35 ms·

His strategy was to give Ukraine just enough weapons to prevent annihilation without giving them so many weapons that would allow them to win. Hence, quagmire.

His strategy was to give Ukraine just enough weapons to prevent annihilation without giving them so many weapons that would allow them to win. Hence, quagmire. The weapon sales also came with conditions like not allowing them to strike deep within Russia itself, all of which prolongs the war without leading to a clear victor.

timcobb 26d ago
But Russia and Putin can end the war at their earliest convenience. Your perspective discounts the agency of the aggressor, places all agency in weaponry (as opposed to the will of the defenders) and doesn't acknowledge that the Biden approach offered a continuous off-ramp that should have been taken. I'm not sure how allowing Russia to not suffer defeat means that they must continue their barbaric war against Ukraine.
- nostrademons 24d ago
  They can't, really. Putin's domestic power base will not let him suffer a defeat. His power is predicated on seeming all-powerful; once he doesn't, then other internal threats within Russia which have been kept at bay by fear will be emboldened, and the Russian state collapses. This is a worse security outcome for the U.S. than having a hostile dictator in charge of Russia; with the status quo, at least the enemy is visible, we know who has the nuclear launch codes, and his future actions can be reasoned about, while if a nuclear-armed state descends into anarchy we have no idea who the threat is and they have no incentive not to launch. The mistake here is in seeing this as a clash of two nation-states that are each unified actors. Humans have agency; states are social constructs. It is quite possible for a state to disintegrate if the ideas holding it together are proven false. The Soviet Union did just that 35 years ago, and it could easily happen again this generation.
  - timcobb 23d ago
    > Putin's domestic power base will not let him suffer a defeat. Too bad though, don't start wars man. No one is going to throw you a bone if you start a war that no one else wants happening. If you star a war, you need to be able to finish it. It's like that Seinfeld line about the car reservation, except wars. You don't get points for being scary, you get points for winning. > This is a worse security outcome for the U.S. than having a hostile dictator in charge of Russia; I disagree... bigger picture we don't want this kind of thing festering, it never works out well. It's not managable, despite people acting like these things can be managed. They can't, and that's why we're seeing this situation. Similar to Hamas in Gaza. It was left to fester, thought it had more clout and power than it did, and look what happened. Nothing good. > The Soviet Union did just that 35 years ago, and it could easily happen again this generation. Russia is going to fall apart, we're going to be left with Muscovy, God willing.

timcobb 26d ago

But Russia and Putin can end the war at their earliest convenience. Your perspective discounts the agency of the aggressor, places all agency in weaponry (as opposed to the will of the defenders) and doesn't acknowledge that the Biden approach offered a continuous off-ramp that should have been taken. I'm not sure how allowing Russia to not suffer defeat means that they must continue their barbaric war against Ukraine.

nostrademons 24d ago
They can't, really. Putin's domestic power base will not let him suffer a defeat. His power is predicated on seeming all-powerful; once he doesn't, then other internal threats within Russia which have been kept at bay by fear will be emboldened, and the Russian state collapses. This is a worse security outcome for the U.S. than having a hostile dictator in charge of Russia; with the status quo, at least the enemy is visible, we know who has the nuclear launch codes, and his future actions can be reasoned about, while if a nuclear-armed state descends into anarchy we have no idea who the threat is and they have no incentive not to launch. The mistake here is in seeing this as a clash of two nation-states that are each unified actors. Humans have agency; states are social constructs. It is quite possible for a state to disintegrate if the ideas holding it together are proven false. The Soviet Union did just that 35 years ago, and it could easily happen again this generation.
- timcobb 23d ago
  > Putin's domestic power base will not let him suffer a defeat. Too bad though, don't start wars man. No one is going to throw you a bone if you start a war that no one else wants happening. If you star a war, you need to be able to finish it. It's like that Seinfeld line about the car reservation, except wars. You don't get points for being scary, you get points for winning. > This is a worse security outcome for the U.S. than having a hostile dictator in charge of Russia; I disagree... bigger picture we don't want this kind of thing festering, it never works out well. It's not managable, despite people acting like these things can be managed. They can't, and that's why we're seeing this situation. Similar to Hamas in Gaza. It was left to fester, thought it had more clout and power than it did, and look what happened. Nothing good. > The Soviet Union did just that 35 years ago, and it could easily happen again this generation. Russia is going to fall apart, we're going to be left with Muscovy, God willing.