Why does the US choose to fight wars this way?

Post Reply New Topic

Not just the US but other countries as well. They keep on choosing to fight the war in the country of the victims, but the problem with that is, is that it's the weakest place for them to fight from. For example, the US are now possilbly thinking of going to war with Russia, but if they do they will only fight the war from inside the Ukraine. It seems the US does this all the time, when helping other nations fight a war.

In Vietnam for example, they lost by only being in South Vietnam but if the US went into North Vietnam they probably would have had a much more higher chance of winning it. But why does the US only want to fight in the nation of the victims only, and thus they can only fight pawns who are advancing towards them rather than go on the higher rankings on the chess board so to speak, but actually going to them to fight?

The US currently isn't at war with Russia, at least not officially. The US is supporting Ukraine but that's not the same as being an active belligerent. Currently the US and other countries are hoping to stay out because they don't wish for things to escalate. Whether or not that's a viable goal I'm sure you can understand why - the potential for escalation means there's the risk that it could become a nuclear war between a substantial chunk of the world and Russia.

It's also likely that the US is weighing how becoming drawn into that conflict more directly would leave Taiwan potentially more vulnerable to aggression.

Oh okay, but the US and other NATO countries are giving money to the Ukraine to fight the war, so isn't that the same as actually getting involved, support wise? Isn't that just splitting hairs to say that NATO doesn't want to get involved, yet they will give all this money to help them fight, which is kind of the same as helping fight?

Theyre not directly involved. They dont have their own troops.

They're pretty, you just don't want one in your back yard.

No, it is not, at least as far as international law and long-standing diplomatic traditions are concerned.

But if it's true that a money is going to weapons for the Ukraine, it just seems that's very much the same as NATO getting involved. All NATO is doing is giving weapons to them rather than bringing their own but it's still helping to fight it seems.

There is involved, and then there is involved.

Year after year both China, and Russia, gave billions of dollars in weaponry to Hanoi during the long US War in Indochina. But neither was directly involved with its own troops.

Likewise the US gave weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet occupiers (kinda Vietnam in reverse). But we didnt send in our own soldiers.

Decade after decade the Soviets aided Israel's Arab neighbors, and the US aided Israel. But neither the US nor the USSR had troops on the ground anywhere near the Jordan Valley.

Oddly enough it wasnt until AFTER the Cold War that both US and Russian personel would be stationed in a country bordering Israel. Both the US and Russia have had small units in Syria now.

Others have made lots of good points.

I’d really challenge the assumption that defending Ukraine directly would be harder than forcing a Russian retreat/surrender by attacking Russia.

One commenters pointed out another thing:
Russia defeated by NATO would be unpleasant but tolerable for Russian propaganda. They would just say NATO are the bad guys harming them and they need to start a new arm race.
Russia defeated by Ukraine, however, would completely shatter the myth of "second army in the world" and other imperial narratives of greatness. That can result in deep social and political changes in Russia, in more desired direction - towards democracy and peaceful coexistence.

So, provided the long-term goal is to contain Russian imperial aspirations, supporting Ukraine indirectly is a better tactics than getting directly involved, as long as the conflict does not spread outside of Ukraine.

Because there are internationally agreed upon rules of war.

USA and others can supply arms and ammo/medical supplies to Ukraine to use, but if they send soldiers/air force etc now they're actively engaging in war with Russia. Big difference. Even more blatant direct war with Russia if the USA/others just decided to level Moscow instead. Then it would be all out world war.

On top of all of that, no nuclear armed country has ever fired a shot directly at another nuclear armed country - because the risk is that if they do so, which would be a declaration of war by action, then there's the risk of nuclear retaliation. If the USA shoots bullets at Russia, Russia might shoot nukes at the USA - and that's to be avoided at all costs.

Oh I see. Why did the US agree to these rules of war, since it really limits their options of help? The US decided to actually go and fight in WWII and Vietnam and the Gulf for example, so why did they agree to these rules now? Or is it just with Russia?

Every gradeschool kid knows the answer to that question. AND on top of that- he just explained it to you.

Because breaking the rules would be f*****g SUICIDE!! !! !! !

MEGA suicide on a global scale.

What part of that do you not understand????

Major powers fought each other in the two world wars.

Since 1945 major powers cannot directly fight each other. Even if nukes didnt exist the powers at be agreed of the industrialized world all agreed that 'we all cant do this anymore". But on top of that...the atom was split, and now we have nukes. So since 1945 any war between primary superpowers (all of which have nukes) would risk nuclear war ...which would mean the end of civilization itself.

Oh I didn't mean to go nuclear war, I just meant help Ukraine more effectively rather than just ship them some money and equipment. But I didn't mean nuclear.

Therein lays the problem, more direct involvement, even if it's more effective greatly increases the risk of things escalating to a nuclear confrontation.

Essentially help Ukraine directly is a synonym for risk nuclear war with Russia. You can't say you just mean the one and not the other, they mean the same thing.

Oh okay, but didn't NATO ever come up with a plan in case things ever came to nuclear war with Russia? This whole time they never came up with a fail-safe weapon or stragedy that would be superior to Russia hopefully?