Counter-argument: the Americans did not defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Instead, we paid and trained the Afghans to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. The result was an invigorated and seasoned core of insurgents that concluded they could defeat any oppressor. We would have much less difficulty in Afghanistan if we hadn't spent eight years teaching them how to kill us. Giving the Ukrainians the materiel and support to defeat the Russians will, in the long run, preserve more lives than swooping in and defeating the Russians. If Putin/whoever comes after Putin develops the sense that any conflict he chooses to get mired in is likely to be funded and supplied by NATO, his risk assessments will have to take that into account. I've got some tinfoil in my baseball cap these days. If I was a government run by a known traitor? And I had to figure out a way to persist on the off-chance I was able to reclaim it? I might well use the former Vice President's son as a courier for classified info. Especially if he was willing to be called a drug-addled adulterer by the opposition. Dunno. Never met Hunter Biden. But if I were looking for a place to sequester intelligence against a puppet regime hell bent on my destruction, I'd take a long hard look at his laptop.It's heart-wrenching to do the calculus and conclude that, globally, we're most likely minimalizing suffering by letting only the Ukrainian people suffer. It feels cowardly. And like Fiona Hill says, Ukraine is undoubtedly not enough for Putin. Ugh.