While this is somewhat of a bad take IMO, I looked up this guy and while he is a Republican, he has been steadfast in his support for Ukraine, and even has a very based official website discussing what aid is going to Ukraine, and as part of his committee duties has worked to come up with planning to ensure Ukraine does not give in to Russia and insists the US should increase aid to Ukraine.

From the Proposed Plan for Victory in Ukraine:

Ukraine needs the longest-range variant of ATACMS, F-16s, and sufficient quantities of cluster munitions, artillery, air defenses, and armor to make a difference on the battlefield. … A path to victory for Ukraine will require (1) providing critical weapons to Ukraine at the speed of relevance, (2) tightening sanctions on the Putin regime, and (3) transferring [$300 billion of] frozen Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine.

This strategy will ensure Ukraine is able to make the needed advances on the battlefield to force Putin to the negotiating table. If Ukraine doesn’t negotiate from a position of strength, there can be no lasting peace.

Russian forces have committed countless war crimes in Ukraine, including executions, torture, and rape. Russia has also kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children and sent them to so-called re-education camps in Russia and occupied Ukraine. Those responsible for these crimes must face justice. If Russia is able to conquer more of Ukraine, millions more innocent civilians will be subject to a similarly horrific fate.

The rest of the document is biased Republican garbage, bashing Biden and other rhetoric, but it is a plus to see there are at least some Republicans (2 others worked with Turner on the Plan for Victory) supporting Ukraine, despite some questionable motivation. This gives me a little bit of hopefulness that if Congress doesn't remain under Democratic leadership that Ukraine may still manage to keep getting support.

Again, I'm not going to cheer for this guy, but I will give some credit where it's due that he isn't following the MAGA crowd in trying to drop support to Ukraine and allow Russia to get away with things. I don't think the US actively escalating things is going to benefit anyone, but continued supply and support efforts still seem very crucial.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ukraine is losing ground. Unless something changes, they will eventually lose the war.

The things required to stop that will necessarily be escalatory.

The West needs to fucking swallow that pill instead of endlessly fretting about escalation. Do you think Putin is worried about escalation? He just brought North Korea into the war.

Ukraine will be a smouldering ruin and Russian troops will be amassed at the border of the NATO Baltics licking their chops and the big brain west will be saying "Thank goodness we were so responsible in the Former Ukraine"

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

With as much Russian Kool-aid America has drank at this point, I feel the country as a whole is still doing a lot to help Ukraine. I can get behind a plan for The West to take a more active role, but I would rather see that be lead by NATO or a European coalition that having the US go in with guns blazing. I don't feel any county, including Russia, as far as the actual citizens at least, will benefit from a Russian success. With so many parties that should be concerned with the outcome, I'd rather see the US remain in a supporting role to put to bed any accusations of this being some kind of colonialism.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

They can't do it as NATO, because it's a purely defensive alliance. The NATO partners would have to do it individually or make a different alliance for it.

IMHO it would be nice to help Ukraine with troops though. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I guess most countries don't want to risk moving their armies and become vulnerable themselves.

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 2 weeks ago

The only country that would even think about deploying is Poland but I doubt they would without US backing them.

Anyway, we put Ukraine into some weird situation. Russian allies are clearly acting as such while we are being a fair weather friend.

I guess it is fitting considering nuclear non proliferation doctrine was pretty much a Kansas City Shuffle.

[–] superkret@feddit.org -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I don’t see anything wrong with that

It would turn it into a world war. I see a lot wrong with that.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

No it won't. Korea is already there.

Let me tell you what ACTUALLY starts a world war.

Russia wins in Ukraine, spends 8 years building up forces and getting even tighter w/ china, keep chipping away at NATO unity with useful idiots like Orban, and then they take a crack at the Baltics.

THAT'S how WWIII starts.

Right now the masks are all still on. What happens in Ukraine stays in Ukraine. This is the only time to put boots on the ground that DOESN'T start a world war.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sometimes it takes a world war to end a war.

[–] superkret@feddit.org -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Then maybe sometimes it's better if the war isn't ended, and freezes like the Korean war instead.

A world war is literally never the better option.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

depends where the borders currently are at, when it freezes

[–] superkret@feddit.org -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

no, it honestly doesn't.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

look, when it freezes and russia gained land, it's like a win for them. it will encourage them to rearm and start over or attack another country, then freeze again. over and over. some people are assholes and you can't have peace with them, because of them, not you. they will always start a war again, if they don't have to fear being destroyed or at least lose a bit of their territory.

i understand you want the killing to stop and it's good and where we should be heading, but there hasn't been a single day in more than 5000 years without an armed conflict and we just don't know how much before that, because there's not much recorded. humans are not there yet. the asshole to peaceful ratio is not in our favor.

the vast majority of russians likes this war. as long as they do, there will be no peace. every ceasefire will be broken by them. for them to stop, they must be destroyed. it's like Germany back in WW2. Germany had to be beaten and destroyed to become a normal, non-aggresive nation. it sucks, but this is how humans are at the moment.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago

The Korean war is still on - the last serious battle was 1953, but the two sides just decided it wasn't worth fighting but never agreed to end it. It probably isn't hard to find treaties and laws dating to back then that give the US military permission to attack without asking congress. (the us never declared war though, so it would need a very detailed lawyer and months to go through all the laws to figure out the exact status)

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

Russian forces too, but baby steps I guess…