It is a "bet" insofar as the course of action (or, from my point of view, of inaction) which you are advocating would represent a major departure from our previous policy, and would have a sizable impact upon the future course of history.
You, apparently, believe that accepting Russia's right to use force of arms to redraw the map of Europe and stopping all military aid to Ukraine would have a salubrious effect upon America's socio-political landscape and/or spiritual health (while I feel that it would be tantamount to throwing our core values overboard and would have an emasculating effect upon our world standing).
It is a "bet" insofar as you are entreating us FReepers to abandon our previous position (that Ukraine requires and deserves our staunch support) and "take your side" (i.e., accord Russia a veto when it comes to accepting new NATO members).
Events will eventually prove your stance either right or wrong. To that extent, it is a bet - maybe only a "Gentlemen's Bet," but a bet nonetheless.
However, if you insist upon claiming that our discussion here has absolutely no influence upon the real-world outcome of the present conflict, then we could agree to call it rather a "Thought Experiment."
Regards,
So, now you are down to various uses of the word “bet”. I made it clear that when I said “I bet...” I was using it in a commonly understood colloquial sense of “I think”, as in “I bet Alexander is going to town tomorrow.” One could as well write, “I think Alexander is going to town tomorrow.” In ordinary English they are semantically equivalent.
What is amply justified by the facts is that the Obama administration (with an assist from Soros) began this war by carrying out a coup against a peaceful, democratically elected government of the Ukraine that resulted in NeoNazis gaining significant power in the coup government and the UFA. It also set off a war in the Donbas. I would say that that act alone was an example of throwing “our core values overboard”, unless you are a Neocon. That act also contributed the continued diminution of our standing in the Global South.
You evidently believe that “Ukraine deserves our staunch support”, but what you are really saying is that the extraordinarily corrupt, fascistic Zelensky regime deserves our staunch support. The Zelensky version of the coup government is not “Ukraine”, and Zelensky doesn’t enjoy the popular support he had before the war.
I do accept the RF’s use of force, or the threat of force, to eliminate an existential threat. This is something that every nation would do if it is able. As I have pointed out, the US has certainly done so. With a NATOized Ukraine, the Russian military command and control centers are a 5 minute flight by today’s missiles, and perhaps about 50 seconds away when our hypersonics come on line. Being able to take out Russian command and control before it can react is rightly seen as an existential threat.
You seem to be anguished by the use of force to redraw lines in Europe. Were you similarly concerned when the Clinton administration involved us in doing exactly that in the Balkans? National boundaries change over time for all sorts of reasons and often in ways that include force. In the case of the Donbas, the coup government could have recognized that those areas did not want to be ruled by a government that overthrew by coup the government the people of the Donbas voted overwhelmingly for. The coup government could have recognized the Donbas republics and let them go peacefully, rather like the Czechs let the Slovaks go peacefully. Instead, the coup government has waged a vicious war against the men, women, and children of the Donbas for 8 bloody years and in February assembled massive UFA formations (including many NeoNazi units) to overrun the Donbas.
As for what I think would be “salubrious”: not staging a coup in 2014 would have been salubrious, not beginning the de facto integration of Ukraine into NATO post-coup would have been salubrious, not supporting the coup regimes’ war in the Donbas would have been salubrious, and accepting and acting on Minsk II would have been salubrious. As for the present, the US/NATO essentially are controlling the war now, and ending the war immediately and removing the self-defeating sanctions would be “salubrious”. Of course, we won’t do either because the Neocons, with their messianic narcissism, are controlling our foreign policy.
I do agree that this war will have major effect on the course of history. In fact it already has. Part of what I have written is speculation on the consequences. There may be some good that comes out of this disaster for the West if the people of the West finally stop being swindled by our tech media/MSM, which are now almost indistinguishable from the government, and purge the Deep State in all of its manifestations in the West. Do note that Trump is talking about that very thing in the US now. That is optimismic speculation. On the pessimistic side, perhaps people will continue to be taken in by the Neocon narrative and ultimately succumb to A WEF type agenda.
What is certain is that our foreign policy has increasinly alienated the Global South and has driven Russian closer to China, which is an extremely bad outcome of this war.