I have no idea who you are quoting. But bowing down to nuclear threats increases the chance of nuclear war. This is because it will cause more nuclear threats in the future, and also strongly incentivize most non-nuclear countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
We currently see NATO provide very stern back-channel warnings against nuclear weapon use to Russia. This is deterrence, which again decreases the chance of nuclear weapon use.
Similarly, providing military support to countries that are invaded decreases the risk of future invasions all over the world, since it makes the cost that much higher for someone who wants to achieve their goals by military force.
We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. But the current support for Ukraine's self defense is a completely different sort of situation, and has little to do with allegiance to any particular country.
It does also support the USA's geopolitical interests as a side effect, which is why the US is so strongly involved, but the deterrence effect is the main reason it's important. It serves the same goal you're aiming towards -- long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used.
"long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used" is precisely and explicitly what the US nuclear arsenal is protecting: unrivalled power for the US with no foe capable of resisting it. For this goal they (just like Russia) are willing to risk the lives of millions, see https://critisticuffs.org/texts/ukraine-russia-usa and the quotes from US military doctrines referenced therein.
>Why was it a mistake? It’s unclear what “mistake” means.
Tbh killing a million civilians for oil isn't a mistake, a mistake is like when you make spelling mistakes or trip and fall because you miscalculated, killing a million civilians for oil is just a warcrime, then the US might go on and on about Japan not apologizing for Nanjing for example, or just do business with Saudi Arabia who stone (aka THROW STONES ON WOMEN UNTIL THEY DIE) or decapitate people for adultery or some other trivial thing, or even Israel and the textbook Apartheid they subjugate the Palestinians to.
I'm saying this because I just got tired of the current narrative of the US playing the good guys and Putin being the bad guy, all politicians are bad guys, and seeing how the USSR disolved on the basis that NATO would not expand further, and it still did and now it has missiles stationed in Poland, and then the west backs a coup that resulted in Zelenskyy's predecessor then in Zelenskyy, I don't understand how that would be different as say Mexico or Canada having their government toppled by a Russian backed gov.
And spare me the "nukes" are deterrent talk, a nuclear war can escalate in 1 hour and kill >99% of humans on the planet, I love my country and other European countries, but if you made me chose between losing a chunk of it or 99% of people in the world dying? Come on...
Yes. “Mistake” is unclear because it is unclear whether it is alluding to the Real War Aim of the Iraq War or the Stated War Aim (i.e. get rid of Hussein (who had WMDs)).
Often what people mean is indeed that US had good intentions but just went about realizing them in a stupid manner. But politics is so ideological that you kind of have to ask what they mean by their shorthands.
I really disagreed with the Iraq war at the time: it was obvious that it was Bush's revenge and Cheney's wallet that was the motivation, not concerns about WMDs or revenge for 9/11. (If 9/11 is the motivation, invade Saudi or Pakistan. If WMD proliferation is the concern, invade Iran or North Korea before they can develop nuclear weapons!)
However, Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator. He openly persecuted ethnic groups which were resistant to his rule. The mistake of the US was not in the toppling of Hussein, but in not having a credible plan to deal with the following sectarian crisis, where a majority ethnic group which had been suppressed suddenly has power over the minority ethnic group which had previously been in power. (The responsibility for which violence falls jointly on the people of Iraq.) To put it another way, either a genocide or a bloody civil war was inevitable with the death of Saddam Hussein or his successor, and all the US did was move the timeline forward 30 years.
Hussein was a contained threat. He was a mad dictator, but we knew what to expect and mitigate him. He kept the middle East in check. Once we deposed him, all hell broke loose in the Middle East (ISIS, et al). Sometimes the enemy you know is better than the enemy you don’t know.
We currently see NATO provide very stern back-channel warnings against nuclear weapon use to Russia. This is deterrence, which again decreases the chance of nuclear weapon use.
Similarly, providing military support to countries that are invaded decreases the risk of future invasions all over the world, since it makes the cost that much higher for someone who wants to achieve their goals by military force.
We can all agree that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and that the United States has made many such mistakes. But the current support for Ukraine's self defense is a completely different sort of situation, and has little to do with allegiance to any particular country.
It does also support the USA's geopolitical interests as a side effect, which is why the US is so strongly involved, but the deterrence effect is the main reason it's important. It serves the same goal you're aiming towards -- long-term peace and trade, and ensuring nuclear weapons are never used.