Why are there such poor decision makers regarding helping Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Either help them win or not. Trickling in just enough for them to stay afloat. It’s just making it worse. Give them the heavy stuff. They’re asking for.. tanks , artillery, etc.. I don’t know what motivation these people have or maybe they’re just afraid of Russian threats. Put in what is needed to win quickly. So this can be over with.

If it were me in charge of the US, I would’ve put American troops inside the borders of Ukraine before the invasion. There’s no way Putin would’ve attacked, knowing it meant war with us. Then we would’ve just listened to them bitching about it. As opposed to what’s going on now.

In particular, I would point to Biden and Schulz. Those tanks should’ve been there months ago. What the hell is going on? This is absurd. Also, NATO shouldn’t have objected to Poland wanting to send their Soviet aircraft to the Ukrainians.

[nightdrot]

Because it is not so simple as it appears. Things seldom are, after all. In that context it being important to add that the US has interests in Ukraine, but such interests are secondary and derivative.

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.

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. Thus, to use an extreme example, 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 cannot walk away from Ukraine, but its interests require that it avoid war. Consequently, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer, and even the extent of these are not obvious. 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.

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

[NamerOfStars]

You're mistaken. The decisions are actually quite sound- FOR THE INTENDED GOAL. It's not about having the Ukrainians drive the Russians out, it's about having Russian spend a fortune in money and lives and ultimately gain nothing. A quick defeat doesn't serve US government interests. It's the same thing we saw in the Iran-Iraq war, where the US sold weapons to both sides (despite that being treason).

Putting US soldiers in Ukraine might've delayed the invasion, but it WOULD have started world war 3; that's not exactly a good idea.

[ARC1092]

I'll be honest, while it is tragic what's going on over there, at the end of the day, it's not our fight, nor our problem. Congress is sending billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money to foreign nations every year, yet veterans have to fight tooth and nail in order to see even a cent for disabilities incurred while serving, not to mention the fact that there are homeless veterans all across this nation.

Add to that a broken immigration system and unsecured borders, human trafficking, drug smuggling, and a class of self-righteous politicians who only care about serving their own interests rather than the interests of their constituents.

Until we can fix our own problems, we shouldn't be getting involved with another foreign nation. Especially not after that botched withdraw from Afghanistan.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Money, the longer the war the more the arms dealer earn.

[Anonymous]

Because Biden need long enough to kill the victims of his and Hunter's crimes as well as destroying the evidence of said crimes

[msc545]

Give them the heavy stuff and start a nuclear war with Russia. Great strategy. Fortunately, you are NOT in charge.

[OddBeMe]

Whatever we’re doing seems to be working. You wanna give them nukes?

[exitseven]

It is the samr crew that ran the Vietnam debacle.

[joeldalton]

Sounds good. Put the US in the 'not' column