How Many Dead Will The West Accept?

The conflict in Ukraine forces me, you, everyone to ask the question that will inevitably need to be asked: How many dead Ukrainians will the western world accept before direct intervention is finally deemed necessary?

It’s a fair question. It’s also fair because this will undoubtedly happen, sooner or later. Do we in the western world accept 10,000 dead? 100,000? 1,000,000? In a country with over 44 million people, would 2,000,000 be “enough” before the West says “that’s enough”?

The heartbreaking photos and videos pouring out of Ukraine forces us to ask the moral questions that SHOULD be asked earlier, not later. Over two thousand civilians are dead with more every hour as Russia pounds civilian targets throughout the country.

Russia has made is pretty clear that the number of dead has no relevance in their objectives to their goal, which is to completely overthrow the entire country. So the west should be asking the obvious – what number of dead will we accept before we take direct action to end the slaughter?

This question is also pathetic, because it is not “we” who are dying and being maimed and having our homes destroyed, our lives ruined. “We” have the luxury of asking this most ridiculous but relevant question. “We” get to sit safely back and ponder the unfolding realities as the daily body count rises higher and higher. “We” get to sit in judgement offering our empty “support and prayers” claims from the long-distance safety of staying home, far, far away from the conflict. Although it should be obvious, God is not intervening in this conflict, it is up to humanity to do so.

Many pundits have posed the question that nuclear war is a possibility should the West get involved. Frankly, this is just bullshit and an excuse to not challenge Putin in his quest for domination. That risk is and always has been there. What these pundits are actually saying is that we should tolerate an untold number of dead, whatever that figure turns out to be – we won’t directly intervene. They’re also saying that we’re not going to stop Putin at any time, no matter what or where his ambitions are – because this poses the threat of a nuclear conflict.

But this is not true. We already know that we would stop Putin and Russia “if we had to” at some invisible line somewhere. At the incursion or an attack on a “NATO” country. So if we would truly would stop Putin there – then why not here? The risk is exactly the same. We would still face the proverbial nuclear conflict.

But nuclear conflict means mutual destruction, and thus, the last confrontation ANY nation would want to make. It’s mutual and assured and the very reason why it is not likely to happen.

It would be far better for Ukraine and the rest of the world to confront Putin earlier then later. The notion that we will NOT have to do this as some future time is the reason – we will, it is just a matter of time now and a matter of how many dead we will accept before finally saying “enough” and directly intervene.

The West is hoping that that confrontation will never happen – but what is this assumption based on? That Ukraine WON’T become a staging ground for Russian forces? That Ukraine WON’T wind up with nuclear weapons pointed at the West? That Putin won’t invade another country? That Putin won’t confront a NATO country?

These assumptions bugger the mind. Putin has made it CLEAR, beyond any shadow of doubt that he fully intends to “restore Russia”, which means he WILL confront NATO countries that were formerly Soviet republics. Pretending that this won’t happen or isn’t his plan is to deny his own stated claims and intentions. Leaked plans already show that Putin intends to go further then Ukraine.

So this is why this painful, but obvious, and even pathetic question must be asked: How many dead will the West accept before we put a stop to this madness?

We certainly do have the means to do this – but what is lacking is the willingness.