You can make the same argument for a world where Russia invades a NATO member like the Baltic states. What do we do then? Start World War Three? Abandon huge parts of Europe to be invaded until Russian tanks are rolling through Germany?
Publically, saying that attacking a NATO state is equivalent to attacking Ukraine, seems to me a great way to signal that NATO promises about mutual defense aren’t worth the ink they are printed on.
Why do you do that? It seems pretty inconsistent with your overall position.
Therefore the main goal of Western strategy should be to never get to that point. That means that our response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine must credibly signal to Russia, China and any other potential invaders that the cost of invading another country is too high. Remember that their leaders are making comparable calculations: what is the best strategy for China/Russia to take given the expected response of the West.
Politicians, think about all sorts of decisions when invading other countries that are not just “what’s the best strategy for my country”.
The sanctions on RT and Sputnik made it easier for the Russian government to censor their own population in a stronger way which is likely welcome for a lot of people in the Kremlin that pushed for the war.
[2] Evidence from the response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine suggests that we’d go with option 2 and take major economic damage trying to throw China out of the world trade system while still failing to save Taiwan.
No, evidence from the Russian invasion suggests that imports that are considered critical like gas in Germany were still going on while politicians engaged in economic damage at home that wouldn’t inconvenience their population too much.
The trade relationship with China is very different and doing significant damage to China involves a much bigger shock to Western economies.
If you would want to signal that we are willing to accept a lot of damage you should write op-eds about how letting millions of Africans starve is worth it because that would actually signal that you are willing to sacrifice.
I think writing op-eds about how letting millions of Africans starve is worth it would signal not “that you are willing to sacrifice” but that you don’t care about people far away from you. (Which seems like it’s probably the wrong message to send, if you want to make people far away from you believe that invading other people far away from you will get them hit with economic sanctions that will hurt you as well as them.)
You could discuss how the UN food program should be funded in a way that it doesn’t have to beg Elon for money and say that funding those things is very important to make up for damage to make the message that starvation is a big deal better.
Publically, saying that attacking a NATO state is equivalent to attacking Ukraine, seems to me a great way to signal that NATO promises about mutual defense aren’t worth the ink they are printed on.
Why do you do that? It seems pretty inconsistent with your overall position.
Politicians, think about all sorts of decisions when invading other countries that are not just “what’s the best strategy for my country”.
The sanctions on RT and Sputnik made it easier for the Russian government to censor their own population in a stronger way which is likely welcome for a lot of people in the Kremlin that pushed for the war.
No, evidence from the Russian invasion suggests that imports that are considered critical like gas in Germany were still going on while politicians engaged in economic damage at home that wouldn’t inconvenience their population too much.
The trade relationship with China is very different and doing significant damage to China involves a much bigger shock to Western economies.
If you would want to signal that we are willing to accept a lot of damage you should write op-eds about how letting millions of Africans starve is worth it because that would actually signal that you are willing to sacrifice.
I think writing op-eds about how letting millions of Africans starve is worth it would signal not “that you are willing to sacrifice” but that you don’t care about people far away from you. (Which seems like it’s probably the wrong message to send, if you want to make people far away from you believe that invading other people far away from you will get them hit with economic sanctions that will hurt you as well as them.)
You could discuss how the UN food program should be funded in a way that it doesn’t have to beg Elon for money and say that funding those things is very important to make up for damage to make the message that starvation is a big deal better.