MaroonBloodedTexan said:
And for all the outrage over aid, here's the reality: U.S. support for Ukraine has been one of the best strategic investments in modern history. A fraction of our defense budgetmost of it spent on American-made weaponshas devastated one of our biggest adversaries without a single U.S. soldier in harm's way. Russia's military has been gutted, their global influence diminished, and their economy crippled. For a cost that's less than what we spent in a single year in Afghanistan, we've neutralized a major threat. That's not charity. That's a bargain.
While I am rooting for Ukraine to hold on to as much of its territory as is realistically possible, I disagree strongly with both some of these assertions, as well as the general perspective.
First, Russia's military has not been gutted, its global influence diminished, and its economy crippled, and so I disagree with the assertion that Russia has been
devastated, regardless of the cost to our defense budget or a single U.S. soldier being in harm's way.
Second, even if all of the above were true, Russia isn't our biggest, and most definitely
shouldn't be, one of our biggest adversaries. Since the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. our biggest adversary has been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future Communist China. And unfortunately, the way we have treated Russia since the mid 1990s (expanding NATO to their borders, going to war against their Serbian allies, vilifying them for not being woke enough, etc.) has actually been counterproductive in terms of positioning ourselves most effectively to counter/contain our biggest adversary, Communist China.
In terms of our strategic interests, I would argue that instead of wanting a weaker Russia, it is actually in the long-term best interests of the United States, once the Ukrainian situation is resolved, to work toward a
rapprochement with Russia, with the goal of eventually establishing a strategic partnership with them in order to counter our common (real) adversaries: Communist China and secular, left-wing globalism. While our short-sighted geopolitical decision-making over the last 30 years has helped push Russia toward Communist China, it does not necessarily have to be like that moving forward.
Toward that end a weaker Russia, especially a nuclear armed one, and this is my third point, actually runs contrary to U.S. long-term interests, as we should want a Russia that is both economically and militarily powerful enough to viably counter/contain Chinese ambitions in Eurasia, while at the same time being prosperous and self-confident enough to serve as an inspiration for and ally to the growing populist and nationalist movements across Europe.
Vance in '28
