Why didn't he help Ukraine even though it is bigger and stronger than Russia in Europe?

[Richardceorl1]

lives and lives matter

[nightdrot]

Sorry? Your antecedents are unclear. Who, for example, is the "he" referred to in the question. Also, what "it" is "bigger and stronger" than Russia?

If you mean the United States, it has already sent extensive humanitarian, economic and military assistance. The latter in the form of equipment and modern weapons, including even Patriot anti-missile batteries.

Beyond that, the actual deployment of troops is not merited. Leaving aside the probability that such a move could easily lead to miscalculation - and thus an escalation to a thermonuclear exchange - the reason is that the United States' interest in Ukraine does not merit such action. Please note, this is not to say that the USA has no strategic interests in Ukraine, but rather such interests are secondary and derivative.

It being best to start by recalling that through most of American history, Ukraine was part of Imperial Russia and from 1920 to 1991 the Soviet Union. This having no noticeable or deleterious impact on the American global strategic position. This then making the deployment of troops to Ukraine, with its concomitant risk of war, and likely nuclear war at that, disproportionate.

Ukraine's current significance to the USA is rather based on its impact on several NATO allies. This especially true of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. The loss of Ukraine to Russia, absent American security assurances to those aforementioned states, would undermine their strategic position and likely result in the collapse of NATO.

Please also note that the dispute over Ukraine has already, in any case, divided NATO. Britain has been aggressive about sending weapons and diplomatic support to Ukraine. By contrast, Germany is seeking to develop its economic and trade ties with Russia, while using NATO security assurances to protect its own security interests. France, (with some sotto voce help from Italy) in all this, has been quietly seeking to entangle Russia more deeply in Europe, thereby making it a counterweight to German influence in the EU.

Put simply, there is a tangle of conflicting interests not just between NATO and Russia, but within NATO. For the United States to step in with a direct military intervention would likely please Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK, but it would shatter German ties with NATO. This then effectively render NATO "null and void" as it is the fastest strategic access point to eastern Europe, including Russia.

Further, any confrontation between the United States and Russia plays out to the strategic advantage of the People's Republic of China. If the Americans and Russians are engaged in a conflict, (again, assuming that it does not go nuclear in which events all bets are off), China is left a free hand toward Taiwan and the South China Sea, This also meaning, in effect, that the USA would be abandoning Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Put simply, the United States does not need Ukraine to win the war, only to assure that it does not lose it. If Russia invades Ukraine, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer. A direct military conflict between the USA and Russia would split NATO, to the latter's advantage, and give China a free hand.

This is a game of three dimensional chess and not simply a test of wills. The historic interests of the major European powers are at play and in this case American direct interests are secondary. For the USA, this is about reassuring NATO's eastern flank, balancing the interests of NATO's other major members - the UK, France, Germany and Italy - in order to keep the alliance whole, and to avoid driving Russia and China closer together.

This is not a mere contest of muscle. Suffice to add that it would be profoundly dangerous to see it in such simplistic terms.

[Julie4]

Besides, I was wondering what would be the political consequences of a military victory of Russia? Because not many people not seem to consider a Russian victory but in the long run a Russian victory is not to be excluded. Although for the moment the Russian army is facing huge logistic difficulties etc.

And I don't think that at the moment France is trying to use Russia as a counterweight to Germany.

Surprisingly Macron is rather trying to reintegrate the UK into a European system to counterbalance Germany (see Macron's proposal to create a European political community, and to insist that the UK integrates it).

[nightdrot]

@Julie4 This will be a brief one - it's New Year's eve you know - and I am not sure if you were adding to what I wrote to the author of the question or if you were asking me. However, brief answer starting with your last point.

Yes, you are right, President Macron is seeking to draw the UK back into the EU system as a counterweight to Germany. This, in part, because Brexit upset the balance within the EU.

As far as Russia, France may de facto fall back on the Russian threat to offset German weight. However, there is a limit to the extent to which France can get away with that given that the states of eastern Europe would view any tilt toward Russia as a threat to their security. So if the eastern Europeans believe France is going too far toward Russia, they will tilt to Germany as counterweight.

Bottom line, this is not simply a trade-off of either/or's. Rather it is a game of three dimensional chess. France is balancing each of these powers against the other but is limiting that balancing in any one direction to the extent that it will not compromise the balance of other powers. The bottom line being that France will try - as will the other states of Europe - to make themselves the pivot around which that balance turns.

As to your first point, that is less nuanced to answer. A Russian win will send the states of eastern Europe to either seek further shelter under NATO - assuming that NATO itself was not compromised - or to cut a deal with Russia as best they can. Bottom line, it would have all the echoes of 1914 and that is not good.

Hope that helps and Bonne année!

[RealMarek]

Who is “he?” I would say our elites have done more than enough in terms of helping Ukraine at the direct expense of common people in the West.

[artsy_dragon]

My English is not great but as a Ukrainian I am confused. Who is "he"? 😂

[OddBeMe]

Russia isn’t just in Europe…which is why it’s huge.

[Anonymous]

Who are you referring to?

[_no_one_]

Sorry my bad