Ukraine / Russian War: The Ethics of Western / NATO Military Parsimony

[sear]

At its inception President Zelenskyy pleaded with the West for enough military power, weaponry to make Russia's war on Ukraine brief, and less destructive.

But NATO has allowed this tragically destructive war to drag on into a second year. Why?

Ukraine has been pleading for U.S. F-16 fighter jets. Biden says no, so far.

The result?
The profile of the war more closely approximates a stalemate than a decisive outcome.

Why?
Some believe it's to avoid providing Putin with an excuse to escalate to use of nuclear weapons. If so, then isn't NATO in some form succumbing to nuclear blackmail?

What are the ethics of this? In this status quo, Russia is free to wreak havoc on Ukraine, while Ukraine has not conducted reciprocal retaliatory intrusions on Russia. Is that a plausible recipe for defeating Russia, and expelling Russia from Ukraine, & perhaps Crimea as well?

If Ukrainian victory is what the West is hoping for, what is the ethical justification for pacing the supply of weapons to Ukraine for a years long war of attrition, carnage, destruction, and misery?
The geo-strategic implications of a defeated Ukraine are obvious, justification for Western incentive to expedite an end to the carnage. BUT :

That's not necessarily as anti-Russian as it may seem. Russia reportedly has a very high casualty rate because it's not applying Western medevac techniques for its own troops, instead reportedly leaving wounded Russian troops on the battlefield to die.
So a rapid, decisive victory for Ukraine may be more humane for Russia, as well as a score of 1:0 for democracy over autocracy.

Yet NATO looks on pretending to magnanimity for parceling out weapons in meager doses.

What?

Why?

 

[sear]

Although the headline quotes from Wang’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin played up promises to “deepen political mutual trust” and “strengthen strategic co-ordination”, Beijing’s real objectives are much more complex, according to Chinese official sources and commentators. One of its main aims is to repair China’s badly damaged image in the west — particularly with leading trade partners in Europe — by showing its efforts to urge Moscow towards a political settlement of the war. It is also intent on letting western powers know that China stands firmly against the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

Context:
military experts have suggested the U.S. Korean War would have been more likely to succeed had China not intervened, to bring to pass the 2023 status quo.

That is a history lesson that should not be ignored in context of Russia / Ukraine in 2023.

 

[sear]

Dave Davies / NPR - Fresh Air reports that Russian prisoners were not merely released from Russian prison, but promised a pardon if they survived 6 months on the Ukraine War's front line.

Putin is bottom of the barrel.

 

[sear]

After the Cold War some advocated NATO expansion, to protect former Soviet satellites. I vehemently resolutely opposed such expansion at that time, knowing it would be used by Kremlin war hawks to justify future Russian military adventures, along with other risks, such as a refreshed, accelerated post Cold War arms race.

It's decades later, a new millennium. Russia's conquest of Crimea, and current war in Ukraine (now in its 2nd year) demonstrate that the Kremlin doesn't need NATO expansion to justify full-scale Russian military invasion.

Sweden and Finland pending NATO membership aside, in light of the obvious high priority military conquest continues to be for aggressive expansionist Russia, would it advance the interests of peaceful prosperity for NATO membership to rapidly expand, perhaps before Ukraine's victory?

The Baltic States have already joined NATO.
Finland and Sweden may soon join.

But what of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia? Kazakhstan, and Mongolia?

Would peaceful prosperity proliferate with a NATO noose around Russia's neck? Or might it only promote Russia's ultimatum, nuclear blackmail?

It's not a binary, all or nothing. Perhaps the more Westernized nations are the more appealing targets for Russian expansion. Are those prospective targets suitable for consideration in expedited NATO membership?

It might seem like that could cost the United States of America $more $money. Yes. It could. BUT !!
Let's not overlook what the alternative has cost $US. The U.S. has already earmarked almost $200 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Spending $one $dollar more than necessary on U.S. national defense may be $one $dollar wasted.
Spending $one $dollar less than necessary on U.S. national defense may mean forfeiture of U.S. national sovereignty & Liberty.

If you want the insurance, you have to make the $payments.

 

[sear]

By late March last year, barely a month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war was already at a stalemate. And this is where we are now, at the end of the war’s first year. Russia can’t win because NATO has its global standing on the line and will support Ukraine to the end, but Ukraine and NATO cannot win for fear of a Russian nuclear escalation.

Senior US military figures say Ukraine stalemate to continue

OPINION: Some US army officials think the stalemate in Ukraine can be broken only through negotiations. Will they say so?

www.opendemocracy.net

More grim perspective: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ukraine-war-russia-nato-stalemate-us-military-peacemakers/