I followed the Syrian Revolution and civil war very closely when it was happening and was so morally outraged that I was actually quite pro-U.S. intervention, though I was always conflicted over the unknown, cascading consequences of action vs. the known costs of inaction. People who are of my view on Ukraine today in those days accused …
I followed the Syrian Revolution and civil war very closely when it was happening and was so morally outraged that I was actually quite pro-U.S. intervention, though I was always conflicted over the unknown, cascading consequences of action vs. the known costs of inaction. People who are of my view on Ukraine today in those days accused me of being some kind of warmonger. So it's not as if I don't understand the moral argument for humanitarian intervention. I'm not a pacifist. But in this case I think my views on what should be done now fundamentally flow from the fact that I'm convinced the counteroffensive has all but failed and a military victory for Ukraine is no longer possible. If I were shown evidence to the contrary, much of what I wrote in this article would still stand, but I would definitely need to sit down and rethink my conclusions about what the U.S. should do. I would reconsider my conviction that we should stop arming Ukraine. But I have not seen that evidence anywhere.
Former commander of US army Europe Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Ben Hodges is an informed source. His view is that the return of Crimea is vital to Ukraine's future.
When something like adequate combined arms are supplied to Ukraine, an actual counteroffensive can begin. A handful of British and French long-range missiles have already had devastating effects. Of course, with insufficient arms the Ukrainians will fail.
New contracts for arms, e.g., Abrams with nerfed armor and glide bomb kits (awarded to SAAB and Boeing, still not delivered) have been awarded while stockpiles haven't been drawn down. Biden reversed his decision on our secret armor and agreed to send a lousy 31 Abrams, still not there. F-16s were finally approved for donation by other countries, still not there. Biden is teasing a supply of some number of ATACMS missiles through press leaks. And that will allow Germany to supply its Taurus missiles, which they have withheld until ATACMS are supplied.
Biden's actions are not a commitment to victory and de-occupation. They're the usual military/industrial/political complex rewarding friends, making jobs, and playing politics. And, being a cynic, and knowing how Nixon got re-elected by holding out Kissinger's half-baked peace plan, Biden's Operation Half Fast is politically calculated to keep his merry band of puppeteers in control.
I followed the Syrian Revolution and civil war very closely when it was happening and was so morally outraged that I was actually quite pro-U.S. intervention, though I was always conflicted over the unknown, cascading consequences of action vs. the known costs of inaction. People who are of my view on Ukraine today in those days accused me of being some kind of warmonger. So it's not as if I don't understand the moral argument for humanitarian intervention. I'm not a pacifist. But in this case I think my views on what should be done now fundamentally flow from the fact that I'm convinced the counteroffensive has all but failed and a military victory for Ukraine is no longer possible. If I were shown evidence to the contrary, much of what I wrote in this article would still stand, but I would definitely need to sit down and rethink my conclusions about what the U.S. should do. I would reconsider my conviction that we should stop arming Ukraine. But I have not seen that evidence anywhere.
An argument that boils down to "we should defend our allies only so long as they are winning" seems to be a fairly weak and poorly-thought-out one.
Former commander of US army Europe Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Ben Hodges is an informed source. His view is that the return of Crimea is vital to Ukraine's future.
Just one example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wwu8Ff-SOw
When something like adequate combined arms are supplied to Ukraine, an actual counteroffensive can begin. A handful of British and French long-range missiles have already had devastating effects. Of course, with insufficient arms the Ukrainians will fail.
New contracts for arms, e.g., Abrams with nerfed armor and glide bomb kits (awarded to SAAB and Boeing, still not delivered) have been awarded while stockpiles haven't been drawn down. Biden reversed his decision on our secret armor and agreed to send a lousy 31 Abrams, still not there. F-16s were finally approved for donation by other countries, still not there. Biden is teasing a supply of some number of ATACMS missiles through press leaks. And that will allow Germany to supply its Taurus missiles, which they have withheld until ATACMS are supplied.
Biden's actions are not a commitment to victory and de-occupation. They're the usual military/industrial/political complex rewarding friends, making jobs, and playing politics. And, being a cynic, and knowing how Nixon got re-elected by holding out Kissinger's half-baked peace plan, Biden's Operation Half Fast is politically calculated to keep his merry band of puppeteers in control.