I would like to know what the alternatives are. None that I can think of are palatable:
1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this just buying time for someone to depose Putin?
2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice? If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2 right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let Russia rearm.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
Did I miss anything?
The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from getting what he wants.
My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.
In my opinion, Ukraine should be supported as long as they are willing and able to fight, allowing whatever strategies and tactics they consider necessary.
That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.
Fully agree. Ukraine should be given the means to defend itself on equal footing. No nation, regardless of size or power, should operate under the assumption that it can violate another country's sovereignty without consequences.
NATO must always act as a cohesive unit so any direct confrontation significantly increases the risks.
Western countries including my own have demilitarize heavily since the 1990s + rebuilt armies for counter terrorism, so sending more weapons to a land war isn't straightforward at all (as we've seen).
Western power is mostly centered around air and sea power and you can't easily transfer that to a 3rd party...especially three years late.
If neither Biden or now Trump is going to promise mass Tomahawks and IFVs galore then all we're left with is perpetuating a stalemate, not recovering sovereign land nor sufficiently punishing Russia. A couple more Storm Shadows and Leopard tanks from dwindling supplies aren't going to cut it.
> In order to do that they need to have a defined leader, not twenty some people each one pursuing their own interests
I mean on paper that's not really true. The US or whichever leader can't tell Poland to send troops, warships, or pilots into Ukraine because if Russia then sends a cruise missile into Warsaw it violates the NATO treaty which would require them all to react. There's no minor conflict exception, it moves as a unit. So the only option on the table is full NATO vs Russia, or status quo proxy war where weapons are funneled through it.
For Europe to properly defend Ukraine's sovereignty on their own they would have to break NATO commitments. Because I don't see continued supply of weapons from their small pool as sufficient to make a big difference... only to extend the war for a few more years, after which a very similar DMZ will be established.
To fight this war you need real military power: on the ground logistics, protected supply lines, large troop reserves to support offensive operations, etc. Weapons only get you so far.
I think the heart of the matter that I haven’t seen discussed yet is: Who’s going to pay for it? The current administration is cutting expenses across the board. There’s a lot of talk about the deficit and defense spending. I don’t see much appetite in the US to keep sending blank checks to Ukraine. Hence, the minerals deal: this was to recoup costs.
Of course, it would be great if defending democracy was free. However, with politicians already talking about cutting Medicaid spending, it was only a matter of time until defense spending came under scrutiny
Sending money to Ukraine saves US money. The equipment that Russia is losing means the US does not need to maintain as much military as before and fpr the cost of 90B US can permanently save maybe 30% of its mil budget going forward, especially is Russia clearly looses. One more year of support to Ikrain would destroy most of gerund Russian equipment and set it back for years.
If we apply this reasoning universally, should any sovereign nation engaged in war receive indefinite support as long as they are willing to fight?
Historical cases, such as the U.S. in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, suggest that prolonged external backing can lead to drawn out conflicts with high costs and unintended consequences.
Is there a point at which the costs/economic, political, or humanitarian of indefinite support outweigh the intended benefits? How do you think such a threshold be determined?
I think one should _at least_ consider alternatives pathways to achieve a resolution.
That is the current path (at least until today's meeting).
Maybe we get lucky and Putin dies or is deposed (and the successor is less hard-line). That's a lot of rolls that have to come down the right way.
More likely, Ukraine continues to bleed men until they can't defend Kyiv, then Russia takes all of Ukraine anyway except you've lost a lot of soldiers and weapons.
No matter what EU leaders say, I think they are beginning to realize that Ukraine will not win this war and time is not on their side. The EU may or may not continue to support Ukraine with weapons, but it will be half-hearted at best.
The EU will pressure Ukraine to freeze the conflict, but without any hard guarantees. In a few years, Russia will then begin the attack again and probably take Kyiv then.
It will be near-impossible to end this conflict with all of Ukrainian territory in Ukrainian hands while Putin is still in power. It would be a massive loss of face and power for Putin and he'll do anything to prevent it.
A successor (even a dictator and/or hard-liner) has a lot more manoeuvring space here, at least initially, because he can just blame it all on Putin.
Remember this all started with "we'll conquer all of Ukraine real quick, back in a jiffy". Putin pivoted to "no, we just wanted the eastern provinces" but everyone knew that was complete bollocks. The entire war is already a massive loss of face for Putin.
It's not warmongering to allow a country that has been invaded to determine how and how long they defend their country and which approaches they take towards peace.
Is it possible that you haven't been raised in a free democratic country? That would explain your patronizing attitude towards elected governments and other countries. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. It's really about sovereignty.
On a side note, it is never a good idea to allow your judgments to get clouded by anecdotal "evidence", let alone videos on social media. Use statistical data instead.
I merely have an intact and uncorrupted sense of justice. I believe that any country illegally attacked by another country should be helped and the people of that country (if it is democratic) should decide on their own how to defend themselves.
1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.
No-one is. If that's a hint at Russians, then no: they were on a brink of war throughout the 70s, tensions in the 80s, basically ignored one another since the 90s, however since the start of Ukraine war and both being on the receiving end of sanctions they started to drift closer, which could be described as "the West pushing Russia into Chinese embrace."
Stopping / freezing means russia continues to stock up at the current rate and and takes odessa and kaliningrad once trump term is up. The only option is for to create even more cost efficient+robust+sophisticated+massed drones and slug it out
Russia can’t escalate any more than they already have without directly attacking the US or with nukes, and in both cases, it’s suicide. They are struggling to take on Ukraine, let alone the US, and literally no country of influence would back them if they attacked or escalated to nukes.
I agree with you, but that's not what's being discussed here. If it were to come to kinetic warfare, Russian wouldn't stand a chance against the US as evidenced in Ukraine.
1. Is not about Ukraine. It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively while Ukraine suffers the losses on their behalf.
Think about it. They support Ukraine by sending them surplus or aged weapon systems while modernising and funnelling money to their military industrial complex (with public support!). In return Ukraine uses those weapons systems to keep Russia tied up in a war, exposing Russia's most modern weapon systems and providing a huge amount of information on how to fight a drone war.
This is a great investment independent of what happens in or to Ukraine, basically they turn weapons they needed to replace or get rid of anyway into intel, new weapons, political brownie points at home and a weakened adversary.
China doesn't mind it that much either, though they enjoy it less because they had invested fairly heavily into Ukrainian infrastructure that is being destroyed. Keeping Russia isolated makes it easy for them to extra cheap oil & gas, push for pipelines that flow to China instead of towards Europe and also offload a bunch of their industrial surplus now that their requirements are winding down and the rest of the world is trying to tariff them for dumping.
So basically the problem is 1. is good for almost everyone except Ukraine and Russia. Trump for whatever reason can't understand that and just wants to throw a tantrum as is befitting for someone of his intelligence.
> It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively
EU (germany) gets increasingly deindustrialised, to a big part due to energy costs associated with the war, and the related sanctions and sabotages. This war would not have even started if the previous US administration(s) had not pushed to that direction, europe was up to that point signing energy deals with Russia, they had no incentive for a full blown war. EU was following, and now they run around like headless chicken with no purpose, goal and prospects while Trump is basically trying to cash out of the situation. But I agree with you that, whatever this has to do with, the least is about Ukraine itself and democracy. Sadly we are never gonna move on from this false narrative until it is too late.
Right. And also you can never take that threat seriously when Russia is using it while on the offensive, because following that logic you should let them do whatever they want because nukes.
>We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do?
They are not going to risk their security for Ukraine. They wouldn't risk starting a nuclear war over Ukraine, it's stupid, even for their standards
If anyone use any nuke, the world as we know it is done, Ukraine might not be able to retaliate but others have already promised to. France did for instance.
No one want it, Putin and especially China. Current atomic weapon are no more the little Nagasaki Firecrackers.
I think you're at least a bit wrong in that this is about a lot more thn simply the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide.
So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.
> The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Nobody outside of the US has seen the US as that since at least the gulf war. US involvement since the 90s in foreign issues has been primarily for selfish purposes.
I think you need better wording for Option 1: Support Ukraine sufficiently so it can make its own decision if they want to continue fighting.
For Option 2 I actually don't see a lot of downsides except dead European soldiers replacing dead Ukrainian soldiers. Russia would absolutely stop if being stopped in their tracks more ferociously. In fact, Russia is already fighting this war all out. If they could they would do more (or at least I can't phantom why they would not).
Russia had a lot of equipment in storage, equipment that was supposed to be maintained. Strangely enough a lot of that equipment never saw any maintenance despite the maintenance budget being spent. That money 'disappeared' into someone's pockets.
Now these were conventional weapons, guns, tanks, trucks, etcetera. Stuff that you could imagine being used at some point, so there was some risk of being found out.
Now imagine you are a Russian general in charge of maintaining the nuclear stockpile. Weapons that you can reasonably expect never to be actually used. Even better, if you ever get in a situation where they would be used, it's basically the end of the world and no one is going to be alive to care if you pocketed the maintenance money anyway. How much of the allocated maintenance budget do you expect to have been spent on actual maintenance?
US intelligence agencies have said that unlike the other branches, the Russian nuclear forces are well managed and have relatively low levels of corruption. The gist is that more than enough of the rockets will work just fine and deliver bombs that will go boom.
You reveal the core problem for Ukrainian allies on either side of the Atlantic, which is that this war is much more important to Russia than it is to anyone else (not including Ukraine).
Even if so, it's a poor course of action to invite the defending leader to a talk, and ask publicly for his unconditional surrender _under a threat and praising of the invader_
US most certainly has anti ballistic missile tech, however wasting exposing it on Russia is something that is not worth it when there are more capable nations on the line.
Russia is special. They're a sophisticated adversary with a drastically different warfighting doctrine. They still optimize airframes for dogfighting, are laser-focused on hypersonic tech, and we don't officially know how good their missile defense is (probably excellent, or at least good enough to be dangerous, which is a bit of a theme).
They have a much lower defense budget, and have been forced to actually be creative and clever about problems, as opposed to our throw-money-at-problem-ergo-win approach.
tl;dr Russia is not a fun opponent, and they culturally really enjoy statecraft so best to stick with statecraft.
>and we don't officially know how good their missile defense is
we do know. Its mediocre at best.
The thing about Russia that most people don't get is that even before all of this happened, there was no money to be made in terms of talent for stuff that requires engineering. Everyone who was smart was leaving the country so they could make much better salaries elsewhere.
They are a full scale paper tiger, none of their stuff even from cold war era is as good as the propaganda claimed.
The Russian planes true stealth metrics are never going to get published. Russia will exaggerate it, US will never reveal that it can be actually detected. Russia had their latest fighter at the Chinese air show, and it was FAR from stealth.
Sure there is a 0.1% chance it may be able to hold 2 circle or one circle against F22, considering that no F22 has ever flown publicly within its full maneuverability envelope, but it sure as shit would lose to the flying supercomputer that is the F35 because BVR missiles that are smart enough to avoid countermeasures are a thing now. Some even use optical tracking.
As far as ICBM defense goes, we did this back in 2002:
If Russia could bomb kyiv more than they have, they already would have. They literally dont have the strength.
Nukes would likely drag Europeans into the war formally, which Russia cant handle. They dont have resilience, and their oligarchs dont want a nuclear war any more than we do. At the end of the day they are cowards; once their actual livlihood is at stake they will cut and run to save whats left.
Russias only actual card is political division. Biden effectively gambled the US would be more politically resilient than it actually is, and appears to have been wrong. Putin gambled he could manipulate enough in the US to turn the tide.
Now that Trump has exposed it, imo it actually increases the risk because now one warning Nuke can maybe whip his followers into line.
Ultimately today Z played new cards. He saw the writing on the wall, knowing agreeing to Trumps current deal would likely be the (eventual) end of his country. So he appealed to the US voter. This bypasses Trump so it was never going to end well. Now the next phase plays out. Trump tries to discredit z; if he wins its over. If he loses we go back to the Biden plan, rebranded as the Trump plan one way or another.
Strategic victory for Putin in the meantime. JD isnt cut out for the big stage is my main take away.
One nuke and the whole of NATO will back down. To think that we could respond to the limited use of nukes conventionally is extremely naive, and to think that the limited use of nukes can be responded to with a limited use of nukes w/o escalation to global nuclear war is -quite frankly- stupid beyond belief.
My own sense is that Putin waited Biden out to see what might happen in the 2024 elections, and now that Trump is back and conciliatory there is no need for him to escalate to limited nuclear war. And my sense is that Trump understands Putin's limits and that is why Trump is keen to make peace on terms vaguely approaching a complete capitulation to Russia -- for Trump it's not his war anyways, so for him it's not so much capitulation but something that can be sold as another domestic political victory over the Democrats and the Washington establishment.
Russia is basically not a major player anymore. It's a vassal state of PRC. Thinking it would be a useful ally against PRC is a complete misread of the situation. Sacrificing a state and alliance with EU for this is doubly insane. US and West was doing absolutely fine and held ground and the values (freedom etc) against oppressive dictatorships right up until this year. It's distressing.
Russia is expending its soviet cold war materiel. Its trade embargo is seriously undermining its ability to continue to fight. It may be sooner than we think that they'll run out of weapons and equipment so long as Ukraine has support from its allies.
One obvious alternative is to not to behave like a bully but like a real leader. The US could disengage in much more orderly fashion, if it so pleased.
But that doesn't change the underlying problem. How do we stop Putin getting what he wants? If you're saying, there's nothing we can do but the US should be nicer about it, well, I guess that's right, but somewhat useless.
He covered that. NATO troops and security guarantees are only credible if the US/EU is willing to send troops to die in the Donbas. If they're truly willing to do that, why not do it now?
Yes, you did forget a scenario where a EU, US and possibly other countries military presence is on the table as a threat to deter further escalations by Russia, but does not actually occur.
To be more specific, you give Ukraine what it needs to freeze the current lines, a cease fire is signed, Russia gets to stop fighting while saving face, and the unoccupied part of Ukraine gets what would amount to NATO membership without formally joining .
The status of the occupied territories remains ambiguous, with the West and Ukraine banking on a change in leadership in Russia at some point in the future.
As far as I can tell, this is the type of deal that Zelensky thought he came to DC for.
The goal was always to support Ukraine for long enough to pressure Russia into the negotiation table, the concessions could varied, no one knows. Ukraine knows it cannot get it all, but they know they won't settle for nothing either.
We know this given how close even Trump got to having discussions with both parties. His competence was not there to finish any deal and took the worse turn possible.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war. It has far more to lose and therefore can and will commit far more of its population and resources to the fight.
Russia has a greater population, but has been relying largely on conscripts among the poor, the incarcerated, and third world nations likes North Korea. Thats a resource that is far smaller in number than their total population. As soon as it’s tapped out, they either have to give up are start conscripting people in the middle and upper classes, and that will turn the Russian population on the war and their leaders faster than anything.
Right because countries with smaller populations can't beat larger ones when defending their homeland. Oh wait that's exactly what happened in Afghanistan vs USSR and USA, Vietnam etc.
I think Russia would be much more weary to attack a re-armed, well supported and "rested" Ukraine that would be bolstered by defeating goliath, even if at great loss, remember that everyone thought they would capitulate within two weeks.
In this war the only winners are US/EU weapons manufacturers, there is no winning scenario. Something Trump cannot understand and Putin cannot accept.
Let Ukraine attack Russia through European territory. Let them take Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg. Ukraine is boxed in right now but all those other places are lightly defended
Kaliningrad likely has some nukes and offer no benefit for Ukraine to hold or even damage. most of the valuable targets for Ukraine would be reachable by long range missiles. No one wants to supply. Sadly the play seems to be increase Ukrainian lethality and force Russia to conscript more Russians from bigger cities to erode support for the conflict.
The USA used to fight proxy vs proxy against Russia. Now we have a chance for us to fight through a proxy against Russia itself. This is a huge geopolitical opportunity to diminish or even destroy an enemy with low risk to the US itself.
The whole liberal-democratic world should be all-in on Ukraine assistance.
Instead, Trump just made it clear that the optimal time for PRC v ROC round 2 is within the next 3 year 10 months.
I'd look at the minimum viable option as providing enough materiel that the worst case situation is eventually similar to North and South Korea. But I also think it is conceivable that non minimum options are possible.
Put economic pressure upon Russia so it cannot support its war efforts. Meanwhile, Ukraine should be given anything it needs to defend itself effectively. Do you think it is palatable?
Russia had three years, no eleven, to escalate this war but has not done so. You'd think the Kursk invasion would have triggered but it has has not. It is us Europeans who have to escalate this war, show strength because it's the modus that Putin operates on and the only language he understands. I want to see an ultimatum after which we not only create this no-fly-zone over Ukraine but also send men (I'll include my own grey beard here) to Ukraine to help them push the invaders out. If that happens we need to set a second ultimatum after which we simple invade Russia.
It's sad to say: But as with my native Germany, it will take a complete defeat for the Russian people to have even a chance to embrace democracy. I'm somewhat disappointed that the future of Russian people is barely ever mentioned. Take away Putin and his cronies, give them democracy like (West) Germany did and the EU re-gains access to a huge market.
> 4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
It would have been in the US best interest to have done this twenty years ago, but some greedy bastards thought there would be untold riches in breaking up Russia, to have "two, three, many Ukraines". They failed.
Russia is a mafia that owns a gas station, not a global power. They’d be irrelevant without nuclear weapons. Their economy is roughly the same size as the state of Texas.
Just because they have nuclear weapons doesn’t make them a reliable partner in global geopolitics. Trusting Russia in any sort of alliance is a foolish move if you’re familiar with history.
russia hasn't been cutoff economically still. 3 years and the economy is going down but not as fast as it should have. The leaders of the west think they are playing a game here with pros and cons. There are no pros and a huge con with number 3 on it. How the fuck can anyone still trade with russia.
This should have been retaliation of the western world years ago.
I'm not sure if Putin/Russia can sustain option 1 for much longer, given the huge economical, military and political drain, especially in combination with effective sanctions.
So keeping it up might destabilize Putin, without further escalating the conflict. Seems like the sanest of bad options to me.
> Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
It _is_ possible with the combo of weapons and economic sanctions. Ukraine (had) more economic support, so it is both a war of blood and endurance, endurance which Ukraine could have by being a porcupine with next-gen weapons and non-stop bleeding for Russia until things start hitting the oligarch's pocketbooks too far and the people of Russia begin to demand regime change.
Russia is a glorified gas station. You can hurt it dramatically with economic sanctions because its whole GDP is concentrated into one sector.
Imo if Trump really cared about America's long term security, he would be trying to fund research into cheaper / easier to produce next-gen weapons for Ukraine to test for us, instead of complaining how much our HIMARS and tanks currently cost, firing top military brass, cozying up to a dictator, and trying to exploit a ravaged democratic ally.
Maybe. But Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either because they feared Russian reaction. Now, with so many Ukrainian soldiers dead, it will be much harder.
Economic sanctions won't affect Russia as long as China is behind them. And if the West is against Russia, they will do anything to keep China as an ally.
Sanctions work! But their enforcement requires attention. Russians are draining their fund to the last drop and there is not much left, they cannot easily get a credit either. Unfortunately, these last weeks give some breathing room to Russians and their evasion schemes as people who look after sanctions are being fired.
> Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either because they feared Russian reaction
And this was a mistake, one that they slowly tried to reverse once they realized Ukraine wasn't going to be a pushover especially with modern weaponry.
I think the "mineral rights" deal might play into this. In the full interview[0], Trump mentions it right off the bat, and talks about how it "means we're going to be inside".
I think it goes in tandem with your number (3). Like you say, why would Russia not violate the agreement? I think maybe the move is "well now we have citizens in there working so don't blow us up". It's one thing for Russia to attack the Ukraine, but another if they have collateral damage that takes out Americans.
I don't even know how valuable the actual underlying resources are, so much as a bit of "kayfabe" between the Ukraine, US, and Russia, that things are different.
Zelenekys issue with that plan is the lack of guarantees, because of what happened the last time. He believes Russia will restrengthen faster than his country and when interest wanes, comes right back.
Trumps issue is he knows the lack of guarantees is a better deal for the US because we gain much and risk nothing. He wants to make a deal and get credit, i dont think he really cares what happens after. Maybe he does, i wish that to be the case. But i dont believe it.
The reality is there can't be guarantees only temporary peace. If the deal fails, Russia won't attack mineral deposits owned by US. US would probably send troops to "protect" US resources.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.
that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
This is really Trump's plan? And what makes you think Americans would support sending US troops to defend East Asia if they're not willing to fight for Ukraine? And what makes you think Russia will sit there idling while the US fights China in the pacific?
#1 is the least bad because Putin only has the resources to keep going for so long and will eventually have to quit (while looking for a way to save face). There is a lot of resentment in Russia about their boys dying in Afghanistan and at some point the Russian people will not put up with the loss of life anymore.
The U.S. abandoned Georgia in the 00s because it was indefensible.
The Ukraine is also very difficult to defend, especially since it seems like such a touchy issue for Russia. I doubt that Russia would go to full-scale nuclear war over Ukraine but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small scale use of nuclear weapons on -say- Brussels. And if Russia makes enough of those Oreshnik missiles they could easily take out most of Europe's air forces in one go without going nuclear, and thus change the balance of power in Ukraine.
The question really is: at what price Ukraine?
Your (1), (2), and (3) are no solutions. Pausing the war now simply means escalating it later.
Depending on Trump's understanding of Russia's limits (I say Trump's because he might have a better understanding that the public), (4) may be the only workable option.
If Ukraine received twice the military aid, they would have already won. Drip feeding aid was worst of all worlds, outside allying with Russia. Both US and Europe got deterred by Putin's nuclear threats. Which means logically next step for Europe is drastically increase their nuclear stockpile.
I don't know what answer you expect. I think you didn't really miss options (broadly speaking), but your interpretation of each option is opinionated, and this is extremely opinionated topic (obviously). So I wouldn't say you are wrong, you are just... opinionated.
1st one isn't really about "buying time". The prolongation of conflict is not a "side-effect" here, it's the whole point. And IMO it's a solid plan, honestly. If I was a citizen of the USA without any morals or inclinations to travel abroad, I would probably support it. This isn't a 100% solid plan, there are actually some questions if it works as it was supposed to work, but the incentive here seems blatantly obvious to me: war weakens Russia, weakens Europe, and nobody cares about Ukraine anyway, so by investing into the war carefully USA ends up winning, same as after WW1 and WW2. To me, the game plan is obvious here. It's just cynical, and that's why Biden (and other public-speaking supporters of the plan) would never say it as it is. No real politician would.
As to Europe wanting that... well, I would say it seems current EU leadership wants that, and I have pretty hard time explaining why, so I'll leave it aside. If you want some random data point: I, as a European citizen definitely don't want that. I don't doubt the majority of my fellow EU citizens would say they "support the support of Ukraine", but I don't find it surprising, given all media outlets chant 24/7 about how horrible Russia/Putin is.
I mean, yes, that's kinda saying "I think I know better than these guys", but I just don't see any benefits for the actual people (not governments) living in EU. This war hurts the economics, it hurts the relationships, and I personally have relatives in Ukraine, so I just want it to stop. I don't care on which terms, and obviously it cannot be the terms on which the war started. It's way too deep into the conflict and too many lives lost to call it a good outcome, but it's the best outcome.
So, not being a citizen of the USA, I am in favor of that alternative which is "as stupid as it sounds", the last one. I mostly have problems not with the option itself, but with the fact that for Trump to want it is not enough for it to happen. Because, as stated, a lot of people don't want this to happen, and it almost seems like Trump is mistaking being POTUS for being God. Meaning, the way he is doing things is stupidly blunt. It might work, it might escalate things more. In any case, having all of HN whining about how ashamed they are of their president is not a good start. And that product he helped BBC to make works awful for him and his plan.
If European leadership does this right, Europe will emerge out of this much stronger than they went into it. It has already strengthened the collaboration across the EU‘s nations, has led to higher defense spending, will lead to even higher defense spending, will drastically increase energy independence, and eventually also increase EU‘s soft power (because they would have the hard power to back it up). If they play it right
Had this on another comment, but decided to respond here more in the root:
If Russia invades a NATO country, then you guys can worry about WW3. Until then, leave it be. We could have avoided a million deaths by now if we weren't adamant to "stick it to Russia". Either Ukraine is a part of NATO, or not.
If the world let it be back in 2022, Russia would have finished invading Ukraine in a week, and then would have been stuck dealing with incredible amounts of terrorism and guerilla warfare coming from a very large Ukrainian population. What exactly would that outcome have helped them in this supposedly-dangerous "invasion of Europe"? More balls and courage to invade another country?
Same outcome if they win tomorrow after 3 bloody years of war. You think they want another European country? What for? You think Putin can continue to convince his populace to keep subsidizing more wars at this point?
1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this just buying time for someone to depose Putin?
2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice? If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2 right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let Russia rearm.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
Did I miss anything?
The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from getting what he wants.
My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.