Seems that a lot of people prefer the approach of "surrender absolutely everything to Putin preemptively". Granted America is at basically zero risk of a Russian invasion, but letting Putin roams free means that Ukraine would only be the first step. I don't really know what Putin's Europe once he gets it all would look like but I don't expect human rights to be a part of it.
Which people?
People saying helping Ukraine should be avoided.
The people advocating the "approach of surrender absolutely everything to Putin preemptively" and "people saying helping Ukraine should be avoided" are very different - and are both still pretty strong interpretations. Instead of looking at cartoonish arguments people have - what's the best argument you've come across for not supplying Ukraine with weapons? Have you heard any that seem reasonable at all to you? Which is the most reasonable?
I'm confused. Surely if one side is a Russian asset it would be less likely we go to war with them?
> Surely if one side is a Russian asset it would be less likely we go to war with them?
Difficult to estimate because the situation is de-stabilising--the assurances of MAD no longer hold if one side thinks it can prevent the other from launching.
Why would Russia attack the US if the US was under their thumb? It makes no sense. MAD prevents countries who are opposed to each from attacking each other. The reason the US and the UK don't go to war is not because of MAD.
Not sure it has to make sense. It just has to convince people long enough for people who are driving for war to get their war. Hardly any of it seems to make any sense at all.