OK. Switch the narrative around…. So, how does consuming and diverting such a large portion of our resources to the “Eurasia threat” (your term not mine) help ensure our ability to stop China on a possible SE Asia front where the Ukraine front would pale in comparison? Current estimates I’ve seen seem to show we may not have the resources to handle an all-out, single front war let alone a two front war. Please explain the options if the “beyond the conventional” rubicon is breached vs Russia where Russia looses a tactical nuke or two in the battlefield ? I have yet to see a logical or realistic vision for our end game in Ukraine if Russia simply says, “no, not going backwards, your move”.
Though I wish I could take credit, describing growing Russian belligerence as a "Eurasian threat" is a rather common term in the literature on this subject.
The Russians have gone backwards. Ukraine has driven them back from their original gains, recaptured the Kharkiv provence, defeated the Russian Navy at sea, fought the whole Russian army to a standstill on land, denied air superiority to the Russian air force, and taken nearly 1500 square kilometers of the Russian Kursk province.
Cost to the US is a political red herring. Supporting Ukraine is costing us a miniscule amount of resources to keep this threat from re-emerging from the dustbin of history. The little we have provided Ukraine truly is a rounding number for a government that spends 6 Trillion + dollars annually. The vast majority of the military equipment we have provided has been through Presidential drawdown authority. That means it is equipment in storage which is no longer needed by the active force.
With respect to new production, Ukraine actually has been a major boon to our capability to expand our production base and lower costs on key munitions. For the first time since the eighties we have multiple lines at full production of 155mm, GMLRS, small arms, and guided ground and air delivered ordinance. That actually enhances our military capabilities against China and in support of Taiwan and is a Godsend especially to the US Army and Marine Corps.
We can either commit to stopping the Kremlin's ambitions now or acquiesce to a growing threat in Europe that will divide our focus and those resources for a generation or more. As the West failed to do in 1938-39, we can step up to that challenge now or address it later. We would be fools to do the latter.
With respect to tactical nuclear weapons, what is Putin going to fire them at? If he launches them at a NATO country it will mean all out war and whatever damage the Kremlin's aging and questionable stockpile might inflict, Russia and Russians as a nation, culture and people would be exterminated from the planet.
I do not know our plan for a tactical weapon employed within Ukraine, but I would suspect we have communicated that NATO will assume air defense and NATO force self-protection responsibility over Ukraine. Due to the depleted state of Russia's conventional armed forces now, that would guarantee the unsuccessful conclusion to this fiasco from the Russian perspective.
Ukraine was not going to drive Russia out without the support from the international community. I agree with supporting them.
Do you see this ending in a full Russian withdrawal? Are they going to enter negotiations and walk out having completely given up the territory they have gained? What I’m saying is, is Putin going to make a deal and go back to the Russian people with nothing to show for the last 2+ years? It’s going to have to end in negotiations somehow (I would imagine) and that likely won’t come without concessions.
Maybe Ukraine takes Crimea, gains more territory in Kursk and becomes more of a threat to Moscow and that’s enough for Russia to sue for peace and withdraw completely? I assume that’s the case.
On the topic of those provinces, what changed? I know there’s been fighting there since around a decade ago. Maybe longer
This war will indeed end in negotiations. If for no other reason, neither power is strong enough to dictates peace on the steps of the other's capital. But the nature of the conclusion of those negotiations will either embolden Putin and his successors or restrain them. Were we to do what Vance naively suggests (and I must assume he is parroting his future boss), we will have handed Russia nearly a total victory in this conflict.
The current estimates are that Russia is spending approximately 7-9% of its GDP on the war in Ukraine. In contrast, the US is spending roughly 3% of its GDP on its total defense budget and .35% on Ukraine. Like the Cold War, this is unsustainable for Russia and in spite of all the handringing from the far right, we could keep it up for decades and simply grow a stronger military infrastructure in the process.
I have personally stated here several times that the most likely outcome (assuming the Vance/Trump "art" of a negotiated deal is not forced upon NATO), is that Russia retains what it holds in Luhansk and Donetsk and withdraws from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Crimea will be the geographic sticking point. I also suspect the West will insist upon Ukrainian self-determination with respect to EU and NATO membership. After all, Putin's angst over an extended direct border with NATO went out the window with Finland joining the alliance. Again, a strategic surrender by a Trump administration would spell the end of such a positive outcome.
Following the seizure of Crimea, the only fighting prior to '22 was occuring in portions of Luhansk and Donetsk - an effort through which Russia was attempting to destabilize the Ukrainian government. The lack of success of that strategy can be measured by Russian actions in February of 2022.
