That is a very odd take. Not that I disagree that it is a proxy war, it is, but the take that that is somehow immoral seems wrong.
Two people had a war, we decided to offer non-human-life support to the under dog. Why is that wrong. Assuming we think Ukranians deserve to be supported then why would providing them with money and weapons be morally worse than letting them die with no support?
Its a war with Russia. To win the war would take the full engagement of the entire USA military in a full our war with Russia. I personally wouldn't mind that engagement but its a order of magnitude difference in commitment.
Since we are obviously not willing to devote the entire USA military to the defense of Ukraine, clearly helping Ukraine extend a war out indefinitely is far superior than letting Ukraine be wiped off a map.
@freemo@randahl@trendytoots@freemo@randahl@trendytoots I think what #TimScott was hinting at, probably accidentally saying the truth, is that we're not giving #Ukraine the type of support they'd need to *win* the war, which would probably be troops on the ground; instead, we're giving them the type of support they need to not lose. That's not the same, and it's why currently there's no end to the war in sight.
In my opinion, using the military of a far smaller, barely-standing nation as human sacrifices before an enemy you're too wimpy to fight yourselves is wrong. The Ukrainians have suffered too much already, we don't need to trap them in a forever war too.
When the two parties involved remain static that would be true in many cases. 10x the deaths for a day is less than 10 years of 1/10ths the deaths. Sure thats fair.
But thats not the case here. We are talking about a relatively small war over a long period of time vs a world war involving the entire world, which based on past world wars is likely to last years.
To put this to actual numbers. WWII resulted in, on average, 10,000 deaths per day over a 7 year period. Resulting in 53 million deaths total.
By contrast in the ukranian-russian war, in its current phase has been going on for exactly 2 year as of 2 days ago. In the course of those two years there has been a total estimated death toll of half a million. That is 684 people per day.
So a large world war results in ~20x more people killed per day then a much smaller, but potentially longer lasting war. Considering a global war tends to not be short, as ~7 years given past incidents that would mean the russion-ukrain war would have to last 140 years in order to cause more casualties than the world war that would result if the USA got directly involved.
It would however be triggered by sending troops into Ukraine and then advancing those troops or firing at troops inside Russian borders. Which the only way for Ukraine to win, considering how outnumbered they are, is to take territory in retaliation to invasion.
When one side is free to take your land and you are forbbiden by your allies to take their, well your hands are tied and when the other country is 1000x your size it is a guaranteed loss for you eventually.
@snack@realcaseyrollins@randahl@trendytoots@freemo Article 5 is about an attack on a member state. It would not be triggered by sending troops into Ukraine. It may however tempt Putin into doing something stupid, like attacking Poland or the Baltic States. And that _would_ trigger Article 5.
That would trigger article 5 and start World War 3. Allies of the U.S would be under obligation to join as has been the case in the past. China would also become involved as part of it's "no limits" alliance with Russia.