We didn't deal with him previously...and how far are you willing to go in the future? There is no good answer here. We've been inconsistent with him over multiple administrations, and have no way of directly stopping him, outside of war, if he chooses to invade another country. What's the plan? Hope that he gives up? Hope that he doesn't do it again? Throwing money at Ukraine is a highly inefficient way of "dealing" with him.
It's reason to reassess the wildly irresponsible way we have spent and even sent cash. There should have been a plan, not tied to emotionally throwing money at a problem. I'm fine with responsible aid, tied to a specific strategy, with demonstrably helpful ways to defeat or dissuade Russia from continuing to fight.
Meaningful, but not strategically significant to us. Repeating myself, their nuclear arsenal will continue to keep us from stopping them from invading anybody that is not a NATO ally. Nothing they have lost affects any of our national strategy.
What do we do if Russia decides to employ a low-yield nuke? Is that worth escalating our involvement? Actively engaging? The more desperate Putin becomes, the more likely he would be to engage like that...And if he's not close to considering that....he's nowhere close to stopping (nor the Russian mil as hurt as claimed) & is clearly willing to wait us out for an extended time.
FWIW, I'm not sure I would trust any non-classified assessment re: Russia's losses. There is propaganda on all sides. It's either a stalemate or Russia is dominating & biding time. There is no sign that Ukraine is wearing down Putin's resolve. We can't hope Russian citizens will revolt or that Putin will die....both of which would be best-case scenario for us.
I reject the either/or. Russia is the same threat to us and the region, regardless of how Ukraine ends. There is a legit argument that prolonging the war increases the threat of a nuclear exchange. How do you balance that threat with any other hypothetical?
I want small-scale, smart support and not throwing cash at the problem or doing stupid stuff like buying Belgium-reject F-16s for Ukraine that will make no meaningful difference. I could be convinced that providing Ukraine with capability to strike Russia in Russia is a reasonable escalation, if it increases the chance of victory.
I want a plan, a timeline, and meaningful support from European allies, who have failed to live up to their fully promised support.
I want more economic sanctions that go farther and shut Russia off from outside support, I want to put pressure on China to stop supporting Russia. We have tools to do all of the above, but not the political will to do so, because it's far too easy to throw $$ at a problem and because we have become far too cozy with China and fear doing anything against them. We treat them like the Soup Nazi 😆 Their active & passive lobbying within the US system is nauseating & could be stopped, if we had the will to do so.
We have zero strategy to help Ukraine win. Hoping they survive until Russia gives up is a waste of time and resources. I fully reject our current strategy. Ukraine either wins or we cut our losses.
We have bigger, long-term problems we're facing than letting the prospect of another invasion by a 73 year old with reported health issues & a depleted military, conscript troops, and a massive Ukrainian rebuild incoming, continue to dictate how & when we engage or deter him. This full-on reaction mode by us with everything is non-sustainable.
