3 ms·

Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. <rant>

by rtp4me 2y ago

Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. <rant> And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, many of these "intellectuals" on HN routinely put down our "uneducated" voter population while at the same time pleading for their tax dollars to fund a never ending war. Oh, the hypocrisy! As if their countries are any better. At best, this war is at a stalemate unless the EU really steps up to the plate to save their neighbor. Imagine, your neighbor's house is burning down all around you, and the best you can do is give a cup of water while shouting at your distant relative across the ocean to send truck loads of water. If anything, they should be ashamed they let their countries fall so behind they have to rely on someone else to help defend their own property. Crazy! Here's a hint for our EU friends: Step up and help your neighbor! Send all your money to fight the war (that is what you are asking the US tax payers for, right?). Drain your savings accounts, send them your retirement money, send everything you have - until it hurts. Next, go to your closet, put on your fighting boots, and head out to the front lines. The time for taking real action is now. Don't rely on foreign money, governments, boots, equipment, etc. to defend your own property. Rely on _yourselves_ to solve this problem. </rant-off>

ponector 2y ago
> this war is at a stalemate It is a stalemate because US government wants it to be a stalemate. They never wanted Ukraine to win. Because it can embarrass putin. That's why they send some old equipment, barely enough to slow down Russian troops. Sending weapons with restrictions to use them against Russians - Ukrainians are fighting with tied hands.
Kim_Bruning 2y ago
It's worth considering that Europe's military dependence wasn't accidental - it was partly a deliberate outcome of post-WWII American policy. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the primary security provider for Europe, giving it significant influence and strategic advantages. A fully independent European military capability might create a very different geopolitical dynamic.
Aeolun 2y ago
> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of civilian casualties, suddenly you have issues?
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  I suspect rtp4me has the same view as Rayiner in this same subthread. These past interventions often didn't work out so well, so why would this one, is what they're asking. And I mean, fair point. I partially disagree, but it's a fair point. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035 That, and there might be a shift going on in the US back from Maritime power thinking to Continental power thinking. (An essay on the differences) https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powers-collide-a-historical-framework-for-us-asymmetric-competition-with-china/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powe...
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    I mean, that was kind of my point. Now that they finally have a 'war' to fight, instead of a dispersed terrorist operation, suddenly it's less appealing, when this is basically a textbook example of a 'winnable' war. There were no policy objectives in Afghanistan or Iraq, or they were very hard to achieve without decades of sustained presence. Meanwhile they're fairly clear for Ukraine, and arguably easier to achieve, if the Russian military is degraded enough that they pose no threat to Ukraine then the war is won. Of course that leaves the pesky issue of those nuclear weapons, but I'd find that a much better argument than 'all our previous special military operations were a disaster'.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      Yeah, personally, I mostly agree with your assessment as well. The United States' view on strategy has always had a tension between the maritime power view and the continental power view. For a maritime power (the US approach we've seen most of recently since WWII ), it's practically a no-brainer to invest heavily in the Ukraine conflict. It allows the US to degrade a rival's military abilities at low cost; it maintains the balance of power in Europe without direct US troop involvement; and it upholds the norms against territorial conquest that benefit maritime powers. If the US is seeing a resurgence of isolationist/continental thinking, then you get different arguments: The conflict is distant from US territorial interests; border security and domestic concerns become more pressing; and regional conflicts elsewhere become mostly just distractions.

by rtp4me 2y ago

ponector 2y ago

> this war is at a stalemate It is a stalemate because US government wants it to be a stalemate. They never wanted Ukraine to win. Because it can embarrass putin. That's why they send some old equipment, barely enough to slow down Russian troops. Sending weapons with restrictions to use them against Russians - Ukrainians are fighting with tied hands.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago

It's worth considering that Europe's military dependence wasn't accidental - it was partly a deliberate outcome of post-WWII American policy. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the primary security provider for Europe, giving it significant influence and strategic advantages. A fully independent European military capability might create a very different geopolitical dynamic.

Aeolun 2y ago

> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of civilian casualties, suddenly you have issues?

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
I suspect rtp4me has the same view as Rayiner in this same subthread. These past interventions often didn't work out so well, so why would this one, is what they're asking. And I mean, fair point. I partially disagree, but it's a fair point. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035 That, and there might be a shift going on in the US back from Maritime power thinking to Continental power thinking. (An essay on the differences) https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powers-collide-a-historical-framework-for-us-asymmetric-competition-with-china/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powe...
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I mean, that was kind of my point. Now that they finally have a 'war' to fight, instead of a dispersed terrorist operation, suddenly it's less appealing, when this is basically a textbook example of a 'winnable' war. There were no policy objectives in Afghanistan or Iraq, or they were very hard to achieve without decades of sustained presence. Meanwhile they're fairly clear for Ukraine, and arguably easier to achieve, if the Russian military is degraded enough that they pose no threat to Ukraine then the war is won. Of course that leaves the pesky issue of those nuclear weapons, but I'd find that a much better argument than 'all our previous special military operations were a disaster'.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Yeah, personally, I mostly agree with your assessment as well. The United States' view on strategy has always had a tension between the maritime power view and the continental power view. For a maritime power (the US approach we've seen most of recently since WWII ), it's practically a no-brainer to invest heavily in the Ukraine conflict. It allows the US to degrade a rival's military abilities at low cost; it maintains the balance of power in Europe without direct US troop involvement; and it upholds the norms against territorial conquest that benefit maritime powers. If the US is seeing a resurgence of isolationist/continental thinking, then you get different arguments: The conflict is distant from US territorial interests; border security and domestic concerns become more pressing; and regional conflicts elsewhere become mostly just distractions.