Still, the opinions are generally well written and sometimes I am in agreement with them. This may be such a time.
Robert Zubrin has a piece worth considering, Biden embraces a Ukrainian defeat. While the frothy headline is smarmy clickbait, the author may be correct in his analysis.
It has become evident the Biden administration has embraced conflict “containment” as its principal objective in dealing with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to this theory, while it would be nice if Ukraine survives the war, that is not of fundamental importance. What is critical, as far as the Biden administration is concerned, is that the war not spread to involve other parties, notably the U.S. and NATO. Thus, Biden has ruled out providing NATO air support, a no-fly zone, old Warsaw Pact MiGs, or even Patriot anti-missile batteries on the supposition that such aid might sufficiently anger Russian dictator Vladimir Putin such that he lashes out at the United States or our NATO allies, thereby drawing us into the war.
A strategy designed to give up on Ukraine but sealing the calumny to its borders might avert World War III but is it fair to the people that live there?
Is this a proper strategy for the Untied States to undertake, a country once committed to fighting fascism? Is it fair to allow Ukraine to become a blood sacrifice on the altar of Russian expansionism? Is it proper for Biden to limit arms sales to the Ukraine because of the risk to the world of a larger conflagration? What sort of friend and ally are we destined to be?