President Biden Is Faced with A Difficult Risks/Benefits Calculus

[MineralMan]

What steps the United States should take with regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a simple matter, by any means.

The potential benefits of entering this conflict are, at best, the end of the conflict and a Russian retreat back inside its own borders. That would, of course, save thousands of lives. That is the best possible outcome that can be expected, regardless of any other issues.

The potential risks of entering the conflict are many. Chief of those risks, at worst, would be an exchange of nuclear armaments between Russia and NATO nations. Even if that exchange occurred only on Ukrainian territory, it could kill millions of people and poison the territory for hundreds of years, at a minimum. If it spread to include the territories of all participants, the death toll and environmental impact could mean the end of civilization as we know it.

So, President Biden is considering what the United States should do. He understands the risks and benefits of various courses of action. He has advice and information from intelligence agencies, military strategists, diplomatic experts and more. As someone who does not have such advice or information, I am certain that I am not qualified to suggest any action or inaction with regard to the situation.

I'm going to rely on President Biden to make the best possible decision. He has advice and information we do not have. He also has long experience with leadership.

Yup, I'll let the President decide and back him up with my full support.

[Happy Hoosier]

1. I want to trust him...

... and I hope he is getting the best advice.

My main concern is that Biden has been very risk averse in the past. He did not, for example, want to green light the Bin Laden raid. I had hoped as President he might feel the weight of history a bit more.


There is a LOT to lose here if one is too timid. Putin is a bully, and bullies rely upon fear above all else to achieve their ends.

[MineralMan]

2. And there is far more to lose, potentially, if

a decision is made to enter the conflict. That was my point.

Risks/Benefits.

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Bullies always want you to think about the risks to yourself.

So long as our calculus remains focused on the risks to US, then Putin is getting what he wants. Remember that Russians have just as much to lose as we do.

[MineralMan]

4. Not just risks to yourself, actually.

A President has to consider far more than that. The escalation of the conflict to the nuclear level could affect the entire planet and everyone living on it. Think about it.

[Happy Hoosier]

5. I have thought long and hard about it.

I am personally in the camp that I am unwilling to sacrifice Ukraine here. And you are stuill leaving out the part where Putin has to worry about that escalation too. The whole point of deterrence is that it is supposed to work both ways. Right now, Putin is not being deterred by us. It's not working.

[rso]

6. Ukraine

Agreed, we need to take a risk at this point and impose a no-fly zone using NATO’s vastly superior air assets.

[Raven]

7. How does the fact that we're dealing with a madman enter into

the calculation? I assume the President has good people advising him on Putin's state of mind. That seems to me to be the wild card here.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. Is he a mad man or does he want us to think he is.

His gambit only works if people are genuinely afraid he would go nuclear.

No "rational" person would, so.....

Again, remember that this man's specialty in the KGB was psyops.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, that is part of the calculus, I'm certain.

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2022, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I would imagine that estimations of what Putin is likely to do or not do are part of the decision-making tree. However, it can be all but impossible to predict anyone's actions, especially if that person is not behaving normally.

There are many unknowns involved. If Putin ordered the use of nuclear weapons, would his military people do what he ordered? My guess is that they probably would, but I don't know. That question, too, is being discussed by experts, no doubt.

Again, my entire point is that I don't have the information. President Biden does. So, I'm going to leave the decision in his hands. I really have no other options.

I'm very, very grateful that the previous President is no longer in office, though.

[Raven]

24. And I'm very grateful you're here, MM. n/t

[MineralMan]

25. It's very kind of you to say so...

Thanks.

[David__77]

8. The basic decision not to engage military has been made.

It’s not “being made.” There’s still decision making to do, always. Biden said:

"Our forces are not engaged and will not engage in conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine.“

I am glad he has that position.

[MineralMan]

11. All such decisions are made based on the information available

when the decision was made. If new information exists, decisions can be changed.

[David__77]

12. Of course.

I do think his statement are not and “will not” is an important statement of intention. It’s not accidental.

[ruet]

13. "You have only to look at the map to see that nothing that France or we could do could possibly...

save Czechoslovakia from being overrun by the Germans if they want to do it. Therefore, we could not help
Czechoslovakia. She would simply be a pretext for going to war with Germany. That, we could not think of,
unless we had a reasonable prospect of being able to bend her to her knees in a reasonable time, and of
that, I see no sign. I have therefore abandoned any idea of giving guarantees to Czechoslovakia or to France
in connection with her obligations to that country.”

-Neville Chamberlain

https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/download/britain-in-the-20th-century-appeasement/

[MineralMan]

14. The situation is not equivalent.

Are you suggesting that President Biden is engaged in appeasement? Really?

[ruet]

16. "Are you suggesting that President Biden is engaged in appeasement? Really?"

Did Biden type your post?

[MineralMan]

17. Clearly not.

I see that you are not going to answer my question.

[ruet]

21. Before This Gets Out of Hand.

I'm not going accuse President Biden, you or anyone else of being an appeaser. Chamberlain was obviously so and it cost tens of millions of lives. You cannot deny that the way we are moving is eerily similar though. We are slowly backing ourselves into a "there was nothing we could do" corner. If we just let Putin have what he wants with Ukraine everything will be swell and he'll never do anything like it again. If the logic is that Putin would start a nuclear war over this then what at small risk it is to take a few more pieces of territory.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

15. EU still faces the consequences of any military escalation, US is not in charge, war is hell

Russia will slowly crush Ukraine over the next weeks, months, maybe years.

They want all of the Black Sea region, they are getting that.The tanks will keep rolling despite any losses, their troops are expendable.

Still, NATO will not risk WW III by intervening inside Ukraine, they have said so many times.

[gab13by13]

18. There is zero debate about us sending troops into Ukraine,

there is zero debate in the US imposing a no fly zone, that would be the same thing as sending troops into Ukraine.

The US is not going to be the catalyst for starting WW III. President Biden has already stated that is his position, we need to live with it.

I have no idea why we can't send operational information to Ukraine? I have no idea why we can't send Russian troop movement information into Ukraine. If our intelligence has picked up what Russia is planning on doing in Ukraine, like say, attack a nuclear power plant, why the fuck can't we relay that information to Ukraine.

No boots on the ground or in the air I totally agree, no information, I am at a complete loss.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. I'm going to have and express my own opinions.

[MineralMan]

20. OK. Did I suggest that you shouldn't?

[jalan48]

22. The potential for world wide disaster is real. He's the President and at this point I have to trust

him and his advisors to make the right decisions.

[bluestarone]

23. I'm in Joe's corner with YOU! BUT

Dam it's a hard corner to be in!! (if it's that hard for me, i cannot imagine what it's like for Joe)

[PortTack]

26. The one glaring error. we are overlooking the 1994 Budapest memorandum

We promised the Ukrainians if they gave up their nukes, we would defend them. So, was that promise what we are doing now, endless war supplies? Seems defending them means keeping them safe...they are not safe.

Asking..someone please explain