Comments by "Snack Plissken" (@snackplissken8192) on "Can the US Fight 3 Wars at the Same Time? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

  1. It might be less a question of priority than a question of what can be accomplished for the resource expenditure. Israel can absolutely beat Hamas. They are vastly more powerful than their adversary and international patience for their self-defense is limited so that conflict will have the quickest resolution with the least expenditure. If Taiwan can be kept out of a war, it is probably the second-cheapest conflict for Washington to achieve its goals in. If America has to fight a proxy war with China over Taiwan, China has vastly more resources and military power than any of America's other geopolitical rivals, so maintaining the status quo in Taiwan is paramount. Ukraine is a bit more tricky, since Russia has the stronger war machine than Ukraine, and it's already a hot war. Washington either has to ramp spending up to give Ukraine the resources to win, threaten to cut support to get Ukraine to the bargaining table, or publically do the first and quietly threaten the second to pressure both sides into a compromise, but Uncle Sam has hedged his bets and has put only limited pressure on Putin to avoid Russian threats of escalation and no pressure on Zelenskyy to avoid giving its allies excuses to moderate their positions on Russia. The administration would probably have an easier time getting the hawks on the right to fight with their populist wing if they seemed to have a plan to end the conflict or if Ukraine was making visible progress. The sad truth is that, right or left, American politicians have a long tradition of declaring any perceived stalemate as an intractable quagmire that must be abandoned when the conflict belongs to a president of the opposing party.
    1