3 ms·

Not just the line on the map, but number of Russian tanks destroyed. Number of Russian artillery destroyed. Unlike the Taliban who fought with incredibly cheap

Not just the line on the map, but number of Russian tanks destroyed. Number of Russian artillery destroyed. Unlike the Taliban who fought with incredibly cheap weapons, Russia has a limited amount of sophisticated artillery, tanks, and missiles. Every tank, missile, airplane, helicopter Russia loses is one that will never threaten a European nation ever again As long as the hard metrics are moving in our favor, it's good. The thing about Afghanistan is that we reached the point of minimal Taliban army in like December 2001 and didn't know what to do after that. Russia's army is much bigger. So we have to spend months or even years corroding their army. After that, it will take decades for Russia to rebuild. It's a very different situation than Afghanistan. It's not like Russia's army is infinite here. It's large but finite. ------ But let's talk about lines on the map. Should Russia keep control of Crimea? Should we let Russians expand their territory at their leisure? How does letting Russia annex territory help European security? Mind you, this is the exact opposite situation than Afghanistan. All we Americans are doing are funding a rebellion inside of Crimea or Donetsk and hoping the territory gets returned eventually. If not, we make the Russians pay for their mistake to discourage future annexation of territory. This is closer to us funding the Taliban in 80s, rather than fighting the Taliban in the 00s. We have plenty of weapons and weapon production. The local population has high morale and is motivated. Our objectives align and unlike the Taliban/Mujhadeen we have better long term assurances that the Ukrainians will be a better ally with us in the long term. Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. You are comparing/contrasting to Afghanistan which cost more than 20x the money and directly risked US lives, that had obviously fewer gains.

remarkEon 3y ago
You're misinterpreting my Afghanistan comment. I'm not talking about the tactical situation on the ground, but the kind of human folly that happens with overconfidence at the strategic level when you aren't actually clear about what the national objective is. You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. I can see why it would be in, say, Poland's. You make it sound like we're just giving some upstart rebels some M4s and M995 and letting them have at it, but what we're really doing is building them an modern military from scratch, complete with modern air defense and (last gen) fixed wing. >Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. This, right here, is the kind of folly I'm talking about. As the war progresses do you not see how we have to keep walking up the escalation ladder as Russia - correctly! - sees this conflict as one that is more and more a direct one with the United States? There isn't even the pretense of balancing the human cost and escalation risk with what our security objectives even are, because the latter are left nebulous or undefined and the former is written off as just a cost of doing business (perhaps literally). Indeed, that seems to be the tone of our "elites" who wish to bring a country actively in a war into NATO, perhaps with the intention of immediately invoking Article 5 - all without any debate among the citizens of member states who would have to bear that cost. Never thought I'd see it, but "forever wars are good now" is I suppose the natural progression of how Americans (I am one) would deal with losing.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. The strategic interest is that we punish Russia for taking Crimea and annexing swaths of land. Any other country that makes this mistake will be punished by the USA. We cannot let countries just take over huge swaths of land of other countries like Hitler did Poland, (formerly called) Czechoslovakia, Austria or France. When power-hungry dictators think that its in their interest to conquer land, they'll continue to conquer land. If they see that the world's largest military is willing and able to come to the defender's aid, then those countries around the world will stop thinking about attacking smaller nations. This is in our strategic interest because China is eyeing Taiwan. If China decides to attack Taiwan, then they know that the might of the US Military stands against them. If not directly, then at very least indirectly. ------------- The fact remains: the "plan" was that Russia took over Ukraine and then USA supports an insurrection over the next decade with anti-tank Javelins. Ukraine overperformed: their army still stands, their leader survived the assassination attempts. Its only natural we USA reward them for their efforts. We're giving Ukraine more arms than we ever expected to give them, but that's because they're doing so, so so so much better than anyone in the USA could have dreamed or planned for. There's a chance Ukraine actually kicks Russia out, and if _THEY_, the Ukrainians, are willing to fight for that I say we let them. Its really not that much money that we're giving them. And its in our strategic interests to defend the 1994 Budapest memorandum. (we _HAVE_ to show the world that disarming from nuclear weapons gives them a security guarantee / benefit from the United States. We want more countries disarming from nukes). The $50 Billion or so we're spending on the Ukrainians this past year have been so much better than the $10+ Trillions we spent on the Afghanis. If this deal remains this cheap, its not even going to make me blink. I think you're not realizing how tiny the Ukrainian war budget really is. Yes, the goals are vague. But the goals are vague because the Ukrainians are overperforming so much better than our stated goals. ------- So strategic interest? 1. Punishing those who annex other territory 2. Supporting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and showing the world that nuclear disarmament works, maybe not on the Russian/Soviet side but at least on the USA side of the agreement. 3. Permanently reducing the Russian military through the atrophy of this war. 4. Testing our weapons in support of Taiwan should China be stupid enough to do anything in the next decade.

remarkEon 3y ago

You're misinterpreting my Afghanistan comment. I'm not talking about the tactical situation on the ground, but the kind of human folly that happens with overconfidence at the strategic level when you aren't actually clear about what the national objective is. You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. I can see why it would be in, say, Poland's. You make it sound like we're just giving some upstart rebels some M4s and M995 and letting them have at it, but what we're really doing is building them an modern military from scratch, complete with modern air defense and (last gen) fixed wing. >Like what is the downside for supporting the Ukrainians or Koreans for the next 50 years? Like $50 Billion/year? We absolutely can pay that. This, right here, is the kind of folly I'm talking about. As the war progresses do you not see how we have to keep walking up the escalation ladder as Russia - correctly! - sees this conflict as one that is more and more a direct one with the United States? There isn't even the pretense of balancing the human cost and escalation risk with what our security objectives even are, because the latter are left nebulous or undefined and the former is written off as just a cost of doing business (perhaps literally). Indeed, that seems to be the tone of our "elites" who wish to bring a country actively in a war into NATO, perhaps with the intention of immediately invoking Article 5 - all without any debate among the citizens of member states who would have to bear that cost. Never thought I'd see it, but "forever wars are good now" is I suppose the natural progression of how Americans (I am one) would deal with losing.

dragontamer 3y ago
> You are also continuing to sidestep why it's actually in the US' national interest to keep this war going as long as possible. The strategic interest is that we punish Russia for taking Crimea and annexing swaths of land. Any other country that makes this mistake will be punished by the USA. We cannot let countries just take over huge swaths of land of other countries like Hitler did Poland, (formerly called) Czechoslovakia, Austria or France. When power-hungry dictators think that its in their interest to conquer land, they'll continue to conquer land. If they see that the world's largest military is willing and able to come to the defender's aid, then those countries around the world will stop thinking about attacking smaller nations. This is in our strategic interest because China is eyeing Taiwan. If China decides to attack Taiwan, then they know that the might of the US Military stands against them. If not directly, then at very least indirectly. ------------- The fact remains: the "plan" was that Russia took over Ukraine and then USA supports an insurrection over the next decade with anti-tank Javelins. Ukraine overperformed: their army still stands, their leader survived the assassination attempts. Its only natural we USA reward them for their efforts. We're giving Ukraine more arms than we ever expected to give them, but that's because they're doing so, so so so much better than anyone in the USA could have dreamed or planned for. There's a chance Ukraine actually kicks Russia out, and if _THEY_, the Ukrainians, are willing to fight for that I say we let them. Its really not that much money that we're giving them. And its in our strategic interests to defend the 1994 Budapest memorandum. (we _HAVE_ to show the world that disarming from nuclear weapons gives them a security guarantee / benefit from the United States. We want more countries disarming from nukes). The $50 Billion or so we're spending on the Ukrainians this past year have been so much better than the $10+ Trillions we spent on the Afghanis. If this deal remains this cheap, its not even going to make me blink. I think you're not realizing how tiny the Ukrainian war budget really is. Yes, the goals are vague. But the goals are vague because the Ukrainians are overperforming so much better than our stated goals. ------- So strategic interest? 1. Punishing those who annex other territory 2. Supporting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and showing the world that nuclear disarmament works, maybe not on the Russian/Soviet side but at least on the USA side of the agreement. 3. Permanently reducing the Russian military through the atrophy of this war. 4. Testing our weapons in support of Taiwan should China be stupid enough to do anything in the next decade.