[yuan43]

> If the United States adheres to these five rules, it can demonstrate to Russia that the costs and likelihood of losing are so high, the only winning move is not to play.

Depressing to see that this is the kind of crap former US military are putting out.

The situation is so far beyond these trite five rules as to be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. This was the case even in Feb 2022. Everything the author claims the US should be doing is something Russia is doing.

There are no new insights here, just a strong undercurrent of US exceptionalism. Exactly the kind of garbage Russia is feeding to its people.

Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

[robotresearcher]

The article promotes the opposite of exceptionalism.

> if it expects fair arbitration, the United States must ascribe to the rules it proclaims: For example, it cannot cry foul over Russian threats to freedom of navigation while remaining a nonsignatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Instead of flaunting exceptionalism and decrying these institutions’ irreconcilable problems, it must advance their credibility and authority. When necessary to withdraw from a commitment, the United States must state its intentions early and provide justification to avoid the perception that it too shirks the rules. Rule-breaking must bear a cost.

[libertine]

>Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

The article does say that there are costs to this game, and breaking rules should be in itself a cost.

If the goal of the game is to stop playing the game - peace - then the consequences must be lesser than the cost of continuing playing the game.