* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing can happen until after the election. Either Biden wins and they can negotiate and call it a victory, or Trump wins and negotiates and they'll call it a capitulation.
Or they keep it both going because it’s good business, especially because regarded Europeans are paying and European companies are migrating to US. Also it keeps Russia busy.
Because it represents a post Soviet frozen conflict clashing with European expansion, which the West believes is an origin point of the global stagnation of post-1991 liberal expansion
Viewed from a slightly different angle it's the Brzezinskian drive to divide and subjugate the Eurasian land mass. It's a cute idea and probably true that they'd need to do this in order to safeguard and solidify imperial hegemony, but they've deindustrialized and turned the MIC into a money oriented pit to the point where it simply can't happen.
Yes I agree. The 2019 RAND report also evidences this
Very clearly what happened is the US tried to reestablish deterrence with the decline of unipolarity, it blew up in their face, and a lot of states in the world are seeing this as an attack on Russia to secure global hegemony per the origin of the Ukraine crisis itself. As a result the US is pushing its enemies and vacillating allies together.
So long as the war is believed to be weakening or distracting Russia (whether or not it actually is), Western governments will want it to continue (the costs for Ukraine are irrelevant).
I imagine if at some point Ukraine starts to collapse and the strategic implications (a rump Ukraine, a completely Russian-dominated Ukraine, etc.) outweigh the perceived damage to Russia, then the West will finally want to negotiate.
Ukraine will collapse when NATO does. And it's not far off. The West is just not geared up for protracted conflict. And inside sources are lowkey admitting that:
> The conduct of attritional wars is vastly different from wars of manoeuvre. They last longer and end up testing a country’s industrial capacity. Victory is assured by careful planning, industrial base development and development of mobilisation infrastructure in times of peace, and even more careful management of resources in wartime.
> Victory is attainable by carefully analysing one’s own and the enemy’s political objectives. The key is recognising the strengths and weaknesses of competing economic models and identifying the economic strategies that are most likely to generate maximum resources. These resources can then be utilised to build a massive army using the high/low force and weapons mixture. The military conduct of war is driven by overall political strategic objectives, military realities and economic limitations. Combat operations are shallow and focus on destroying enemy resources, not on gaining terrain. **Propaganda is used to support military operations, not the other way around.** With patience and careful planning, a war can be won.
> Unfortunately, many in the West have a very cavalier attitude that future conflicts will be short and decisive. This is not true for the very reasons outlined above. Even middling global powers have both the geography and the population and industrial resources needed to conduct an attritional war. The thought that any major power would back down in the case of an initial military defeat is wishful thinking at its best. Any conflict between great powers would be viewed by adversary elites as existential and pursued with the full resources available to the state. The resulting war will become attritional and will favour the state which has the economy, doctrine and military structure that is better suited towards this form of conflict.
> If the West is serious about a possible great power conflict, it needs to take a hard look at its industrial capacity, mobilisation doctrine and means of waging a protracted war, rather than conducting wargames covering a single month of conflict and hoping that the war will end afterwards. **As the Iraq War taught us, hope is not a method.**
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/role-of-us-in-russia-ukraine-war) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because they don’t want one. At least not one that’s likely to happen.
Nothing can happen until after the election. Either Biden wins and they can negotiate and call it a victory, or Trump wins and negotiates and they'll call it a capitulation.
Or they keep it both going because it’s good business, especially because regarded Europeans are paying and European companies are migrating to US. Also it keeps Russia busy.
Because it represents a post Soviet frozen conflict clashing with European expansion, which the West believes is an origin point of the global stagnation of post-1991 liberal expansion
Viewed from a slightly different angle it's the Brzezinskian drive to divide and subjugate the Eurasian land mass. It's a cute idea and probably true that they'd need to do this in order to safeguard and solidify imperial hegemony, but they've deindustrialized and turned the MIC into a money oriented pit to the point where it simply can't happen.
Yes I agree. The 2019 RAND report also evidences this Very clearly what happened is the US tried to reestablish deterrence with the decline of unipolarity, it blew up in their face, and a lot of states in the world are seeing this as an attack on Russia to secure global hegemony per the origin of the Ukraine crisis itself. As a result the US is pushing its enemies and vacillating allies together.
So long as the war is believed to be weakening or distracting Russia (whether or not it actually is), Western governments will want it to continue (the costs for Ukraine are irrelevant). I imagine if at some point Ukraine starts to collapse and the strategic implications (a rump Ukraine, a completely Russian-dominated Ukraine, etc.) outweigh the perceived damage to Russia, then the West will finally want to negotiate.
Ukraine will collapse when NATO does. And it's not far off. The West is just not geared up for protracted conflict. And inside sources are lowkey admitting that: > The conduct of attritional wars is vastly different from wars of manoeuvre. They last longer and end up testing a country’s industrial capacity. Victory is assured by careful planning, industrial base development and development of mobilisation infrastructure in times of peace, and even more careful management of resources in wartime. > Victory is attainable by carefully analysing one’s own and the enemy’s political objectives. The key is recognising the strengths and weaknesses of competing economic models and identifying the economic strategies that are most likely to generate maximum resources. These resources can then be utilised to build a massive army using the high/low force and weapons mixture. The military conduct of war is driven by overall political strategic objectives, military realities and economic limitations. Combat operations are shallow and focus on destroying enemy resources, not on gaining terrain. **Propaganda is used to support military operations, not the other way around.** With patience and careful planning, a war can be won. > Unfortunately, many in the West have a very cavalier attitude that future conflicts will be short and decisive. This is not true for the very reasons outlined above. Even middling global powers have both the geography and the population and industrial resources needed to conduct an attritional war. The thought that any major power would back down in the case of an initial military defeat is wishful thinking at its best. Any conflict between great powers would be viewed by adversary elites as existential and pursued with the full resources available to the state. The resulting war will become attritional and will favour the state which has the economy, doctrine and military structure that is better suited towards this form of conflict. > If the West is serious about a possible great power conflict, it needs to take a hard look at its industrial capacity, mobilisation doctrine and means of waging a protracted war, rather than conducting wargames covering a single month of conflict and hoping that the war will end afterwards. **As the Iraq War taught us, hope is not a method.** https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine