Ukraine Should the US intervene? No. Here’s why. Share this:TwitterWhatsAppRedditTumblrLike this:Like Loading... Author: Atanu Dey Economist. View all posts by Atanu Dey
12 thoughts on “Ukraine”
Accurate observations in the article.
However, in all the hysteria of blaming Russia for the Ukraine tragedy, only in a few years will the
key misjudgements of the Ukraine President become more clear:
Expecting USA /Nato would back him militarily with boots on the ground.
Overestimating the importance of Ukraine to the West
Underestimating the determination of Russia when under threat
The Ukraine President will have the blood of his people on his hands but
not to extent as Putin and the West.
Also, this time the difference is – it is not brown or black people being slaughtered.
Here is how one TV channel blames the USA for the disasters of the world…
Certainly that distinction is always true. See this post, Hitler is in Good Company.
But let’s also recognize that people (black, brown or white) kill their own kind with great enthusiasm. Chinese kill Chinese, Indians kill Indians, Russians kills Russians. All major slaughters are endogenous (if that’s the right word.)
US has already made it clear that they would not intervene. Cato article is remarkably concise and well written.
Not intervening appears to be the best strategy for the west too. Ukraine has fought really well defending their own homeland. They have had help but the Russian military appears to be remarkably weak and incompetent so far. By the time the war is over Russian military might be reduced to nothing worth fearing. Their economy which is currently of Spain’s size would probably shrink to 1/5th.
There are also secondary consequences of this war that will make world a better place. The climate change propaganda now got a reality check. The whole world will now take nuclear energy more seriously and will not dismiss fossil fuels that quickly.
Ukrainians will now migrate to rest of Europe where they will do much better for themselves. (USA has taken a grand total of 7 refugees in show of solidarity with Ukraine). Over 1M Russians have left, out of which 100K are just software programmers who will now work for better countries.
Indian government has now discovered that their “friend” is basically a lunatic and cant be relied upon. So they have taken up defense manufacturing seriously.
As long as USA stays out and the war ends with Ukraine it will be a great outcome for the world.
the key reason why the usa/nato cannot send troops to save ukraine women children is clear.
russia will send a couple of small nukes to poland and uk.
Logic shows that NATO does not benefit in any way by entering this war. Even for humanitarian purposes it is much simpler and win-win for EU/U to open its borders for Uk refugees as well as Russian asylum seekers. Western world will get high quality labor for free and lot of lives will be saved.
Even if nukes are not on the table, a conventional war between NATO and Russia will see more death and destruction across Europe and wont save any lives.
Putin is not suicidal. He wont nuke anything. Also, if NATO really thinks Putin will nuke Poland then it makes sense for NATO to do preemptive nuke strikes on Russia before entering the war.
Nuclear launch protocols of Russia are public. Putin gives the order and one set of code. Second set of codes are provided by defense minister. This enabled one of the generals to unlock the real launch code which is sent to the launch platform whose commander has to enter that code to launch the nuke. If anyone in that chain of command chickens out, launch is not happening. People pressing those buttons are also pressing the button that ensures their death.
Also, as the war has shown, Russians are terrible at maintaining their equipment. Plutonium in the nukes has to be maintained too. It needs full replacement every 10 years. While Russia has thousands of nuclear warhead it is not clear how many of them have been serviced properly. Even those which are serviced on paper might not be serviced in real.
I am not saying Russians nukes don’t matter, I am saying they are probably not the only factor into consideration.
Which is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons – and not just once?
Do as I say – not as I do….. is the mantra of the superpower…
Russia will be in exclusive company…
People often think of Hiroshima Nagasaki as the only use of nuclear weapons. Not true. Turns out Putin has already used tactical nuclear weapons in the form of poison and that too in London causing at least one person to die and several to get radiation burns or whatever is the correct term,
How tf do you equate the targeted poisoning of two individuals with the use of nuclear weapons? Kuchh bhi.
It was anything but a targeted killing. Thousands of people were potentially exposed to dangerous radioactive element as a result of this operation. This may not be at the scale of Nagasaki or Hiroshima but the underlying principle is the same.
These are only the instances we know of and well studied. For all we know Putin might have already poisoned a lot of other people and places which we are not aware of.