And yet now we are lifting sanctions on Russia, decrementing Starshield's capability in their support, buying products from Russia, and yelling at them for executing their most effective strategy - attacking Russia's energy infrastructure.
I don’t disagree, but the POTUS has differing priorities (for the moment, he’ll change his mind again in a few weeks). Trump’s attempt at lowering fuel prices before the midterms are, of course, pointless and really aren’t offering Moscow much of an economic lifeline. But, it has to be abundantly apparent that the concept of “economic warfare” is about an effective path to victory as strategic bombing was in WWII. It messes things up, no one quits until too many young men die. Apparently Russia is a lot tougher than they were during the Afghan war where mothers started protesting openly when casualties reached about 25,000. The metrics are in place for both nations to fail but there isn’t a single Western leader on the horizon who is willing to do the only thing that can guarantee a Russian defeat…commit troops to the fight.
We gave them the same UN 'assurances' like any other country gets.
The fact that we are doing this - especially with the fact its impact on U.S. diesel prices will be virtually nil - is incredibly hard to justify.
I mean the Generals / Admirals have to have a war to play with, even if we aren't directly involved. I did the GWOT and have had my fill of land wars in Asia.
Many times over 30 years, yes.
To the Ukraine front????
You sound passionate. When are you going back to the front lines to help the UKRs???
You make it sound like we're sending trillions of dollars and boatloads of high school seniors over to Ukraine like it's Vietnam. We've sent 400 million dollars over the last 18 months and exactly 0 combat personnel. That's the equivalent of like 1.7 days of Iran War spending. You're worried about the wrong potential forever war.
Yeah, I want to avoid getting our people involved - but the UKR lovers here want us to send more money and get involved more direct with 'support troops' and we all know how that goes.
Here is how it goes. The war ends when Putin decides he can’t win. The sooner he decides that, the sooner the war ends. Or the sooner he falls out a window.
I get that that sort of unserious argument tactic flies high in the circles you frequent, but it makes you sound dumb in professional circles.
Delicate flowers with thin skin can't take opposing viewpoints.
I don't think everyone you disagree with here is in favor of sending troops, though some may be. I think a common argument among the "UKR lovers" in our country is that the money and weapons we've sent is keeping Russia tied down and degrading their ability to wage a regional war (much less WWIII) against NATO, much like what we did with Afghanistan in the 80s. That is a strategic objective that is very much in our interest, and overall comes at the expense of Ukraine, since their population is being bled by it. I think if we really loved Ukraine, we'd have admitted them into NATO, invoked article 5, and sent troops a long time ago.
