Great Britain paid back every penny of Lend Lease, the final payment being in 2006. It's a false analogy anyway. Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, in fact the Ukraine war resembles the runup to WWI more than WWII. Yes, Putin is a thug and an opportunist, yes the invasion was unjustified and brutal, no the Russians should no…
Great Britain paid back every penny of Lend Lease, the final payment being in 2006. It's a false analogy anyway. Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, in fact the Ukraine war resembles the runup to WWI more than WWII. Yes, Putin is a thug and an opportunist, yes the invasion was unjustified and brutal, no the Russians should not be rewarded for their aggression. But is this really a vital security interest of the United States? Or are we being used by our European allies as their wealthy but senile uncle once again, while they preen and preach?
The distinction is critical, though. Hitler was a madman who wanted to conquer the world, while Putin is an opportunist who will push on any open door if he thinks he can expand Russia's power. The first is an existential threat, the second is a manageable threat. The real moral issue should be whether Putin can be managed without the deaths of thousands of American troops, which means a ceasefire as a first step. The problem is both Zelensky and Putin depend on the war to justify their rule - without it they are both finished.
Great Britain paid back every penny of Lend Lease, the final payment being in 2006. It's a false analogy anyway. Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, in fact the Ukraine war resembles the runup to WWI more than WWII. Yes, Putin is a thug and an opportunist, yes the invasion was unjustified and brutal, no the Russians should not be rewarded for their aggression. But is this really a vital security interest of the United States? Or are we being used by our European allies as their wealthy but senile uncle once again, while they preen and preach?
I get what you're saying but I don't think the analogy has to be a perfect fit in order for the underlying moral principle to hold.
The distinction is critical, though. Hitler was a madman who wanted to conquer the world, while Putin is an opportunist who will push on any open door if he thinks he can expand Russia's power. The first is an existential threat, the second is a manageable threat. The real moral issue should be whether Putin can be managed without the deaths of thousands of American troops, which means a ceasefire as a first step. The problem is both Zelensky and Putin depend on the war to justify their rule - without it they are both finished.