This analysis lays out very logical and tangible goal-posts for this conflict. The first step to achieving success is defining it. To the commenters who don’t believe we will achieve success, you may, unfortunately, be right. Nonetheless Sam has, in my humble opinion, defined a valid metric for that success or failure and one desperately worth striving for.
Why we have the people that we are most likely at odds with as members of the UN makes no sense. When China and Putin can and will veto anything pertaining to them at all is a joke right? Why would we have either of them on the security council? All of the power of the UN is wiped out by a single vote by one or both of these countries. The bully should not have a seat at the table. Whether or not that makes them act up is of no concern. The ability to to make and pass solutions to the problems they create is what needs to happen.
Excellent insights about why NATO, the EU, and US must go beyond 'justice' and 'order' (that 'rules-based' inanity) if they/we hope to keep Western citizens willing to make the sacrifices required for Ukraine to succeed. I'm not conversant in war/foreign relations theory, but your analysis strikes me as very realistic; whether it's realpolitik, I can't say.
doesn't this all fall under the category of "easier said than done"? either the West will be able to convince the developing world to join in suffering for Ukraine, in which case the world's poor will suffer much more than the West, or the Global South will tell the West "thanks but no thanks," and Western living standards will fall while developing countries' living standards rise.
I think if we feed the people the problem will not be as bad as all of that. They dont have gas powered anything anyway. Feed them and they will be happy. Cut off the economic output of Russia is the best option. They can only lob so many rubbels into Ukraine before they run out.
This analysis lays out very logical and tangible goal-posts for this conflict. The first step to achieving success is defining it. To the commenters who don’t believe we will achieve success, you may, unfortunately, be right. Nonetheless Sam has, in my humble opinion, defined a valid metric for that success or failure and one desperately worth striving for.
Why we have the people that we are most likely at odds with as members of the UN makes no sense. When China and Putin can and will veto anything pertaining to them at all is a joke right? Why would we have either of them on the security council? All of the power of the UN is wiped out by a single vote by one or both of these countries. The bully should not have a seat at the table. Whether or not that makes them act up is of no concern. The ability to to make and pass solutions to the problems they create is what needs to happen.
Brilliant analysis, poor conclusions.
The war is not going to end quickly, and the U.S will not be bound by multilateralism any more.
Sorry to say that, on these crucial points you are naive.
Excellent insights about why NATO, the EU, and US must go beyond 'justice' and 'order' (that 'rules-based' inanity) if they/we hope to keep Western citizens willing to make the sacrifices required for Ukraine to succeed. I'm not conversant in war/foreign relations theory, but your analysis strikes me as very realistic; whether it's realpolitik, I can't say.
doesn't this all fall under the category of "easier said than done"? either the West will be able to convince the developing world to join in suffering for Ukraine, in which case the world's poor will suffer much more than the West, or the Global South will tell the West "thanks but no thanks," and Western living standards will fall while developing countries' living standards rise.
I think if we feed the people the problem will not be as bad as all of that. They dont have gas powered anything anyway. Feed them and they will be happy. Cut off the economic output of Russia is the best option. They can only lob so many rubbels into Ukraine before they run out.