Excargodog

George Washington’s farewell address in 1796 warned against entangling alliances. Nor have many of our defense expenditures “contribute(d) to our financial well being here in Merica.” Certainly Afghanistan didn’t - that was $2 trillion down a rathole. Nor did Iraq, nor Bosnia-Hercegovina, nor Vietnam nor Korea before that. Do you seriously want to be the arbiter of world morality? I mean, I’m opposed to a lot of foreign cultural practices - female genital mutilation for example - but am I ready to fight a dozen Afghanistan size wars in the hope of stopping these practices that most of us find abhorrent? To burn though another $2 trillion in treasure and another 2500 American dead each to try to change the culture of the dozens of recognized states whose culture most Americans find barbaric? No I’m not.

And do you seriously think that the Ukraine is going to win - absent US boots on the ground? Because the EU couldn’t defeat the Serbian Army back in the 90s when EU nations had more firepower than they do now. Assuming they actually WOULD put their own boots on the ground in the Ukraine - which they won’t. And the Russians have a population base three and a half times that of the Ukrainians, Pre war, the Russian GDP was $1.7 Trillion while Ukraine’s was $154 Billion only now the Ukraine economy is pretty much in shambles while the Russian economy and infrastructure is essentially intact.

So tell me, do you really think the Ukraine will win? Despite propaganda claims on both sides, US intel thinks total casualties are about equal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372. Propaganda is always like that. Reality is more often decided logistically.

Larger countries can absorb more casualties than smaller ones. Countries with a larger GDP and population can generally sustain a war longer than their smaller opponents. This war was always a mismatch, and a Patriot missile battery isn’t going to change that.

And at what point does the escalation go nuclear? On EITHER side? How much of a risk of this going nuclear are you ready to take? O.5%? 1%?

You can call me isolationist all you want, I’ve put far more time in the US military than most US citizens and seen those far away places with strange sounding names. I’ve earned the right to my opinion, and my opinion is that the world policeman job is a net loss for the US. And weak and feckless Allies are a liability, not an asset.

dera

You claim to have military experience, yet you fail to understand the basic concept of attack vs. defense. Russia does not have the manpower to win. So Ukraine will win, it is inevitable. Russia simply does not have the power to overcome it.

What did you do in the military again, remind us again please.

SonicFlyer

The correct phrase is "non-interventionist" and props to you for citing GW's farewell address.

SonicFlyer

I would love to know what you smoked just before you wrote this.

METO Guido

Conceding 4 generation's US deployment & arms subsidy throughout half of the planet's 7 continents, Meto the sock has little worry strategic targeting of UKR urban habitat will be anywhere near the last grounds for mercenary budget busts his frayed yarn gets to witness. To answer your question, if there was anyone in those places I cared about, they would be here. https://youtu.be/BXrmQBPg2s0

Excargodog

Anyone who believes that anything in warfare is “inevitable” is delusional.
Russia has more nukes than any nation on Earth and the technology to employ them. You might recall that after the two NASA Space Shuttle disasters their manned space program was our only access to the International Space Station for a decade. These people are not Taliban goat herders or poppy growers, not that we wound up beating them in the end.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-h...ussia-for-now/

12F1F and other duties as assigned. And what did you do?

JBird

Well played here with the Washington quote, but it is my understanding that the context of the remarks were of being involved in foreign intervention that is not of a very clear purpose and might thereby entangle us into inter European political squabbles that would hinder the US's ability to continue building it economy. A hypothetical might be allowing the French to use American ships on operations against the Germans...something like that is how I interpret the remarks. You also have to understand that there was very little interconnectivity at the time and it took a while for the US to feel the pain from European squabbles unless it directly intervened...I could be wrong though. Stoping Putin's spread of Neo-communism is certainly a clear purpose that I think Washington would have see value in providing materiel and financial support to even at the expense of his domestic priorities. How we go about it is where it gets sticky and off track...as you aptly point out regarding Afghanistan.

I also don't think it is zero sum. It doesn't have to be fighting 12 A'stans to diminish terrible things in the world like female mutilation. You can really focus diplomatic and NGO arms to assist in those things. But I think you miss the point here. Ukraine is not fighting within its own society and they did not invite this...they were invaded and are being killed daily fo no real reason expect that Putin wants to rewrite history. I think helping them defend themselves meets the smell test to commit the US to the cause.

Additionally, yes, I do see a lot of fiscal gain from some expeditions...WWII and WWI are obvious. South Korea is now one of our most loyal allies in that part of the world. That gave us a lot of benefits..not the least of which is Gangnam Style. I would argue that the Balkans conflicts are a slow work in prioress and if Ukraine doesn't put up a fight, then it will be lost. Vietnam, can't make and argument there, but it is important to know that Ho Chi Mihn did everything short of beg FDR to commit against the Chinese and FDR did not. Therefore, it is reasonable to make the argument that assisting in preventing Mao from taking over, might've helped us at home.

No I don't. But two points here. At the micro level, my cousin the cop knows he will never prevent all crime, but he suits up and goes out and fights it everyday anyway. A second point is more macro. If Ukraine "loses" but prevents an incursion into Moldova and then Romania in 5-10 years...did they win? I think so, and that's what I'm hoping for is simply stopping the flood.

Honestly, I just don't really think this would happen. Putin has an uneasy peace with a cabal of very smart and very influential people who I personally believe would stop this. It would be way to bad for business.

I would call your views isolationist, but I would not call someone whom I'm arguing with a name...tends to draw their attention away from the brilliance of my points!

At the end of the day, this is, to me at least, a struggle between good and evil. I'm willing to contribute.

MaxQ

Good Post JBird,
Small (very small) quibble. Putin is not spreading neo-communism. He is a straight up Imperialist, Racist, Religious-Nationalist Fascist, and Fascism is what he spreads. (directly and indirectly)

Excargodog

I already gave at the office:



And Moldavia was actually one of the few satellite countries that was doing better under the USSR strangely enough.

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/01/16...lation-crisis/

MaxQ

As I said Meto, I sometimes miss some of your subtleties.
I do believe that your views are morally driven, rather than partisan or ideological. (a rarity in this world that invites punishment ...I advise caution, unless you have true romantic bravery in your soul)
But I also believe you ARE being fooled again. Just by a different boss--one who is outside your usual suspects.