I’ve been conducting a days-long inner monologue on the topic and I’m still not sure how to properly dissect it but I’ll give it a shot:
In August 1990 , Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait. In January 1991, coalition forces, led by the United States “liberated” Kuwait, forcing Saddam’s forces to withdraw. I recall the period vividly. I was in my mid-30’s and an avid news junkie. Like the overwhelming majority of the world, I applauded the American victory. The opposition at the time was relatively minor and consisted exclusively of the left fringes of the Democratic Party, Socialists and their fellow travelers, as well as the usual group of suspects: pacifists and hard core libertarians. Whether you opposed the intervention or agreed with it, there remains no doubt that United States interests were involved. We had a dog in the fight. The dog’s name was (is) Oil. Back in the 90’s we didn’t pretend that we can roll merrily along on wind power and dream about battery powered airplanes.
Today, opposition to insane weapons and money shipments to Ukraine is concentrated on the right of the political spectrum. The Democratic Party, Socialists, labor unions and assorted social warriors have become the most ardent warmongers. Who knew? And yet, perversely, this time around, there are no US interests involved in this long-running spat between the two Slavic countries. A Russian strongman’s invasion of a neighboring state (parts of which have been historically a part of Russia anyway) awakens the inner combatant in present-day liberals: “We will not let this aggression go unpunished. We must fight to the bitter end” I assume that by “we” they mean Ukrainian women and children as well as young Russian soldiers. And of course, that bitter end could truly be bitter this time around. The threat of thermonuclear Armageddon was not on the table in 1991.
In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, the IDF had encircled the Egyptian Third Army, 62 miles from Cairo. Yet even in Israel, gravely wounded morally, and dealt not a negligible blow militarily, there were few calls the annihilation of the Third Army. President Nixon and Henry Kissinger pressed for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the war came to an end. The fact that the Third Army was spared enabled the Egyptians to save face and paved the way for Anwar Sadat’s peace mission to Israel in 1977. (I have a sorrowful personal story about this 1973 conflict elsewhere on my Substack).
Only negotiations and compromise will bring an end to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Neither side will be happy with it but the killing will stop. It’s beyond the ken to see our politicians and media (including the completely compromised FOX News) cheer on the missile shipments and the untold billions sent into a war which essentially pits the Russian corrupt regime against the Ukrainian corrupt regime - the latter one containing not a negligible sprinkling of Nazism
“Jaw, jaw - better than war, war” (credited to Winston Churchill but actually said by British PM Harold MacMillan who misquoted WC)
The thing is, Russia has already tried "jaw jaw".
Back in 2015, one year into the Ukrainian ethnic cleansing of Donbass, Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk Accords, which was supposed to result in a ceasefire. But Ukraine broke the agreement and continued to bomb their own citizens in Donbass for another seven years.
This "strongman invasion", as you call it, came after eight long years of western Ukraine waging war on its own ethnic Russian population in eastern Ukraine. "Jaw jaw" hasn't put an end to it yet, and with the U.S. training and equipping Ukrainian forces, it's not likely to end it any time soon.
The West needs to stop funding Ukraine's war effort. We are only prolonging a conflict that Ukraine cannot win.
I remember that conflict you reference very well; I was there, early on, and we bought into the story that we were fighting for Kuwaiti sovereignty and the good things we were doing. Only when we got back did I see the push back (slight as it was,) and remember signs saying "No Blood for Oil" and "War is Menstrual Envy."
Now, I see this inexplicable push for war, an ugly one, on the thinnest of pretexts about "sovereignty" and "independence." I cannot make sense of it. That this is a NATO issue is laughable. It's not about oil. Maybe it's about some great re-set, who knows. There may be an argument for sovereignty, but there's no freedom or independence in that corrupt country now or ever that is worth our blood or treasure. There's something afoot, and I'm pretty sure that one day we'll see American and Ukrainian national level politicians with swollen bank accounts that account for this madness. That's the only explanation, and the simplest one.