The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.
I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.
Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.
We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.
I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.
Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.
We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.
