I dont like Turkey at all; but this is pretty consistent with what we do, and Turkey is a NATO ally. Id also point out that the Kurds arent a monolith and the Turkish Kurds are labeled a terror group by most of our allies. Whereas the KRG in Iraq are not. Same with different Syrian factions. Somehow I think youre griping is less about the Kurdish plight and more that the deal occurred under a President with a (D) next to his name. But, assuming you are arguing in good faith, Im sure youll enjoy this old Kurdish proverb "The only friend of the Kurd is the mountains".
America's Involvement in Ukraine Increasingly Looks Like War Joe Biden announced an additional $800 million in weapons aid for Ukraine following last week's news that CIA personnel are directing intelligence in Kyiv. https://reason.com/2022/07/01/americas-involvement-in-ukraine-increasingly-looks-like-war/ excerpt: Much of what the Biden administration has done to help Ukraine has fallen short of formal involvement in the war, but just barely. American soldiers won't enter the fight, but American spies will. American officials have warned of the escalatory effects of enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukrainian territory, but American weapons are being funneled to Ukraine with regularity. The U.S. hasn't officially declared war against Russia, but it's helped kill Russian generals and sink the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet. These moves have largely been unilateral, secretive, or both, leaving Americans unaware of just how implicated the U.S. is in the conflict. Government officials themselves lack insight into the effects of American assistance, telling The Wall Street Journal that they have "little direct knowledge" of where equipment goes once it reaches the Ukrainian government. And lawmakers have helped enable this lack of transparency by rubber-stamping massive aid packages, eschewing discussions of financial oversight, and failing to effectively challenge the president on the aims of American assistance. As Biden announced the latest aid package, he swore that the U.S. would "support Ukraine as long as it takes." It might be a noble statement, but for a president who has rallied against "forever wars," it neglects several key realities. American involvement could very well become protracted if leaders don't establish a clear off-ramp. The sunk-cost fallacy being what it is, politicians may find ways to maintain involvement in the future as a way to justify the hefty financial investments they've already made in the fight. This approach runs the risk of simply helping the war lumber on rather than incentivizing the involved parties to engage in peace talks. more at the link
I'm okay with that. But I understand not doing it as well. I might save it for a measure to take later down the road.
From 75000 for our training to 150000 for aid to a nation at war within its own borders doesn't sound like much to me. However, I may have played too much Battlefield/COD in my time.
America's efforts look a lot like "Lend Lease" or Vietnam prior to 1965. We know that the US ended up fighting directly in both those and there is a legitimate fear we could end up in Ukraine. That's why I've said we need to support Ukrainian sovereignity but need to be very very careful. War might be inevitable but we shouldn't rush to it.
I'm also continually astounded by the stupidity of Putin. In February with the threat of war he wielded far more diplomatic leverage than he ever had. He could force concessions out of NATO using that threat and also with energy resources. Instead his invasion which by all respects appears to be very poorly planned failed to take out Ukraine's government or capture Kyiv. NATO is more united and getting larger than ever and Russia remains under sanction. At the sametime tens of thousands of Russian soldiers have died and the Red Army is shown to be poorly organized, low morale, fighting force that unless it is fighting with a overwhelming territorial advantage like in the Donetsk can't project power. If Putin had just held back used diplomatic and economic power he might've been in a much better position now.
Putin underestimated NATO, when he invaded Crimea we did nothing, he expected that to be the same. Biden is not Obama....he is much tougher..... DD
How to win Ukraine’s long war After doing well early in the war, Ukraine is losing ground. What next? https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/06/30/how-to-win-ukraines-long-war excerpt: You can see where Mr Putin is heading. He will take as much of Ukraine as he can, declare victory and then call on Western nations to impose his terms on Ukraine. In exchange, he will spare the rest of the world from ruin, hunger, cold and the threat of nuclear Armageddon. *** The best way to prevent the next war is to defeat him in this one. Leaders need to explain to their people that they are not only defending an abstract principle in Ukraine, but also their most fundamental interest: their own security. The eu needs to shore up its energy markets so that they do not fracture next winter. Ukraine must have more weapons. The risk of escalation today is real, but if a bad peace is forced on Ukraine Mr Putin’s nuclear threats will not stop. They will only become more dangerous, especially if Russia’s conventional forces are at a disadvantage. In the long war ordinary Russians will suffer and Ukrainians endure unspeakable pain for Mr Putin’s vanity. To prevail means marshalling resources and shoring up Ukraine as a viable, sovereign, Western-leaning country—an outcome that its defiant people crave. Ukraine and its backers have the men, money and materiel to overcome Mr Putin. Do they all have the will? more at the link
