Ukraine could win, but nobody wants to help with that.
by OITLinebacker (2024-02-20 10:13:06)

In reply to: Best case for and against Ukranian aid?  posted by FL_Irish

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Properly funded and supplied with a full arsenal (not limited to short-range or outdated gear), they would win in a few years (the time for full training on the gear). The reason why they can't/wont win otherwise is that they just don't have enough offensive weapons or air superiority enough to really take the war to the Russians. They've only ever made limited strikes into any Russian targets in Russia proper. The US/NATO has held back because of Putin's threats of escalation.

Ukraine can't/won't win alone, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped. It's not a sunk cost yet, but the better bet to me would be for them to return to their original borders as it would give them a better chance to eventually re-pay all of the aid. The average US taxpayer gets nothing if Ukraine loses but has a chance of getting some of the aid repaid if they win.

My understanding is that the military aid we give
by Brahms  (2024-02-20 10:59:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...largely comes in the form of vacating old stock, along with allocations for jobs in the US to restock.

In the interim, we learn a lot about Russian capes (while weakening Russia), and get intel on new tactics.


The costs for not supporting Ukraine are grave (in no particular order):

1. an emboldened genocidal and revanchist Putin who only responds to strength, who would be even better positioned to weaponize food and oil and sew asymmetric warfare and de-stabilization efforts throughout the world.

2. a Ukraine that will be surely raped as a result of a major loss.

3. loss of US credibility in the eyes of US allies.

4. an emboldened China, who is even more long-term oriented than Putin, who would take note of America's appetite to staying the course in the face of blatant aggression.

5. an emboldened China who would step in to support on-the-fence allies who are unsure of US's willpower and direction.

6. more broadly, a disrupted rules-based / multipolar world order, [something about the 1980's calling and bringing their foreign policy back with a larger and more unhinged axis of evil].