Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @Rush51 BUT do you realistically ever see a point where that could be done AND is it ever the USA’s obligation? Because it is NEVER their responsibility, especially with Ukraine being a non-NATO country. That is why the tepid-funding approach is likely doing the EXACT opposite of any diplomatic approach might do. Dragging it out. Etc., etc. I realize Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Putin will feel emboldened to invade neighboring countries ( i.e. Baltic States) should he be successful w Ukraine .... and they are all NATO members. That's quite a scary predicament. I do think it's realistic for anyone in Congress to ask the same question I posed ; what Ukraine needs ( short of air power) to push Russia out ; I just hope it's not too late.
Is that really what you think will happen OR what you worry MIGHT happen?
Those are two very different situations.
There are very many experts, not just from the USA — but around the world that disagree with this. They are experts in the region and Russian/Ukrainian history.
This conflict is very different than say, Finland or Poland would be.
The past history is different. There is a deep pro-Russian sentiment in the area.
I have been in that area many times and I can tell you there are a lot of pro-motherland Russia folks there. I am not in any way saying it justifies it. I am simply pointing out that you do not find this in some of the other regions of Poland/Finland, etc.
Plus the strategic control of that region matters more, etc.
But that potential ‘emboldening’ might be a factor now if Sweden causes other countries to decide to ‘threaten’ Russian by trying to either join NATO or align closer with them, etc. Russia of course has liked the ‘buffer’ of those countries.
There is a lot to be said for the ‘humanitarian superpower’ status — instead of uniting with NATO, which is almost entirely set up against Russia.
You can go back and look at this around 2014ish and even 2016ish when there were huge discussions on Sweden joining NATO and the reasons for and against it. One of the main reasons is destabilizing the area and antagonizing Russia.
There has to be more diplomacy done, and sadly, maybe concessions to end this. I am not sure how much responsibility the USA should be taking in this matter. But for sure, just blindly sending them money with no progress being made is NOT the answer.
Russia realizes they cannot reasonably take on NATO. But Russia has settled in for the long haul obviously and I do not see funding a full-on war for Ukraine as the correct way to get a resolution.
You absolutely have to question why other, nearer countries are not doing FAR more if they are really that concerned about this and future aggression in other areas. I do not mean funding — I mean whatever other avenues they can take.
Is it really up to the USA to be the frontrunner on this?
If so, is the USA ready for China/Taiwan? NK/SK?
What happens when a conflict breaks out in Africa and they complain the USA is not helping them?
For sure, the USA has to pick and choose what is in their best interest to ‘help’ out. But is this really the one?
Russia may be content to stay settled in and let everyone spend all of their money. Ukraine is okay with everyone sending money.
I am not necessarily promoting isolationism — but I do not think funding a war there is the correct answer in this situation.