Sorry, lots of back and forth. To summarize, I contend that:
- I think it's not really up for debate that Putin seeks to restore Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe in a 'multi-polar world' (his words in his national security policies going back to since he took office)
- Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was informed by an estimation that Russian annexation would be popular and therefore the operation would be short (RUSI article)
- Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was also partially based on NATO's force build-up in the Baltics (Professor interview) and actions taken by the US over the last 10-15 years that he interprets as provocative.
- Putin is an autocrat who will use unethical / immoral means to stay in power, but I don't particularly care about that when it comes to US national security interests.
- Russia interferes in foreign governments when it suits them, and so do we. That will never stop.
- Despite the hand-wringing over China, Russia remains the only country with the military capability and operational knowledge to conduct significant non-nuclear kinetic operations on the US homeland. Their blunder in Ukraine was underestimating the will and capability of their enemy.
- It's important to consider counter-arguments and try to look at things through Russia's lens (to the extent that is possible being raised in a western liberal society) in order to fully understand the dynamic.
Were I running for President, I would continue to support Ukranian sovereignty (which in reality is costing us very little despite MSM making it sound like we're breaking the budget over this) while also attempting to warm relations with Putin. Economically and militarily, we have to stop making him believe that he needs to take territory by force to create a self-sufficient Russia to hedge against US military and economic power. If an agreement to reduce our force posturing in the Baltics and remove US sanctions in exchange for pulling back from Ukraine is what needs to be done, then I'd be willing to do it. I would not outright withdraw from NATO, but I don't see what our alliance with these countries does for the U.S. except commit us to an undesirable and unpopular conflict while provoking a nation we need to have diplomatic and economic relations with on some level to achieve global prosperity and security. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that the world map is probably going to be re-drawn with borders currently mimicking the front lines. I would not be willing to commit the ground forces necessary to enable the Ukranian army to recapture its lost territory, and the longer this conflict goes the more Russia's military is going to un-fuck itself.
This happens to be more aligned with the historical GOP pragmatic approach to Russia, whereas the Democrats take the more moralistic approach that Russia is an enemy that cannot be trusted and must be met with force. President Biden is the poster child of that mentality, and I contend
his unwillingness and inability to reach a common understanding with Putin does more harm than good to the U.S. and tilts Putin toward using force to achieve his desired end-state. It also increases popular support for Putin among the Russian people who blame US economic sanctions for their hardships. Putin tells his people "the west doesn't dislike me, it dislikes all of you" and they believe it. I wish Putin were not President of Russia for life, and I wish Russia had free elections with an actual opposition party, but those are facts we cannot control.
The major challenge any President faces at this point is that Putin has seen 4 administrations that have run the gamut from calling him an ally to a threat, and at this point has very little reason to trust that any policy or agreement we make with Russia won't flip every 4-8 years.
