GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:37 am
kalm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:19 am
I agree there are no easy or convenient outcomes on the near horizon.
“We” needs to continue including all of NATO.
Many conflicts settle into long term stalemates (from the Koreas to the ME. I’m just not personally ready for ready us to write “Dear Ukraine. We tried, but it’s just taking too long and getting expensive.”
Those conflicts also settled into long term with US boots on the ground. I think there needs to be legitimate talk about bringing what's left of Ukraine and giving them NATO protection. Maybe that means we have them give up Crimea and what they don't have in the east of Ukraine right now, but that would at least draw a very firm line of how far Putin can take this. Staying the path we're on now and it could be years down the road and all of Ukraine falls. Bring Ukraine into NATO, draw the line of where NATO protection exists, put NATO boots on the ground there and yes, it's a smaller Ukraine than when this happened, but I don't see Putin daring to hit NATO. Yes, that means NATO is there for a very long time, but that's better, IMO, than some uncertain do we fund them or not that we're in now. Question is can Biden do this now or would he wait until after the election.
Hmmm one of these things sounds just like the other…
“There are no solutions, only trade offs”
Thomas Sowell
If we could have just realized that gem of a quote 25 years ago with our approach with Putin, I don’t think we would be looking at this mess today.
A bit off the subject, but that quote plays into the divorce rate…. You gotta close your battles … so many can’t give a little
I’m just not convinced this Ukraine land grab by Putin is worth how much it’s eventually gonna cost in years, money and deaths.
The only way to beat this guy is with brut force. You let Putin have a little with a firm red line and if he crosses that red line … unfortunately WW3 and play to win, you have a real reason to destroy him.