You don't have less war by stopping victims from defending themselves. You just get to improve the odds that the attacker is successful.
You have "less war" when one side dominates and the other surrenders quickly. Two evenly-matched sides can continue fighting for decades.
That worked with Poland in 1939 until Hitler decided to continue and attack the rest of Europe.
Look, I'm not trying to discuss strategy or glory or good vs evil, just the concept of "less war." WWII was 6 years. US involvement in more recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq was a lot longer. Meanwhile various civil and border wars have gone on beyond a decade.
I was merely surprised by this, but the position that one has to want war in order to want to support Ukrainian defence in this unprovoked war of aggression is at best naive.
Also I’m not American, why would you think so?
Damming water to Crimea and shelling civilians in Donbas for 8 years is hardly “unprovoked”. It might not be sufficient justification for such a deadly and destructive invasion but it’s certainly provocation.
Russian propaganda bingo in only one comment. Impressive.
So Ukraine should now provide water to lands occupied by their enemy? The Russian narrative gets more ridiculous every day!
He got the part with Donbas right though. The Ukrainian army started shelling their own citizens.
Cutting off water to your own citizens because they’re under foreign occupation is certainly a provocative move that will put the legitimacy of your government into question, yes.
And many who are not Americans look with disbelief at those who would deny the right of self defence to a nation, embolden and support an imperialist tyrant, virtually guarantee more wars in the near, and justify it with a cynical call to "peace".