In my opinion, Ukraine should be supported as long as they are willing and able to fight, allowing whatever strategies and tactics they consider necessary.
That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.
Fully agree. Ukraine should be given the means to defend itself on equal footing. No nation, regardless of size or power, should operate under the assumption that it can violate another country's sovereignty without consequences.
NATO must always act as a cohesive unit so any direct confrontation significantly increases the risks.
Western countries including my own have demilitarize heavily since the 1990s + rebuilt armies for counter terrorism, so sending more weapons to a land war isn't straightforward at all (as we've seen).
Western power is mostly centered around air and sea power and you can't easily transfer that to a 3rd party...especially three years late.
If neither Biden or now Trump is going to promise mass Tomahawks and IFVs galore then all we're left with is perpetuating a stalemate, not recovering sovereign land nor sufficiently punishing Russia. A couple more Storm Shadows and Leopard tanks from dwindling supplies aren't going to cut it.
> In order to do that they need to have a defined leader, not twenty some people each one pursuing their own interests
I mean on paper that's not really true. The US or whichever leader can't tell Poland to send troops, warships, or pilots into Ukraine because if Russia then sends a cruise missile into Warsaw it violates the NATO treaty which would require them all to react. There's no minor conflict exception, it moves as a unit. So the only option on the table is full NATO vs Russia, or status quo proxy war where weapons are funneled through it.
For Europe to properly defend Ukraine's sovereignty on their own they would have to break NATO commitments. Because I don't see continued supply of weapons from their small pool as sufficient to make a big difference... only to extend the war for a few more years, after which a very similar DMZ will be established.
To fight this war you need real military power: on the ground logistics, protected supply lines, large troop reserves to support offensive operations, etc. Weapons only get you so far.
I think the heart of the matter that I haven’t seen discussed yet is: Who’s going to pay for it? The current administration is cutting expenses across the board. There’s a lot of talk about the deficit and defense spending. I don’t see much appetite in the US to keep sending blank checks to Ukraine. Hence, the minerals deal: this was to recoup costs.
Of course, it would be great if defending democracy was free. However, with politicians already talking about cutting Medicaid spending, it was only a matter of time until defense spending came under scrutiny
Sending money to Ukraine saves US money. The equipment that Russia is losing means the US does not need to maintain as much military as before and fpr the cost of 90B US can permanently save maybe 30% of its mil budget going forward, especially is Russia clearly looses. One more year of support to Ikrain would destroy most of gerund Russian equipment and set it back for years.
If we apply this reasoning universally, should any sovereign nation engaged in war receive indefinite support as long as they are willing to fight?
Historical cases, such as the U.S. in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, suggest that prolonged external backing can lead to drawn out conflicts with high costs and unintended consequences.
Is there a point at which the costs/economic, political, or humanitarian of indefinite support outweigh the intended benefits? How do you think such a threshold be determined?
I think one should _at least_ consider alternatives pathways to achieve a resolution.
That is the current path (at least until today's meeting).
Maybe we get lucky and Putin dies or is deposed (and the successor is less hard-line). That's a lot of rolls that have to come down the right way.
More likely, Ukraine continues to bleed men until they can't defend Kyiv, then Russia takes all of Ukraine anyway except you've lost a lot of soldiers and weapons.
No matter what EU leaders say, I think they are beginning to realize that Ukraine will not win this war and time is not on their side. The EU may or may not continue to support Ukraine with weapons, but it will be half-hearted at best.
The EU will pressure Ukraine to freeze the conflict, but without any hard guarantees. In a few years, Russia will then begin the attack again and probably take Kyiv then.
It will be near-impossible to end this conflict with all of Ukrainian territory in Ukrainian hands while Putin is still in power. It would be a massive loss of face and power for Putin and he'll do anything to prevent it.
A successor (even a dictator and/or hard-liner) has a lot more manoeuvring space here, at least initially, because he can just blame it all on Putin.
Remember this all started with "we'll conquer all of Ukraine real quick, back in a jiffy". Putin pivoted to "no, we just wanted the eastern provinces" but everyone knew that was complete bollocks. The entire war is already a massive loss of face for Putin.
It's not warmongering to allow a country that has been invaded to determine how and how long they defend their country and which approaches they take towards peace.
Is it possible that you haven't been raised in a free democratic country? That would explain your patronizing attitude towards elected governments and other countries. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. It's really about sovereignty.
On a side note, it is never a good idea to allow your judgments to get clouded by anecdotal "evidence", let alone videos on social media. Use statistical data instead.
I merely have an intact and uncorrupted sense of justice. I believe that any country illegally attacked by another country should be helped and the people of that country (if it is democratic) should decide on their own how to defend themselves.
That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.