There are way too many, in my opinion, that are calling for all out war with Russia…..since I am a staunch antiwar individual I will not support any armed involvement in the conflict between Ukraine and ‘Vlad the Invader’…..
But what can the West do to support and aid Ukraine in their fight?
Across the world, political leaders and ordinary citizens have condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, there seems to be basically no chance that the United States or any other major world power would send its troops to fight on the Ukrainians’ behalf — for the simple reason that doing so could plausibly lead to a wider war, and even nuclear conflict.
The question then becomes: What can America and its allies do if they continue to rule out direct intervention?
The answer is quite a lot, much of which — though by no means all — is being done already.
The basic Western strategy has been to make the war more painful for Putin: Supply the Ukrainians with weapons while imposing crippling sanctions on the Russian economy. These measures are designed to shift Putin’s cost-benefit analysis, making the war costly enough that he’ll look for some kind of exit. In broad strokes, experts say, it’s a sound strategy — one that can still be escalated, albeit within certain bounds.
“The West has to keep going full speed in the current direction,” says Yoshiko Herrera, a political scientist who studies Russia at the University of Wisconsin Madison. “Right now is not the time to let up on pressure.”
At the same time, Washington and its allies need to think more carefully about their endgame.
My problem is that the US has found $800 million for aid to Ukraine…..with growing poverty and hunger in this country some of that cash would be better spent here helping struggling Americans.
That aside there needs to be a debate on foreign policy instead of always a knee jerk reaction with military hardware…..now is the time for such a debate…..as hard as it may be…..
Conflicts that we now think of as uniting the country were still political. Americans were torn over what to do in World War II, for example. Congress passed a series of neutrality acts in the 1930s, and these isolationist policies were responsible for America’s late entry into the war. And, of course, unity sometimes came at a price. The U.S. government’s steps to punish anti-war speech during World War I, for instance, are good examples of going too far with the idea that dissent is inherently harmful to war efforts.
The reality is that foreign policy has always been contested — and, more often than not, linked to questions of identity and ideology. But debates about war are so interwoven with our larger culture-war politics now that most questions of how to handle military conflict have been largely reduced to partisan scoring. And that’s a problem — not because we need to get back to some bygone bipartisan era, but because real dissension is vital in a democracy, especially in matters of foreign policy.
The seeds of war politics’ merging with culture-war politics arguably date back to the late 1960s, when anti-Vietnam War protests overlapped with civil rights protests and other social movements that challenged the existing social order. Over time, conservatives and liberals diverged in their attitudes toward the war, especially as liberal elites began to criticize it. Starting with the 1968 presidential election, being anti-war became more closely associated with being a liberal Democrat. And the accusation that George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, was all for “acid, amnesty1 and abortion” helped solidify this cultural connection.
Time for a real debate before it is too late for a solution other than going to yet another war.
Turn The Page!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”