The War in Europe

Yes. In light of there being multiple factors in such policy decisions, it seems reductionist to flatly declare that Biden was motivated by fear of provoking Russia. Ukraine understandably wanted the hardware to win an outright victory in the Donbas region. Biden probably did feel that would likely draw Russia into an outright invasion.Still, there can be more than fear at play in deciding it was unwise to draw a security red line with heavy arms shipments into an already militarily contested region of Russophiles, presently held at bay. It could also be viewed as prudent rather than fearful, and he responsible rather than culpableTrump was nauseatingly deferential to Russia. I dont think Biden continued that. Accepting for the moment a static but explosive situation was perhaps the wisest course. Would the world (and NATO) have rallied so if Uraine had outright defeated the separatists, and Russia invaded under the color of 'Russians' being killed? Perhaps not.You may be right that stronger action would have been better sooner, but it is unknowable now, as are what factors were weighed at the time.

[qs=Percy]This seems an impulsive and irritated response that doesn't address anything I actually said, but I see it got four likes. Perhaps if people can explain what they liked about it I'll be able to figure out what there is of value in it to respond to. Right now it just looks like your standard "get hyper-aggressive and critical at anything you disagree with."[/qs=Percy]Well, I guess I'm in the Gang of Four, so after some thought, I'll respond.First of all, I didn't think AZPaul3's response was as over the top as you clearly do. It was sharp and aggressive in tone; perhaps I've become thicker skinned than I once was. Certainly, compared to exchanges between others on other threads recently, it was not especially egregious. From your characterization of his posts above, I suppose there is history I didn't witness, but his questions didnt strike me as hand grenades or sniper fire. At a formal debate, a moderator might have reminded the participants that they were gentlemen.Second, I had already registered my sense that you were expecting someone else's foresight to be as sharp as your excellent analysis in hindsight. I didn't think you actually addressed that in your reply, which is okay. So I acknowledged your post and moved on. What elicited a shrug from me clearly drew exasperation from AZPaul, and he expressed it by prosecuting your position. Since my perspective, already made clear, largely matched his, I liked it.So, I think he was sharp and short with you, but not exceedingly offensive. He was responding not to what you said, but what you didn't say -- an explanation or defense of that foresight vs. hindsight tension. I was startled by your injured reply.I did not and would not have responded his way; I've worked hard to exorcise anger, exasperation, aggression and impatience -- they are a disturbance of spirit. I would not have you think I view your superb mind -- or AZPaul's -- with anything other than deep respect. That's true of my estimation of most folks here and is why I came back when I thought my stroke-riddled brain had cleared enough to participate.That's as plainly honest as I can be about the matter. I hope it helps to clarify my like. If it doesn't help, I truly hope it gives no further offense.Edited by Omnivorous, : Typed one line, accidentally submitted

War is good business. We built our industrial base, a global commercial empire, the space program, and a large middle class on wars ... fought in other places. Lots of money in war. We thrive on it.If world peace arrives, we'll probably go broke.

That's not how it works.War is big business. As long as it's conducted somewhere else, war means immense wealth and power to the right people. The billions of dollars sent to Ukraine largely return to U.S. producers of munitions and other war materiel. Our misguided wars in southeast Asia had the knock-on effect of hastening the growth of Japan, Korea, and other allies: That's what empires do for armed vassal states.I smile when I see references to the Post-War Boom -- there was no post-war. An existential world war was downsized to a sustainable operation with maximized returns.Nothing moves money around like war, but war also has great utility in social and political management. Congress lards the budget with more than the military requests, then directs that bacon to bases and factories in key voting districts. More jobs, more money; more votes, more money; more war, more money. Nothing shores up political support at home like a good enemy.War may offer the best return on otherwise idle youth, always a volatile political demographic. No doubt Putin is delighted to empty his prisons and literally dragoon the unemployed to throw into Ukraine with little to no training. Boost the ranks, lower prison rolls and costs, remove a poor and restive set: win-win-win.You worry that proxy wars will break the bank. They make us rich. They break our souls.But all that has been business as usual for a long time. Putin sabotaged the global forever-war economy with the invasion of Ukraine: he wants all the markets. If we fail to stop Putin in Ukraine, we will have to stop him somewhere closer. Money will be the least of our worries.Bringing the war home is a very bad business.