3 ms·

>there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices. That part where you declare there are numerous reasons, and not just that its in the US's interest

• s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It takes more than one country to go to war. Each has choices, like cars driving at each other. Each has the power to swerve, make concessions, or go to war, or surrender, ect. Each option may have pros and cons and costs. The US could have stepped on the breaks at any moment with no cost by not expanded NATO. However, war is a win for the reasons stated, and Russia backing down and letting it happen was also a win. it was masterful strategy to put Russia in a lose lose choice. Sure, it has agency to pick, but it had no option to continue the status quo. Every party has full control to stop things at any moment. It is just a matter of what they stand to gain or lose.
  • lovich 2y ago
    >It takes more than one country to go to war. So you agree that Russia could stop the war at any time, and didn't need to start it in the first place?
    • s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Any primary party could stop it at any time. Russia can stop it tomorrow. Ukraine can stop it tomorrow. Nobody involved "needed" to start it. I do think that Russia saw itself facing an existential threat.
      • lovich 2y ago
        That would be an interesting and defendable argument. It’s not the argument you made though. You started off by pinning the blame on the US alone