Posted on 05/12/2022 12:32:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
What began as a straightforward U.S. policy of arming the Ukrainians has expanded into a dangerous and rapid escalation.
The New York Times on Wednesday published an op-ed by Tom Stevenson arguing what some of us have been arguing for a while now: the Biden administration is openly — and recklessly — pursuing a policy of escalation in Ukraine that represents a new and very dangerous phase in the war.
Stevenson, a journalist who reported from Ukraine in the opening weeks of the war, argues that initially the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine rather straightforwardly, with supplies of arms to the Ukrainians and economic sanctions on Russia. But things have changed over the past month.
Now, instead of simply helping Ukraine stave off invasion and conquest, U.S. policy seems to have shifted into something else entirely: the permanent weakening of Russia at any cost. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said so explicitly after a clandestine visit to Ukraine with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken last month. After her own recent visit to Kyiv, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi characterized the war as a global struggle for democracy.
To back up these outlandish claims, the Biden administration has now proposed a $40 billion military aid package to Ukraine, quadruple what the United States has thus far given Ukraine since the outbreak of the war in late February. On top of that, it appears the U.S. military may be providing real-time battlefield targeting intelligence to the Ukrainians, arguably making the United States an active belligerent in the conflict.
All of this amounts to a major policy shift on the part of the United States, writes Stevenson: “Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia.” This shift, he adds, has “coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts.”
So what possible strategic gain does bleeding Russia in Ukraine hold for the United States? The risks of pursuing such a policy are immense, including the possibility of nuclear war between the world’s top two nuclear powers. If the Biden administration has some overarching goal in mind, it has not bothered to tell the American people. Instead, we are trundling along the road to war as if every decision we make is simply a reaction to Russian aggression.
But in fact, the war itself has shifted dramatically since late February, and conditions now are arguably more favorable to a cease-fire and a negotiated political settlement than they were even a month ago. Having failed in its initial push on Kyiv in the northern part of the country amid fierce resistance from the Ukrainians, Russia has shifted its strategy, limiting its forces to the south and east of Ukraine in hopes of consolidating control of a much more limited territory.
But instead of recognizing this for the concession that it is and seizing the chance to persuade both sides to stop fighting and make a deal, the United States has responded by publicly calling for the weakening of Russia and committing an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to arming Ukraine in what might otherwise be turning into a much more limited conflict in the eastern part of that country.
A cynic might conclude that the Biden administration doesn’t really want the fighting to stop and will gladly keep funding a proxy war with Russia, even as it denies that it is doing so. A cynic might also argue that U.S. policy in Ukraine now has very little to do with Ukraine and everything to do with Moscow, possibly even encompassing the dangerous fantasy of regime change in the Kremlin.
That is certainly the view of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who claimed this week that “we can win this war on behalf of Ukraine.” (Recall that Graham called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin back in March.)
Indeed, Biden and the Democrats have largely been joined in their strategic folly by most Republicans. Only 57 GOP members of the House voted against the $40 billion aid package to Ukraine this week.
As things stand now, it’s not unreasonable to suppose a bipartisan consensus is emerging in Washington to expand the war and get the United States directly involved in it under the pretext that the battle for Donbas is, as Pelosi ludicrously claimed, “the frontier of freedom.” To quote Stevenson, “This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.”
As a practical matter, I'm not sure what the difference is. An effective defense is always going to attrite the attacker. I suppose the only difference is just one of perspective. The Ukrainian goal is to defeat the Russian invasion. One of our goals in helping them do that is attriting the Russians' offensive power so they won't try this with someone else. But our actions are the same from either perspective.
I think what he really means is that the primary goal is not "peace as quickly as possible", but rather "defeat the Russian invasion". There is very much a difference between those two things
Could all end if Russia would get the flock out of Ukraine. Til then, let the bear bleed.
been suggesting Abbot and Desantis as well as like minded governors should publicly say “we don’t want to be part of this” and see what happens.
Exactly. Go home Russians.
——-Not going to happen, Vlad will do as he said he would. At the very least, the Donbass provinces will gain their Independence from the Ukies,something they have been asking since at least 2015.
…and Vlad says CHECKMATE again. The foolish senile old man had no idea what weaponizing the USD would do, ( dethrone it), or did he?
EVERYTHING vegetable head does destroys America, boys in girls bathrooms, boys in girls sports, abortion, gay marriage, shutting down the oil fields, etc…when do the Ukie war cheerleaders realize they have been played, again? …Covid vax hoax, ten percent to Joe, ……
Bad people seem to have forgotten the attitude of China when Biden got in office and he was meeting with them they were making fun of them they were using the exact same words and thinking that the United States has use so many times to justify going in to other countries to invade them. A lot of countries are giving every indication from China Russia what they did Taiwan refusing the submarines that they were trying to sell them because they’re too expensive, Japan selling off US bonds to get out of the dollar, Israel getting out of the dollar, Saudi Arabia switching to selling oil priced by yuan. Pakistan and India Refusing to go along with sanctions. The writing is on the wall the world is tired of the United States thinking that the whole world has to obey what we say
Vietnam all over againVietnam was about the spread of communism.
True, and one would think that defeating an often-conquering country with whom we have been fighting proxy wars for decades would be something warranted, yet the Left opposes Russia because it cannot team with it in promoting its new world order, while Putin seeks to impose his own power over more real estate. But as with Hitler and Stalin, both are proxy servants for the devil in creating instability, economic distress, violence, insecurity in which the multitudes look for a deliverer who promises security. But which devotion to him, which is a false Christ.
Except they can also stop it by bombing western Ukraine which is supplying weapons to eastern Ukraine. They have more options than we do.
The question comes down to this: is NATO defensive, or offensive. In the mid 90's when the Serbs were kicking around in Bosnia, NATO was defensive. IFOR in 1995 was defensive. In 1999 NATO became offensive thanks to Mad Maddy's childhood grudges and Clinton's wag the dog. That was the end of NATO as a plausible defense for Eastern Europe.
“Except they can also stop it by bombing western Ukraine which is supplying weapons to eastern Ukraine. They have more options than we do.”
That doesn’t actually stop anything though. It might slow it down, but they’ll still be dying, probably for a long time to come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.