Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker
Tell me again why the US is involved and what we gain from it. All I've heard is some weird mumbo jumbo about testing old weapons in the most expensive sove way possible.
|
Sure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
Nah, proxy war against Russia, no US military fighting (officially), testing a ton of weapon systems, getting intel on a bunch of Russian weapon systems, reducing Russian threat for 5-10+ (?) years, getting rid of and replacing old ammo, NATO expansion, NATO put on notice they need to spend their 2% of GDP etc.
What’s not to like?
Maybe the $60b spent + another future $60b? That’s less than Joe’s student loan forgiveness so far. A bargain!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
If your definition of "Ukraine was never winning this war ..." is #3 or #4, I can see some truth in it. But I actually consider Ukraine "wins" by surviving as an independent country, acting as a buffer country, allied with (if not in) NATO as the most likely scenario.
|
In reading the past 2 pages, I've seen 3 others say/allude to reducing the Russian threat. In the Ukraine thread, similar.
So just speaking for me and not others, I'll sum it to:
- Reduce the Russian threat. Essentially, bog Putin down if not outright beat him back so he'll think twice if there is a next time
- Help Ukraine survive as a country so they will be allies and a buffer
Bonus includes:
- Test and/or see how NATO & Russian weapon systems work or not
- NATO expansion by +2, a more united & focused NATO (for now at least)
All for about $60B + $60B, no US boots on the ground (officially). Not a bad price for the US to pay.
Now that I've answered your question directly (and you'll counterpoint), let me ask you the same question
Quote:
|
Why don't you think the US should be involved"?
|
I know you've answered the question in various posts, but I suspect some of your points are more important than others, so let's documented your and my key points.