That’s a risk they are taking by fighting Putin at all. He’s drawn numerous lines in the sand using the threat of nuking Kyiv, all (or most) of which have been crossed. That’s why he’s escalated to threatening Europe and the West. Even he is not confident in his arsenal.
I concede that it is more wise to not push to the point of finding out if possible, but I do not believe bending to or negotiating with Putin would be useful in making Ukraine whole again. I also don’t think maintaining our current milquetoast approach to defending Ukraine is going to be effective either. I’m mostly in agreement with your positions, I’m just not in absolute agreement. I think a dramatic and swift action against Putin himself (a probable violation of Hague Conventions) would be an effective approach to ending the invasion.
I will hold my tongue on some other violations of international rules because they are vicious and I would (like most people) prefer we avoid them if possible. But, I think it would be an error to remove all such options dogmatically. I think Putin (and Russia at large) should be put on notice that when they refuse to play by the rules, the rules may be suspended in actions against them.
The allies were able to fight the Nazis without becoming the Nazis.
Agreed. I think that level of aggression is needed to solve this issue as well. We aren’t doing that, though. We are supporting Kyiv just enough to survive while the enemy ignores rule after rule against them.
It should be made clear to Russia that when they ignore the rules, they are removing the rules that protect them as well. I do not mean to suggest a blanket free-for-all of atrocities, but rather the crossing of some useful lines that we wouldn’t normally cross.
But you can rest assured no one is going to do anything because our leadership seems fine with Ukraine being slowly bled to death. Assassinations, explosive aggression and a bit of “unfair” behavior should be on the table to bring an end to this. Unfortunately, an end doesn’t seem to be our goal, as we are allowing this to last for years.
I do not mean to suggest a blanket free-for-all of atrocities, but rather the crossing of some useful lines that we wouldn’t normally cross.
And I’m telling you, that leads to escalation. Russia will then do something worse. Should Ukraine do something worse to then in return? At what point does it stop?
Your point is valid. I disagree that such action should be avoided. Holding our current pattern will result in continued death of the innocent.
I believe a much more aggressive posture is needed to win. That posture should include threats that surprise and instill fear and should be followed with swift action (which does not necessarily include atrocities).
That’s a risk they are taking by fighting Putin at all. He’s drawn numerous lines in the sand using the threat of nuking Kyiv, all (or most) of which have been crossed. That’s why he’s escalated to threatening Europe and the West. Even he is not confident in his arsenal.
I concede that it is more wise to not push to the point of finding out if possible, but I do not believe bending to or negotiating with Putin would be useful in making Ukraine whole again. I also don’t think maintaining our current milquetoast approach to defending Ukraine is going to be effective either. I’m mostly in agreement with your positions, I’m just not in absolute agreement. I think a dramatic and swift action against Putin himself (a probable violation of Hague Conventions) would be an effective approach to ending the invasion.
I will hold my tongue on some other violations of international rules because they are vicious and I would (like most people) prefer we avoid them if possible. But, I think it would be an error to remove all such options dogmatically. I think Putin (and Russia at large) should be put on notice that when they refuse to play by the rules, the rules may be suspended in actions against them.
There is a massive gulf between not bending or negotiating and committing war crimes.
The allies were able to fight the Nazis without becoming the Nazis.
Agreed. I think that level of aggression is needed to solve this issue as well. We aren’t doing that, though. We are supporting Kyiv just enough to survive while the enemy ignores rule after rule against them.
Okay, but that’s a different subject. This started with the suggestion that if Russia is committing war crimes, Ukraine should as well.
It should be made clear to Russia that when they ignore the rules, they are removing the rules that protect them as well. I do not mean to suggest a blanket free-for-all of atrocities, but rather the crossing of some useful lines that we wouldn’t normally cross.
But you can rest assured no one is going to do anything because our leadership seems fine with Ukraine being slowly bled to death. Assassinations, explosive aggression and a bit of “unfair” behavior should be on the table to bring an end to this. Unfortunately, an end doesn’t seem to be our goal, as we are allowing this to last for years.
And I’m telling you, that leads to escalation. Russia will then do something worse. Should Ukraine do something worse to then in return? At what point does it stop?
Your point is valid. I disagree that such action should be avoided. Holding our current pattern will result in continued death of the innocent.
I believe a much more aggressive posture is needed to win. That posture should include threats that surprise and instill fear and should be followed with swift action (which does not necessarily include atrocities).