Washington and Kiev are negotiating a bilateral security agreement that mirrors the 10-year commitments Ukraine has entered into with several European powers.
Chomsky had a phrase along the lines of: we will fight forever- to the last Ukrainian. Basically switching up the “fight them to the last man”
Realistically, we all know where this war is going to end. At some point in the next couple years it will end in a negotiated settlement where Russia annexes some territory and maybe Ukraine is forced unto neutrality.
The only other possible scenario is a hot war between NATO and Russia.
We know Ukraine doesn’t have the offensive capacity to recapture territory and everyday Russia takes some village or another. Moving like 10 miles a month but moving.
So assuming that’s true, for the sake of discussion, what are the possible benefits and the possible negatives from continuing to support Ukraine?
Pros:
Our MIC gets a nice shot in the arm and shareholders are happy. They get to funnel more taxpayer funds into their portfolios.
Russia has to spend a dramatically increased number of resources in order to capture the land. More Russians will die, more Russian tanks will be destroyed, etc.
Cons:
Ukraine will be destroyed. As of November of last year, costs for reconstruction was estimated at $350B. That has likely increasing dramatically. We can barely pass $60B worth of military aid that mostly benefits our defense contractors. You think we are going to front them $500B?
Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainians will die. They already lost over a quarter of their population. They won’t recover for a century.
Is it really worth it? Are we really that cynical? It’s not only conservatives that think this way.
it doesn’t have to. main reason for this war being this long is reluctance of western partners to deliver equipment necessary to keep initiative in present state of war. As a result - Ukrainian army get decimated while russians are getting better and everything awful they do: war crimes, defences, offense etc. Time is running out to help Ukraine and calls to “bust give up now” are self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m a pacifist at heart but in this case there is no way of stopping russian expansion (present and future) than to supply Ukraine with all necessary to win. Otherwise 1-2yr after “negotiations” we’ll have v2.0 where russia chomps off next piece of Ukraine (or other bordering country) while the rest of the world will keep repeating “what’s the point? we gave in last time, might as well save ourselves the trouble and give up now”. Solution by escalation is still possible as russia still has upper limit they are bumping against, but they keep on raising it so soon enough nothing will help, and that’s what russians hope for.
The goal was always to help just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win.
It’s because the purpose is to hurt Russia and help our MIC. Everything else is rhetoric and propaganda. Russia has controlled Ukraine for centuries. Nobody actually cares about Ukraine strategically except for Russia. They are willing to sacrifice infinitely more for Ukraine than the West.
The only way to really save Ukraine at this point is to send troops. And that isn’t happening unless we are on the brink of WW3. Which may very well happen, but I think probably not for at least another 5~10 years and Ukraine war will over by then.
there is some truth to what you say, at least “just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win”.
However I would disagree with over-generalised statement “Nobody actually cares about Ukraine except for russia”. Poland, for example, very much does not want to have common border with russia, esp. after this war. While US has a luxury of being able to ignore what’s happening it is not the case for some (most?) EU countries. Which also explains why some contribute enormously when comparing their contributions to respective country’s GDP. Ukraine independence also can be used by US as leverage against russia in the future, so while not humanitarian in principle, US has huge interest in Ukraine status.
There is a chance for Ukrainian win on battlefield without foreign soldiers, but it means lots of equipment. That window is quickly closing and then, yes, the only way to move forward will be foreign intervention.
That is what the West publically says, to the last man. Lindsey Graham said to the effect that giving them money is a great thing because they will fight to the last man. I don’t see how fighting to the last man is a rational choice, given they were much better options than choosing alignment with the EU and NATO. Then again, American foreign policy makes no sense, such as funding and supplying Israel. Israel and Gaza is not an American interest. Just like Ukraine, the US has no need to participate in aiding a country over a region like Gaza. These are purely liabilities for the US.
Chomsky had a phrase along the lines of: we will fight forever- to the last Ukrainian. Basically switching up the “fight them to the last man”
Realistically, we all know where this war is going to end. At some point in the next couple years it will end in a negotiated settlement where Russia annexes some territory and maybe Ukraine is forced unto neutrality.
The only other possible scenario is a hot war between NATO and Russia.
We know Ukraine doesn’t have the offensive capacity to recapture territory and everyday Russia takes some village or another. Moving like 10 miles a month but moving.
So assuming that’s true, for the sake of discussion, what are the possible benefits and the possible negatives from continuing to support Ukraine?
Pros:
Our MIC gets a nice shot in the arm and shareholders are happy. They get to funnel more taxpayer funds into their portfolios.
Russia has to spend a dramatically increased number of resources in order to capture the land. More Russians will die, more Russian tanks will be destroyed, etc.
Cons:
Ukraine will be destroyed. As of November of last year, costs for reconstruction was estimated at $350B. That has likely increasing dramatically. We can barely pass $60B worth of military aid that mostly benefits our defense contractors. You think we are going to front them $500B?
Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainians will die. They already lost over a quarter of their population. They won’t recover for a century.
Is it really worth it? Are we really that cynical? It’s not only conservatives that think this way.
it doesn’t have to. main reason for this war being this long is reluctance of western partners to deliver equipment necessary to keep initiative in present state of war. As a result - Ukrainian army get decimated while russians are getting better and everything awful they do: war crimes, defences, offense etc. Time is running out to help Ukraine and calls to “bust give up now” are self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m a pacifist at heart but in this case there is no way of stopping russian expansion (present and future) than to supply Ukraine with all necessary to win. Otherwise 1-2yr after “negotiations” we’ll have v2.0 where russia chomps off next piece of Ukraine (or other bordering country) while the rest of the world will keep repeating “what’s the point? we gave in last time, might as well save ourselves the trouble and give up now”. Solution by escalation is still possible as russia still has upper limit they are bumping against, but they keep on raising it so soon enough nothing will help, and that’s what russians hope for.
The goal was always to help just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win.
It’s because the purpose is to hurt Russia and help our MIC. Everything else is rhetoric and propaganda. Russia has controlled Ukraine for centuries. Nobody actually cares about Ukraine strategically except for Russia. They are willing to sacrifice infinitely more for Ukraine than the West.
The only way to really save Ukraine at this point is to send troops. And that isn’t happening unless we are on the brink of WW3. Which may very well happen, but I think probably not for at least another 5~10 years and Ukraine war will over by then.
there is some truth to what you say, at least “just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win”.
However I would disagree with over-generalised statement “Nobody actually cares about Ukraine except for russia”. Poland, for example, very much does not want to have common border with russia, esp. after this war. While US has a luxury of being able to ignore what’s happening it is not the case for some (most?) EU countries. Which also explains why some contribute enormously when comparing their contributions to respective country’s GDP. Ukraine independence also can be used by US as leverage against russia in the future, so while not humanitarian in principle, US has huge interest in Ukraine status.
There is a chance for Ukrainian win on battlefield without foreign soldiers, but it means lots of equipment. That window is quickly closing and then, yes, the only way to move forward will be foreign intervention.
That is what the West publically says, to the last man. Lindsey Graham said to the effect that giving them money is a great thing because they will fight to the last man. I don’t see how fighting to the last man is a rational choice, given they were much better options than choosing alignment with the EU and NATO. Then again, American foreign policy makes no sense, such as funding and supplying Israel. Israel and Gaza is not an American interest. Just like Ukraine, the US has no need to participate in aiding a country over a region like Gaza. These are purely liabilities for the US.