Duh.
That was my point, ie, that it can be difficult
to decide which wars to pursue, which to end,
& when to compromise.
Exactly, which is why such decisions should never be made lightly or in a cavalier manner. It requires careful, objective, detached, and practical thinking not rooted in fear, anger, or hysteria.
Duh again.
There are certainly people who think that way.
Do you oppose helping Ukraine because of
such thoughts?
No, but I don't see that it would be appeasement or showing weakness if we called for a negotiated truce. It's the best way to stop the current bloodbath that's going on. It might save some lives, both Ukrainian and Russian lives. I can't see what's wrong with wanting to save lives. I really don't.
Is that all you think Ukraine's defense
against Russian invasion is?
No, quite the contrary, but that's how some people seem to be portraying it. Especially when they speak of ambiguous perceptions like "appeasement" and "showing weakness." It's almost as if some people look at the world as some kind of "jungle" - packs of wild dogs. I don't generally look at the world that way, which is why my viewpoint might be at variance with the current mainstream Western narrative. It doesn't mean that I'm taking sides, although as a humanist, I tend to favor peaceful resolutions which might be more conducive to saving lives.
It might be different if some of our military geniuses could actually offer up some workable, viable "secret plan" to win the war with their desired outcome. If they could come up with some quick, easy plan that would expend the fewest lives possible - and one that could actually have a chance at working, then by all means, let's go for it.
In other words, if you can win, then go ahead and do it. And if you can't do it, then you might have to look at other options.
The question is whether the fight could
come to our shores, & should preventive
measures start beforehand. Don't dismiss
the possibility when considering how to
respond to such aggression.
I'll admit that anything is possible. We can't really predict the future, but we can try to anticipate possibilities based on past events and hypothetical scenarios and speculation. It also needs to be put in context of the nations involved, their own history, and what we know about their traditional national security perceptions.
Besides that, Putin would be signing his own death warrant if he attacked a NATO country and triggered the whole alliance against him. We can certainly take measures to defend our shores if ever and whenever necessary. And we also have an obligation to defend our NATO allies, which Russia is fully aware of. So, based on historical knowledge and the current geopolitical configuration, I would say it's extremely unlikely that Putin would attack any NATO country or other U.S. ally - regardless of whatever may occur in Ukraine.
It doesn't appear that Russia could go any further now anyway, though it also appears that Ukraine will not be pushing the Russians out of there any time soon. Stalemate. So, what do they do? Keep fighting and killing each other for no territorial gain whatsoever? That's just needless killing and destruction. Russia's population is more than three times larger than Ukraine, and their resource and industrial base are enough to sustain them for the long haul, even despite Western sanctions. Even as hobbled and struggling as they appear to be, they're in a far better position, strategically, in terms of enduring a war of attrition than Ukraine is at present, even with Western aid.
Also, it's been made clear that the U.S. will not send its own military forces to Ukraine to fight the Russians, which would effectively put us at war with Russia - and increase the dimensions of the war to global proportions. Then, we would have to be watching our shores, such as the shores of Alaska (for starters, but the entire US would be under threat). Since that's off the table and not an option, then we're kind of stuck in this kind of pickle.
