You can lose the hysterics on the US never having attacked Soviet troops through a proxy during the Cold War. I think you have forgotten all about Afghanistan, and in any event, had the Soviets moved in Europe outside the Warsaw Pact areas, you would have seen the same, or greater resistance. It is Putin's aggression that provoked this r…
You can lose the hysterics on the US never having attacked Soviet troops through a proxy during the Cold War. I think you have forgotten all about Afghanistan, and in any event, had the Soviets moved in Europe outside the Warsaw Pact areas, you would have seen the same, or greater resistance. It is Putin's aggression that provoked this reaction, not greater US resistance than we witnessed in the Cold War.
Well. If Russia was involved in a war with US troops in Mexico and Russia announced that it was authorizing Mexico to shoot missiles into South Texas (but only on a limited basis) it probably would be a big deal for Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I do get the logic of what the US is doing. Ukraine has been in an excruciating situation since the start of the war, forced to fight literally with one hand tied behind its back (what kind of a war is it where you are only allowed to defend rather than attack?). My point is just to not minimize the fact that, according to the sort of accepted terms of conflict, the US' decision is an escalation.
I think you are missing my broader thought, which is that material support for Ukraine was the Rubicon that the US crossed, and an admirable one at that. Billions of dollars that can be used to kill Russians -- whether military or civilian -- is the point, not the identity of the tools used to do it. Do you think we would or should care whether Russians not only fund organizations attacking US citizens, but also actually made the weapons doing it?
Point taken. These kinds of dances, though, do seem very important for the diplomacy of the war. The Russian view at the moment is that the US is attacking Russian soil and, any way you cut it, there will be diplomatic ramifications for that. But I agree that the Rubicon was crossed in 2022 if not 2014-15.
We are dealing with Putin's views, not Russian views. Putin is not not dancing with us, has no interest in diplomacy, and has an expansive view of what Russian soil is, including Ukraine, other SSRs, Poland, and perhaps even Alaska. The Russians have been at war with us for some time; it's only ourselves who have been deluded as to his aims. Let there be diplomatic ramifications.
You can lose the hysterics on the US never having attacked Soviet troops through a proxy during the Cold War. I think you have forgotten all about Afghanistan, and in any event, had the Soviets moved in Europe outside the Warsaw Pact areas, you would have seen the same, or greater resistance. It is Putin's aggression that provoked this reaction, not greater US resistance than we witnessed in the Cold War.
I said within Russia itself - not Russian troops. It’s a big deal, no?
Not to me. And probably not to most Russians. The second any of those weapons is used outside the theatre, Ukraine will lose its support.
Well. If Russia was involved in a war with US troops in Mexico and Russia announced that it was authorizing Mexico to shoot missiles into South Texas (but only on a limited basis) it probably would be a big deal for Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I do get the logic of what the US is doing. Ukraine has been in an excruciating situation since the start of the war, forced to fight literally with one hand tied behind its back (what kind of a war is it where you are only allowed to defend rather than attack?). My point is just to not minimize the fact that, according to the sort of accepted terms of conflict, the US' decision is an escalation.
I think you are missing my broader thought, which is that material support for Ukraine was the Rubicon that the US crossed, and an admirable one at that. Billions of dollars that can be used to kill Russians -- whether military or civilian -- is the point, not the identity of the tools used to do it. Do you think we would or should care whether Russians not only fund organizations attacking US citizens, but also actually made the weapons doing it?
Point taken. These kinds of dances, though, do seem very important for the diplomacy of the war. The Russian view at the moment is that the US is attacking Russian soil and, any way you cut it, there will be diplomatic ramifications for that. But I agree that the Rubicon was crossed in 2022 if not 2014-15.
We are dealing with Putin's views, not Russian views. Putin is not not dancing with us, has no interest in diplomacy, and has an expansive view of what Russian soil is, including Ukraine, other SSRs, Poland, and perhaps even Alaska. The Russians have been at war with us for some time; it's only ourselves who have been deluded as to his aims. Let there be diplomatic ramifications.
I think the permission is a huge deal and a huge mistake for the U.S. from a risk/reward POV.
Interesting David. It's true that the problem with escalation is always how you deescalate again.