American involvement
I can understand why the US is limiting its involvement in the war in Ukraine.
I'm no an armchair general - heck, I'm not even an armchair lieutenant - and I don't presume to know the best actions to take.
But I do know that, whatever the outcome, an ally is being destroyed, more than 1 million are refugees at the moment, infrastructure is being razed, children are being murdered, and war crimes are being committed. Many organizations are doing what they can to help.
The US is providing weapons, and neighboring countries to Ukraine are providing aircraft and weapons, so that's all good. I think it's safe to assume that the US is sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Again, all good.
I saw a statement in an op-ed today suggesting that anything more is not likely to happen because, while Ukraine is an ally, they're not a major ally. That's hogwash, of course, because they are, at the very least, a significant buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe.
I'm happy in my role as armchair lieutenant. No risk. No threats. I'm safe. But here are my questions and responses.
1. Should the US do more?
2. And what does "do more" mean?
3. And at what point?
My take:
1. Yes. Weapons, weapons, and more weapons. An airlift of weapons.
2. US military air support, including bombs and missiles. Don't care if there's a coalition of any kind. Unilateral if needed. No boots on the ground. Back to the airlift comment - humanitarian support. Food, medical supplies, and anything else needed in this area.
3. When Zelenskyy says it's time.
Sure, there are implications, strategically in Europe, within NATO, with China, etc., etc., etc. And there are political implications here. Of course, the RW, calling Biden weak, will condemn this action because for them it's always opposite day. But there will always be implications. What are the implications of Russia being successful?
= new reply since forum marked as read
