Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Is the argument being made that Ukraine should surrender the annexed territories in order to save the world from nuclear holocaust?
Seems like a bit of stretch.
|
No, more that the goals and possible outcomes need to be somewhat realistic given the context. When you're dealing with a nuclear power, there are always lines where the risk/benefit of crossing them just doesn't make sense. So I do think some of Ukraine's maximalist goals are non-starters, even if they could theoretically make them happen militarily. For instance, I'll be absolutely shocked if Crimea doesn't remain in Russia after the war.
Ukraine's efforts are primarily being bankrolled by NATO. So where their interests and NATO's interests diverge, the latter's are likely going to take precedence. So when people are saying that the US needs to help deescalate, they're saying that if the risks of nuclear war are credible, then the US should step in and dial things back, even if it's counter to Ukraine's interests. And they're already doing that to some extent. The US refuses to supply longer-range guided missiles because they could potentially be used to attack Russia-proper. And so far they've refused to provide tanks or jets, even though they could offer tremendous help to Ukraine's efforts.
In other words, if tacitly hampering Ukraine's ability to win the war (by strictly limiting types of US weapons support) in order to protect against a theoretical threat of escalation has been a reasonable position this whole time, then why would doing the same thing in the face of a credible threat of escalation to nuclear weapons (if such a threat exists) be appeasement?