5 ms·

Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaki

Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaking - in a WWI scenario where a lot of new technology is clashing for the first time and we don't know what beats what. That's all well and good, but it has some interesting moral implications because it presupposes that we (the US) are keeping this war going intentionally as a means to allow our defense industrial base to tool up for a war in the pacific and test new technologies against the old Cold War adversary. If that is the reason, we should just be honest about it. Prior to 2016 Ukraine didn't exactly get the "bastion of freedom and democracy" treatment that it gets in the US press today, which has left me pretty skeptical of how its discussed in general. The war goes on if and only if the US continues funding it which suggest to me the opposite of your point, as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe. At what point do we "have enough data" and can stop the bloodshed?

dragontamer 3y ago
> as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security, which it demonstrably doesn't as weapons flood the region and refugees flee their homes. >By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. To this point on Moldova ... Probably less than 1% of Americans could find Moldova on a map without googling. Probably less than 5% of congressmen. Pretending that it's existence outside of Russia's sphere of influence is some critical part of this war effort is downright preposterous. Maybe that's how some people steelman it, but I don't buy it. Moreover, pretending that Moldova is a critical part of the US sphere of influence is even more preposterous. Again, I don't disagree that degrading/destroying Russian combat power has some benefits for the US' ability to project power abroad (i.e. in the Pacific), and some benefits for weapons systems evaluation. I just simply don't buy these contortions that the US security sphere extends globally and any country that has weak sovereignty is now a US protectorate. ----- Something appears to have happened post Cold War (probably related to 9/11 and the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) that has caused a lot of Americans (apologies if you are not one) to reflexively want to "do something!!" about this war. It's, I think, started to jade a longer term historical perspective about why nations go to war in the first place and leads to situations like this, where we have to actively come up with reasons to continue a war in Europe because ending it would be "bad". If the war ended tomorrow with the current borders as they are today, it's not like the history books would think of Russia as the good guys or a neutral party.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security The thing kind of hinges on whether you consider the Russian invasions of (so far) Georgia and Ukraine separate, narrowly bounded wars with no consequences for each beyond their boundaries, and no context, or if you see them as a single expanding pattern of aggression directly responding to particular opportunities created by perceived lack of willingness of the international community to constrain further aggression. Did the Munich Peace Agreement avoid a war in 1938 over the Sudetenland? Sure. Did it contribute positively to European stability and security in any but the shortest possible term? I think most would agree the answer is “no,” Chamberlain’s triumphant declaration of “Peace for our time” aside.

dragontamer 3y ago

> as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.

remarkEon 3y ago
My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security, which it demonstrably doesn't as weapons flood the region and refugees flee their homes. >By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. To this point on Moldova ... Probably less than 1% of Americans could find Moldova on a map without googling. Probably less than 5% of congressmen. Pretending that it's existence outside of Russia's sphere of influence is some critical part of this war effort is downright preposterous. Maybe that's how some people steelman it, but I don't buy it. Moreover, pretending that Moldova is a critical part of the US sphere of influence is even more preposterous. Again, I don't disagree that degrading/destroying Russian combat power has some benefits for the US' ability to project power abroad (i.e. in the Pacific), and some benefits for weapons systems evaluation. I just simply don't buy these contortions that the US security sphere extends globally and any country that has weak sovereignty is now a US protectorate. ----- Something appears to have happened post Cold War (probably related to 9/11 and the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) that has caused a lot of Americans (apologies if you are not one) to reflexively want to "do something!!" about this war. It's, I think, started to jade a longer term historical perspective about why nations go to war in the first place and leads to situations like this, where we have to actively come up with reasons to continue a war in Europe because ending it would be "bad". If the war ended tomorrow with the current borders as they are today, it's not like the history books would think of Russia as the good guys or a neutral party.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > My reasoning if pretty simple: if a war is actively going on in Europe, European security is reduced. If a war is not actively going on in Europe, European security is increased (or at least stabilized). It's a weird inversion to me to think that prolonging a large land war somehow actually increases this hypothetical security The thing kind of hinges on whether you consider the Russian invasions of (so far) Georgia and Ukraine separate, narrowly bounded wars with no consequences for each beyond their boundaries, and no context, or if you see them as a single expanding pattern of aggression directly responding to particular opportunities created by perceived lack of willingness of the international community to constrain further aggression. Did the Munich Peace Agreement avoid a war in 1938 over the Sudetenland? Sure. Did it contribute positively to European stability and security in any but the shortest possible term? I think most would agree the answer is “no,” Chamberlain’s triumphant declaration of “Peace for our time” aside.