Kurt Schlichter writes about our dilemma in Ukraine, he poses four bad options as an exhaustive set … something I believe they may not be. He makes the implicit assumption the Russian people will in this instance be as dogged as they were fighting German invaders on their own soil.
Schlichter doesn’t mention that the Russians' legendary stubbornness didn’t apply when fighting “abroad” in Afghanistan. They got tired quicker than we did and went home. And then their government fell.
Thus the question remains, can Putin convince Russians that Ukraine is once again “their soil” as it was in World War II? It hasn't been "their soil" since the USSR broke up in 1991, over 30 years ago? Only those over 40 remember the Soviet Union with Ukraine as a constituent part.
It isn't easy to make the argument that Ukraine is nostalgic for its Soviet past, given its stubborn resistance to Russian invasion. The young Russians who do the fighting must consider Ukraine as "abroad," it has been independent all their lives.
Putin runs a police state, if one not quite as pervasive as in Soviet days. Can he sell his people a scenario that includes Ukraine as an integral part of Mother Russia and make it worth dying for? I am dubious.
Americans are tired of bankrolling the battle in Ukraine. Imagine how tired Russians must be of bankrolling their side of the conflict and sending their sons, fathers and husbands there to die in significant numbers. Both sides are involved by choice, Russia chose to invade, the US chose to support the invaded.
Which side do you believe finds its situation more obnoxious? In my opinion it isn't even close.
