Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Let me try to lay it all out then.
I don't want the USA to be involved in Ukraine when we so badly need to get our own house in order. In fact, I'd like it if the USA dialed back several notches on playing 'World shadow Empire' with our over-bloated military when our country is rotting out from under us in both figurative and literal senses. And, if Putin is as 'irrational' as people like to say, I don't want the risk of a nuclear war occurring.
This is a shallow and self-terminating argument from wishful isolationist idealism. "We have some internal problems so let's extinguish our geopolitical assets in alliances and influence because reasons". Plus some plain ol' fearmongering sauce.
Ukraine involvement is somewhere around 367th thing standing between USA and solutions to its internal problems.
The connection there is so weak it's not even funny that you bring it up.
Ukraine had serious issues with corruption before the war* and since a large part of it has been ravaged by war, I don't expect that problem to go away or get better after the shooting stops. On top of that, you'd better believe that when said shooting stops, Western politicians will demand we send aid to Ukraine for the sake of rebuilding. With very little care as to if said aid actually accomplishes anything or not, so long as they can't get blamed for it - at least in the short term.
So? Again, you are arguing for terminating of US geopolitical influence for very spurious reasons. Yes, most of the world is more corrupt than the West. That's not even near a valid reason to refuse perfectly functional alliances and influence operations.
Your geopolitical competitors will laugh all the way to the bank if you go along with such reasoning.
Fixing up a war-ravaged Ukraine will likely take years, even if a peace treaty would be signed today. Because there's ALWAYS more to fixing up a country after a war than just filling in some bomb craters. Never mind that nothing is guaranteed in a war until it's done. One needs only crack open a history book to find many, many examples of natiosn who thought they had their enemy on the ropes being wrong. Just look at how certain people were that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine; or how sure Russia was that they'd Blitzkrieg Ukraine and have the war wrapped up in a neat tidy bow.
We aren't talking about fixing up war-ravaged Ukraine, we are talking about making the war-ravaged Ukraine become a western ally rather than Russia's satrapy. USA would be perfectly fair to drop the bulk of that on the EU and\or war reparations, which might want to admit Ukraine later on anyway.
As for ensuring the result - well, the more military assistance Ukraine gets, the more certain the result is, and Ukraine has already proven quite a few times that it can turn said assistance into significant results unlike certain other parties *cough Afghanistan cough*.
Also, the fog of war is very much an issue no matter whose side you are on. Remember how many times the US thought they had the Middle East in a bag and it turned out they didn't? Or am I the only one whose memory still reaches back to Biden and the US military's fuck up there?
Platitudes and wrong comparisons, as i said, this isn't a sandbox with a nation-building grift going on. This is a textbook conventional war in Europe instead, if you keep making such comparisons stubbornly, that only casts doubt upon your understanding or intent in the topic.
And for the record, the war in Ukraine most certainly is a proxy war between Russia and NATO/the West, as NATO is supplying Ukraine with arms and money so they can continue to fight Russia, all while NATO/the West keep their hands clean and stay out of direct confrontation with Russia. Meanwhile, Russia and the West indirectly fight each other with economic tools. That is LITERALLY the definition of a proxy war.
So what?
In the meantime, since our political leaders are determined to send aid to Ukraine, I don't mind the idea of inspectors being sent in to make sure things are on the up and up. Provided that they're actually doing their damn jobs instead of just rubber-stamping. Which I fear is their real purpose. Along with, as I explain below, serving another agenda.
On a related note, as I explained above, it would not be the first time that nations used some form of investigation as an excuse or cover to get more involved in a conflict, regardless of if said nation's people wanted to or not. And the USA is no stranger to doing this in recent decades. Then again, neither is Russia.
So make up your mind, is it too much involvement, or not enough involvement? Is additional supervision "on the ground" worth the risk of greater involvement that inherently comes with scale of operations, or not?
Assuming that Ukrainians don't take them out to a field and shoot them while NATO looks the other way, puts their fingers in their own ears, and whistles really damn loud.
I'd give it at most 30%. And if they do, they would be justified in it, because that's exactly what the other side's policy is. Assuming any will be dumb enough to stay, otherwise it's a moot point, if Russia bothers to save its loyalists it can evacuate them, if not, it's going to be an example for those who think of their choice of friends in the future.
Yeah, instead I'd give it a roughly 60% chance it'll be done by NATO troops or UN Blue Helmets.
Lol, you wish. If NATO and UN were willing to do such things, Afghanistan and Iraq would have went *very* differently, and there would have been a whole lot more dead islamists.
