me_irl

Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.

In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.

Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.

Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.

In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?

Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?

Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.

I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.

Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).

Do you have a better argument?