Setting aside the absolute immorality of giving the Ukrainians enough to bleed human lives, just not bleed to death, there is zero advantage in this case. Ask around the Pentagon and you will find people deeply worried about our weapons stockpiles but also concern over the first risk rule of proxy wars…escalation. In our history, Vietnam is the best example of escalation that went from munitions to advisors to open combat.
Obama hoped to break the escalation chain by not answering Russia’s initial aggression. Biden altered course and went from logistical aid, to military weapons and on to training and advisory roles (albeit out of country). Now consider even the best case: America provides enough lethal aid to allow Ukraine to make rapid gains and sustainable gains. Russia would have every incentive to respond, ratcheting up the stakes and costs of the conflict. How far would the United States be willing to go to counter Russia’s increased commitment? In a cycle of escalation and counter-escalation, it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the United States would be willing to risk more than Russia over Ukraine (meaning no POTUS will seriously consider sending in troops). If we intervene on behalf of a proxy without clarity as to how far we are willing to go, and how important their security is to our own, doesn’t that set us and our partners up for failure?
en.m.wikipedia.org
