I am not trying to make a point; I am simply exploring, exchanging ideas, and sharing thoughts that provoke a response, allowing me to hear another's perspective on the matter. :)
I may be wrong, and I want to get an understanding as to why that may be the case.
I just think it's regrettable to have strong confident opinions with a shallow understanding of probably the most important event since WW2, Russia is trying to annex a democratic sovereign country of 40 million people. It's an attempt at mass-scale genocide.
That is the type of opinion is passed on by the vast majority of alternative media podcasts - it's shallow entertaining stories that give the illusion of understanding a subject.
The invasion of Ukraine is probably the most documented war in History, and you can get a very good understanding of the event in a short time with little effort. You can even access original documents, yet you prefer a low-resolution misinformed version of it.
I must say that my comments do not necessarily reflect my own opinions. In retrospect I can see why it might have given that impression, as I may have phrased my sentences in that way.
(FWIW you know "entertaining" is debatable, and I personally do not find either position entertaining).
To clarify, the entertaining part doesn't come from the subject but from the perception of having an insight and opinion about a subject, which most of the time is someone else's idea built on top of another shallow notion.
It's fun to believe you have an understanding of reality, that didn't require much effort to understand.
This is the main problem we're facing at the moment with regard to information: people mistake a thin veneer of anecdotes and stories, for knowledge with some depth, but they don't care because it feels nice to know a lot of shallow things.
The result is a wrong understanding of reality.
Just for you to understand, your current stance - I want peace so we can focus on our "internal problems", let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own - will make a direct conflict with China inevitable, and that will be a war where you won't be sending just weapons.
> let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own
What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? I apologize for being so extreme, but I struggle to see how simply providing financial aid and weapons - which are finite resources - will effectively resolve the situation. Should we attempt to drain Russia's resources[1]? Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid?
> What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives?
How do you go from peace talks to nuking Russia? What is the goal of nuking Russia? Do you want to go in and occupy the Russian Federation?
Ukraine is a sovereign country with borders recognized by 193 countries in the UN - including Russia by the way. No one, except Syria and North Korea recognizes occupied territory as being part of Russia.
The reasons are self-evident: if this precedent is opened, then it means we're back to pre-UN times where the strong can annex smaller countries. Countries might as well each get their own nuclear deterrence, and then you'll have nuclear proliferation. Which in case you might not be aware, was a victory to be able to prevent countries from pursuing this avenue.
What's wrong about giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, as we promised with the Budapest Memorandum?
They're not asking for nukes, they're not asking for troops on the ground, they just ask to be supplied with what they need on time. Don't make a theatrical display of it, don't drip feed it, just do what was done when we helped the Soviets win against the Nazis, but on a much smaller scale.
Providing financial aid and weapons is a small price when compared to the collapse of a global order that was won after WW2. Especially when you're giving them equipment that won't be used by the US and would be decommissioned - it's probably costlier to dispose of it than to give it to Ukraine.
> Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid?
We can mobilize a global industry to produce mRNA vaccines in a short period of time, that requires specialized resources, we boast about being able to land rockets upright... somehow you think we cannot produce 155mm shells?
Are they asking for the means to achieve victory? If so, what does that entail specifically? When and under what circumstances would it be considered a victory for Ukraine? How much aid would Ukraine require for this to succeed? Would it be sufficient to deter Russia? Is Russia's production capacity worse?
> Are they asking for the means to achieve victory?
Yes, and victory for them isn't taking over Moscow but guarantees their sovereignty, independence, and security.
That entails:
- reducing the capacity for Russia to strike Ukraine with long-range missiles;
- the capacity to disrupt supply lines and push them back into Russian territory;
- the capacity to strike air defense systems so Ukraine can secure its air space;
- the capacity to defend unoccupied territory;
- be part of a defensive alliance that guarantees Ukraine's defense in case of a future invasion;
- be part of an economic alliance that will allow Ukraine to rebuild and thrive;
> When and under what circumstances would it be considered a victory for Ukraine?
Victory will be achieved when their citizens can go back to their homes knowing they won't ever have to deal with a genocidal hoard that thinks Ukrainians don't exist.
> How much aid would Ukraine require for this to succeed?
As much as necessary, and I think Western allies and partners can sustain this - if Russia can, the largest economies surely can too.
> Would it be sufficient to deter Russia?
Russia is already paying a high cost in human lives, the economy and culture, they're on a self-destructive path - so just let them do their thing, continue to accelerate this path, and keep supporting Ukraine.
> Is Russia's production capacity worse?
There is a shortage of labor in Russia, with the unemployment rate extremely low, they reached a cap. Now they're trying to outsource production to North Korea.
In conclusion, so you have a historical framing: you'd be in the group of Nazi Germany appeasers, and we saw where that led the world to - WW2. I'm not saying you're a Nazi sympathizer, or anything like that, far from it. I'm saying that you're misinformed to the point that you prefer to sacrifice a country of 40 million people that represents democratic values (even if they're in their infancy), that wants to protect it and be aligned with us... and that won't impact the privilege US has in the global stage.
In exchange for the illusion that... companies that increase consumer prices will drop prices? That housing will suddenly pop out of the sky... housing that migrants mainly build? That the multibillionaires will start to pay more income now that they're part of the government?
That's all to blame on Ukraine aid receiving old military equipment meant to be discontinued and decommissioned, right?
> I'm saying that you're misinformed to the point that you prefer to sacrifice a country of 40 million people that represents democratic values
I did not intend to say that we should sacrifice a country.
What would happen if Ukraine "peacefully" would give that region to Russia? I am not saying they should, I am asking what would happen, considering it may not lead to more bloodshed and it may not mean "sacrifice" either, as long as they can continue living there, just under a different rule. Is this not an option? If not, why not?
> What would happen if Ukraine "peacefully" would give that region to Russia? I am not saying they should, I am asking what would happen, considering it may not lead to more bloodshed and it may not mean "sacrifice" either, as long as they can continue living there, just under a different rule. Is this not an option? If not, why not?
The easiest answer would be "Look at the History of XIX and XX centuries", in reality, you don't need to go that far:
What happened when Russia occupied Moldova territory in the 90's and we did nothing?
What happened when Russia occupied Georgia territory in 08 and we did nothing?
What happened when Russia occupied Ukrainian territory in 2014 and we did nothing?
Now they're making veil threats to Kahzkstan.
So the most important question is, in light of Russia constantly invading and occupying and oppressing sovereigns that were at peace, what do YOU think will happen?
I may be wrong, and I want to get an understanding as to why that may be the case.