From the American perspective, the best case is strategic,
by novadamer (2024-02-20 10:49:03)

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


not operational. Ukraine probably can't "win" in any meaningful sense. Last season's failed counteroffensive showed they lack key capabilities AND the doctrine/training to exploit them. That takes years, and is almost impossible to pull off while fighting a war. Russia meanwhile has a slow, bloody approach which they seem to be managing to implement.

Our support demonstrates commitment at a perilous time when nearly ALL of Europe sees the same threat: Russia. If we are seen as leading at this time, we garner benefits for decades to come (in Europe and elsewhere). If we are seen as shirking the role of leader, other consequences follow. Some observers seem to forget how much the US benefited from the rules-based international order it (largely) built after WWII. Before that, the notion of picking a fight or dominating a neighboring country was the norm; after that, it became morally unacceptable and practically actionable. This allowed the rule of law and international commerce to flourish, all to our advantage. That international order is now in question due to Putin.

Our strategic interest is in re-establishing our global leadership, which can be done even with a rump Ukrainian state. Meanwhile, our billions serve to keep Russia engaged so much so that it cannot seriously threaten other NATO states. That does mean we have an interest in Ukraine even post-war, as helping it evolve into a rules-based, responsible actor is part of the deal. But we can demand Europe play a greater role in that regard.

So do we spend billions on this objective? In my opinion, yes. Is it possible that money will be wasted? Operationally, perhaps, as Ukraine may never regain the lost territory and may have to settle with Russia. Strategically, no, as the money demonstrates our leadership, without costing a single American life.