(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Should Ukraine Weapons Aid Be Limited? [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-02-12 M1 Abrams Tank The West is constantly debating about whether or how far to support Ukraine with more modern and effective weapons, such as main battle tanks, long range rockets, and warplanes. A small number of tanks (as many as 200) were recently agreed within NATO, but these will need a year to be fully deployed. Military experts say this is not enough to be a game-changer, and possibly too late. The consensus to date seems to be this: send enough military aid to avoid defeat, hope that Putin will not escalate beyond Ukraine, wait and see what happens. Maybe enough is being done. Maybe the Russians will be stalemated into negotiations. Maybe Putin will fall from a high window, like many of his detractors. Maybe Putin will accept some craven deal, such as 25% of Ukraine in return for "peace in our time". Many in the West want such a deal, but Ukraine is not ready to compromise, and it is their land and their blood at stake. Such a compromise may only delay the ultimate reckoning with Russia, and the price could be higher. The reluctance for a greater commitment to Ukraine has several reasons. No political leader wants their country to be a party to the war. They fear Putin may attack them. So they rely on a fig leaf legalism: providing weapons does not make them an official war party (and surely Putin agrees!). This delusion makes them feel safer and is a good political excuse for inaction. A substantial part of the public is against providing weapons, because they feel this will prolong the war and increase the suffering and death without changing the outcome. They feel that stopping Putin is not possible or not worth the sacrifice (of Ukrainian lives and Western money). Ukraine evidently feels otherwise. There is a minority who believe that Putin was provoked by NATO and has a right to defend Russia against NATO threats. Some even believe Putin's propaganda that Ukraine is a corrupt NAZI state and US puppet that was about to attack Russia. Political leaders may fear voter skepticism and be reluctant to give them more reasons for criticism. Leading from behind is safer: wait for a more solid consensus before acting. The Chancellor Scholz example: debate forever and wait and hope for consensus, so that Germany is only one of a large group including the USA and most NATO nations. This makes Germany less of a target, Scholz hopes. He forgets that Russia is having a hard time defeating Ukraine, so attacking a NATO nation would be sheer madness. Moldova may have a right to be afraid, but not Germany. Many influential persons are saying that there is a risk of WW-3 if the West helps Ukraine too much and provokes Putin into a wider war. Putin (or one of his stooges) threatens escalation almost daily. In fact, Putin cannot escalate his conventional war, since his army is nearly exhausted from fighting Ukraine. Nuclear escalation would lead to a massive NATO intervention (if Biden is to be believed), and Russia's economic ruin by becoming a global pariah state. Putin is not so stupid or deluded as to believe he could win the war with a nuclear attack, but he may win using threats of a nuclear attack to inhibit further military aid to Ukraine. One may fear that Putin is really crazy enough to attack with nukes. I suppose this is possible, barely. Should the West let Putin conquer Ukraine because of this threat? What would be the wider consequences in years to come? Putin apparently feels he can win in the long run, even if he is stalemated at present and losing enormous numbers of soldiers and equipment. Over months and years, Russian war production can rise enormously, as it did in WW-2. If Russia were to seriously mobilize, a million troops could be put into Ukraine. The West may lose faith and political support for a never-ending war and its economic cost. American politics could change with a president less committed (i.e. more of an America First attitude). Putin's mission remains constant: he sees Russia as a special nation destined to regain its former power and prestige, like Hitler's vision for Germany after its defeat in WW-1. Putin motivates his people with claims of Russian superiority over a corrupt and decadent West that is trying to destroy Russia. He intends to finish the job on Ukraine and then advance to the next stage of Russian greatness, perhaps taking the Baltic states. Can you imagine what would happen if Putin emerges victorious? Ukraine would become enslaved in a tyranny, like Russia. (In case you haven't noticed, Stalinism is back, complete with political murders and gulags. Putin openly idolizes Stalin.) Political leaders in Ukraine would flee or be murdered. Children would be taken away and given to Russian families (happening now in the Russian-occupied territories). Europe would have to deal with >10 million refugees fleeing from their new Russian paradise. If Putin is defeated, who knows what would happen? Putin would likely be done with: executed, imprisoned, or driven into exile (China? The Hague?). His successor could hardly be as bad, if only because he would not depend on victory in Ukraine for personal survival. A period of chaos could begin. An emerging democracy is a long shot (one tried to catch fire after the fall of the USSR but quickly died because of the economic chaos). At least the Russian aggressor state would be less dangerous for a while, and Europe would have time to become stronger. The confiscated wealth of the oligarchs would be used to rebuild Ukraine, along with economic aid from the West. Ukraine would have the relative safety of NATO and the EU. The West must stop trying to sustain the appearance of action while hoping the problem will somehow work out. There must be no limits on aid to Ukraine, including fighter jets and even NATO troops, if this is what it takes to defeat Putin. Ask yourself: if Putin would win his war without NATO intervention, what should NATO do? The willingness to do whatever is needed, including Troops, should be shouted at Putin, for this is also a way to weaken him. The fact is that Ukraine is fighting for Europe's future, and Europe is getting a free ride while Ukrainians are dying. Anything less than a full commitment to Ukraine is morally repugnant and strategically stupid. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/12/2152658/-Should-Ukraine-Weapons-Aid-Be-Limited Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/