about the ICC warrant for Putin (SoS Blinken said the other day that the Europeans should arrest and hold him)? Are there war reparations? Etc.

[DCHawk1]

so, no accountability for the apparent kidnappings?

no support for the ICC?

Those are questions for you to answer. What does victory look like?

[KUTradition]

i know what victory looks like for me, but as i told ousie (numerous times), i’m not Ukrainian

[DCHawk1]

Our entire foreign policy has been based -- for 30 years -- on Gnostic-dream-world-thinking, i.e. the idea that if our intentions are good enough, then that's all that is necessary. A big part of the problem in getting to "doing something" is that we've just spent 20 years and literally trillions of dollars of "doing something" that resulted in shit. Unless and until our leaders (Rs, Ds, and in-betweens) figure out how to articulate how our national interest is at stake in our foreign adventures and then how to act to ensure that that interest is met, we are going to remain physically, emotionally, and financially exhausted from decades of dicking around while saying all the right things.

[DCHawk1]

i know what victory looks like for me, but as i told ousie (numerous times), i’m not Ukrainian

So, to paraphrase a guy I know:

so, no accountability for the apparent kidnappings?

no support for the ICC?

[KUTradition]

i know what victory looks like for me, but as i told ousie (numerous times), i’m not Ukrainian

So, to paraphrase a guy I know:

so, no accountability for the apparent kidnappings?

no support for the ICC?

i personally think the US should support both, short of invading russia (or moldova, etc) and “covertly” kidnapping putin directly

[DCHawk1]

That affects your definition of victory then, no?

[Mjl]

I think the problem is the uncertainty and possibly very bad outcomes that would come from trying to achieve that victory.

[ousdahl]

help us DC-Wan-Kenobi. You're this thread's only hope.

DC apologizes but is exceptionally busy at the moment.

In brief: Putin is evil. Putin is the aggressor in Ukraine. Putin should be kicked in the nuts as frequently as possible.

At the same time, the American policy of slow but steady escalation in aid (and, now, training) has been disastrous. It's been a slow enough burn that it never actually helps Ukraine, but fast enough that it provides the guys working at Lockheed with enough extra scratch to ensure that they can make the payments on the new chlorine-free, salt-water pools they're putting in. We HAVE boots on the ground in Ukraine; they're there to "train our allies" which is nice (but which would be triggering nostalgic seizures on this board, if we had any Boomers here old enough to remember how Kennedy's "best and brightest" sold Vietnam).

As with every conflict in which we've been involved over the last 25 years, we have no idea when victory will be achieved because we have no idea what victory is supposed to look like. That's something we can work out later -- always. Our strategy -- such as it is -- has been articulated and sold to official Washington and to the public by the same group of dipshits who sold the last two wars. Sadly, many of them (looking at you, Bill Kristol) see opposition to Putin as a proxy for opposition to Trump, which is to say that, to them, this is personal, not patriotic.

So far, the only winners from the policy advocated by the Bipartisan Washington Consensus are those who were smart enough to be heavy into defense stocks prior to Feb. 2022.

i don’t think that’s what ousie wanted you to say

actually, this is more or less exactly what I wanted DC to say.

[zsn]

About the thing that I would add to DC’s excellent take is that it didn’t help that a POTUS was (actively or tacitly) undermining NATO and helping the Putin propaganda. Another couldn’t do anything in the wake of overt aggression in previous times

[ousdahl]

huh?

[KUTradition]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... es/673520/

[KUTradition]

DC apologizes but is exceptionally busy at the moment.

In brief: Putin is evil. Putin is the aggressor in Ukraine. Putin should be kicked in the nuts as frequently as possible.

At the same time, the American policy of slow but steady escalation in aid (and, now, training) has been disastrous. It's been a slow enough burn that it never actually helps Ukraine, but fast enough that it provides the guys working at Lockheed with enough extra scratch to ensure that they can make the payments on the new chlorine-free, salt-water pools they're putting in. We HAVE boots on the ground in Ukraine; they're there to "train our allies" which is nice (but which would be triggering nostalgic seizures on this board, if we had any Boomers here old enough to remember how Kennedy's "best and brightest" sold Vietnam).

As with every conflict in which we've been involved over the last 25 years, we have no idea when victory will be achieved because we have no idea what victory is supposed to look like. That's something we can work out later -- always. Our strategy -- such as it is -- has been articulated and sold to official Washington and to the public by the same group of dipshits who sold the last two wars. Sadly, many of them (looking at you, Bill Kristol) see opposition to Putin as a proxy for opposition to Trump, which is to say that, to them, this is personal, not patriotic.

So far, the only winners from the policy advocated by the Bipartisan Washington Consensus are those who were smart enough to be heavy into defense stocks prior to Feb. 2022.

i don’t think that’s what ousie wanted you to say

actually, this is more or less exactly what I wanted DC to say.

i’m sure

[ousdahl]

no, really!

In fact, many of DC's points are points I've tried to make all along!