US officials are assessing how the incursion might reshape the political and military dynamics of the war, as well as the implications for Washington’s long-shifting stance on how Ukraine can use American-supplied arms.
The stunning raid, catching both Russian and apparently Western leaders by surprise, highlights one of the riskiest dilemmas for the Western-backed defence of Ukraine: President Biden has consistently tried to empower Kyiv to push back Russia’s invasion without risking an American escalation with Moscow. As President Putin has always tried to portray the conflict as a war between Russia and the West, Mr Biden has sought to put clear limits on US policy to deflate that narrative and prevent a conflagration.
But Ukraine’s Kursk assault – the largest incursion into Russia by a foreign military since World War Two, according to military analysts – has raised a series of urgent questions for the White House. Does it rapidly expand the boundaries of Washington’s set limits for how Ukraine can use American and Nato weapons systems? Does it risk crossing Russia’s red lines over Western involvement in the war? If not, has President Zelensky showed Washington he can call Mr Putin’s bluff?
I know that I break ranks with many of my conservative brethren on this war, but I do not think that is in our national interest to prop up Zelensky’s dictatorial regime in opposition to Putin’s. Yes, I get that Ukraine is bleeding out Russia’s military capacity. Yes, I understand that a Russian victory would make it slightly easier for Putin to invade a NATO country, thus pulling the U.S. into a hot war. That risk is, however, minimal.
But I also understand that Russia occupying a hostile Ukranian population would keep Putin bloodied and distracted for years. And Ukraine was a corrupt oligarchy before Russia invaded it. It was only marginally better than Russia in the first place.
Also, by leaning into this war so hard supporting Ukraine, we have pushed Russia and China closer together. We have also incented Putin to attempt to launch proxy wars to attack our interests in other regions. And while the war may be bleeding Russia’s military, it is having the same impact on the American military readiness and economy.
So what do we do now? The veneer of Ukraine fighting a defensive war to push Russia out of their national territory has been shorn off. Now Ukraine is an active belligerent that is occupying Russia’s national territory. Should we really be supporting one side over the other in a regional war? Or should we be focused on arming and fortifying our NATO allies that border Russia and Ukraine? Given the absence of leadership in America, what is our national policy here?
>Should we really be supporting one side over the other in a regional war?
By this logic, why are we supporting Israel? It is a regional belligerency, right? The reason we support one is that it is the harmed/invaded and one is the aggressor. I don’t support Ukraine either and I do support Israel so I have the same conflict, but I do know why.
T, lets be realistic that we don’t support Israel because they were invaded or harmed. We are supporting them because they are a strategic position in the middle east. Israel doesn’t need our support to defeat HAMAS.
The measure of “successful” invasion is not the number of square feet ‘conquered.’ It is, rather, how many UAF members are casualties.
That said, by some reports, the UAF got about 11KM into Russia before the advance ground to a halt. Bu no co-incidence, that’s where the Russkies had their first line of defense set up.
THAT said, we should believe nothing from either side in this mess and stay the Hell out of it. No more money, no more arms, no more ammo, and no more SF/CIA combatants in theater.
Same with Isael. The US has no…..none…….zero………zip……..vital national interest in Israel, especially since the KSA, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are more-or-less allied against Iran.
Ever notice that only Certain People in the US (Bush’s remnant NeoCons) screech about Iran being the mortal enemy of the US? And how Iran is going to nuke Israel and slip a suitcase nuke into the US, too? Or is it Russia who is the mortal enemy of the US and will suitcase-nuke us? Or…..wait!! Is it Red China?
This is so confusing.
>T, lets be realistic that we don’t support Israel because they were invaded or harmed. We are supporting them because they are a strategic position in the middle east. Israel doesn’t need our support to defeat HAMAS.
I support them because we were the primary supporters of the nation’s inception, we made treaties with them and I 100% agree with the reasons for that support and alliance. This was not a chicken or the egg thing here, we made that alliance when we made that problem of the future back in 1948. The alliance definitely came first and Israel has given us precious little reason to abandon them. The national interest is in keeping our promises to help a race in avoiding extinction at the hands of racist bigotry at its most heinous level, genocide. Until you are one of the subscribers to the new beliefs that liberal scholars have been pushing more and more, that the holocaust never actually happened, I don’t see why anyone thinks the support should end.
For the record, I have never seriously considered a scenario where two or more owners of large stocks of nuclear weapons fire at each other. I think the threat has always been from individuals, whether it be terrorists hiding in a country or a terrorist dictator (with a small arsenal) led nation like N Korea. China’s attacks are economic and Russia’s are cyber, I don’t believe either is considering nuclear usage of any sort against the US just as they are not considering genocide of Americans. Not so confusing in my world view, I guess.