Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow
One wouldn’t have happened if you had not taken your initial action? Are we debating the moral merit of defending an attack vs making an attack?
I would say that Russia probably should have thought about that before annexing their neighbors lands? Does Russia have no onus to limit their actions for the sake of peace?
And they rely on that perception to do whatever they want. Putin is not deranged, he doesn’t want to die in nuclear hell fire either. He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
No, you’re bringing morality into this when it doesn’t belong. You’re confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there’s a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
I’m sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn’t matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it’s worth it.