sycasey said:
Zippergate said:
Try to imagine a scenario where Russia is firing missiles into the United States through a proxy. Would you still have a cavalier attitude then?
I'll have an opinion on that if and when it actually happens. Who do you think is going to directly attack the US?
I think in many respects Putin is bluffing to deter escalation (e.g., his threat to use tactical nukes).
That being said, to the original point, Putin will likely escalate. And Putin doesn't have to respond by attacking the US. Hopefully the response is aimed at Ukraine - which now has a state department warning. But he could attack a NATO country in his neighborhood (Poland, which I believe is aiding Ukraine, or Finland/Sweden). What then? Now you have a test of the NATO alliance . . . which probably has to respond.
The real question is . . . why remove the restraints on Ukraine now? You should fight to win or not fight. Either the restraints should have been removed a long time ago or not at all. But Biden didn't want to escalate. Again - why now?
That is the problem with Biden's entire Ukraine policy - he has been hesitant and late to take the actions needed to win. Similar problems with Israel where the Gaza war could have been over by now if Biden had let the Israelis fight to win.
I have very mixed feelings about Ukraine and can see worthy arguments on both sides. But, unlike Biden, I have the luxury of not being responsible for setting policy. Biden's policy has been a muddled rudderless disaster with no clear strategic objectives.