I wonder do President Biden and Jake Sullivan regret forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back ?

[OnDoutside]

Especially considering what Trump has now done.

That question came into my mind when listening to an interview with General Ben Hodges where he said that Ukraine could have won this war a year ago if they had been properly resourced.

"Russia Had Failed for 11 Years and Will Fail Again" – Ben Hodges with ‪@StarskyUA‬ on Brave Hearts

[lapfog_1]

1. a rapid escalation might have pushed Russia to use nukes

Biden wanted to constrain the fight to the territory of Ukraine to prevent the reality of an Ukrainian army marching to Moscow and a resulting reaction by Putin.

I don't know for certain, but I suspect that it was communicated that IF Russia used even tactical nukes inside Ukraine, the west would respond with either nuclear strikes on Russia or by declaring an emergency in NATO to join the fight and crush Russia.

We can argue for the next few hundred years if this was a correct strategy.

If Trump hadn't "won" the election Russia would be thinking about leaving Ukraine and the war would be "over" by now.

[OnDoutside]

4. I could see that boiling frog early on, and I tended to agree with it. However

as it became clear the nuke threat was the usual scare tactics from Putin, I believe they should have upped their timeline significantly of allowing Ukraine to take the fight to Russia, but most importantly they could have squeezed the life out of the Russia economy faster and earlier, with draconian sanctions. That imo was the gravest error, by starving the Russian economy of income, and thus causing unrest on the streets of Russian cities.

[Happy Hoosier]

6. I really, REALLY doubt it.

If I have one complaint about Biden is that he was too risk averse in dealing with Russia.

IMO, this was Putin's gambit to see how far he can go without provoking a direct response from NATO. His answer? Pretty damned far. If Biden had announced that US forces would provide an air umbrella over Ukraine and that security forces could possibly follow, I think it would have changed the tenor of the war early. I doubt Putin would pull the trigger on a nuclear reponse for the sake of that, because he KNOWS where that leads. That's just a suicide move. He would have, IMO, withdrawn and kept his powder dry for a better opportunity.

AS it is, our approach resulted in a lot of death and a stalemate. How does that help anyone? Except Trump?

[JohnSJ]

3. The same General Westmorland "light at the end of the tunnel" bullshit. There was a real risk of Putin deploying

weapons. President Biden pushed it as far as he could without risking a nuclear confrontation.

[OnDoutside]

5. I'd agree with you certainly for the first year, but after that even Putin could see how weak Russia was, fighting a

much smaller army when that smaller army were mostly using our Best Before Date weapons.

[JohnSJ]

8. sorry, but I don't buy the Curtis E. Lemay talk that during the Cuban Missiles, that was our chance to put an end to

Russia once and for all.

Thank goodness we had more level headed people in command, and not the generals with big egos.

putin and trump are two birds of the same feather.

[OnDoutside]

12. No one is talking about putting an end to Russia once and for all, but rather doing what the Cold War did economically

in bringing Russia to its knees through half-assed sanctions, while giving Ukraine the weapons they needed to a number on Russia militarily. Russia made all sorts of threats about any NATO troops, yet had no problem hiring North Koreans. It's all flim flam.

[Happy Hoosier]

7. I see exactly zero evidence Putin would have used nukes.

What possible positive outcome comes for him doing that? It's scare tactics. If a nuclear power can get what it wants by just threatening, then we may as well just all learn Russian now.

[JohnSJ]

13. ...........

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-formally-lowers-threshold-for-using-nuclear-weapons

[Happy Hoosier]

14. And you don't see that as saber rattling?

I certainly do. It was bluster. AFAIR, our intelligence concuded there was no actual change in Russis' nuclear posture.

I'll reiterate.... if we allow Russia to get what it wants by simply threatening nuclear war, then be prepared to give them a LOT. Putin wants all of Eastern Europe.

[JohnSJ]

15. The Cuban missile crisis was barely averted with the help of

Reporter John Scali but for the meeting with Alexander Fomin.

We had bombers in the air ready to go full nuclear, which generals like Curtis Lamay were chomping at the bit to do.

No one can predict what would escalate or de-escalate such situations.

It is easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to play such games.

There is always a risk of unintended consequences, and if Putin decided to employ tactical nuclear weapons, what would are response be?

Putin had already attacked Ukraine’s nuclear power generators .

The tariff/trade wars are a perfect example of unintended consequences, and the longer it goes on, the more “unintended” consequences will occur.

[AZProgressive]

9. I know the US no matter who is President is willing to do more for countries

they consider allies more than they would do for Ukraine.

JMHO of course. Russia is a bigger threat so I can see why the US would go after weaker targets instead.

[maxsolomon]

10. Yes, it's all Biden's fault.

unrec.

[OnDoutside]

11. and Jake Sullivan

HTH