Crenshaw: destroying the Russian army without losing US troops is a good idea

Crenshaw: destroying the Russian army without losing US troops is a good idea

US Congressman Dan Crenshaw wrote it bluntly on his X account: "Yes, because investing in the destruction of our adversary's armed forces, without losing a single American troop, seems like a good idea to me. You should feel the same." The quote, reposted on a discussion forum, sparked a debate that goes far beyond the tweet: is Ukraine a proxy war for Washington? Who is really footing the bill? And who comes out ahead if the conflict drags on?

What Crenshaw actually said and why it reads as a confession

The congressman's post never mentions Ukraine, but the context gives it away. The wording —investing in the destruction of the adversary, without losing a single troop of one's own— describes a proxy warfare model that some analysts have long been pointing out. On the forum, the prevailing reaction was one of confirmation: "The US now uses proxy armies, there's precedent with Syria where its plans never came together, just as it won't achieve anything in Ukraine — well, if it keeps dumping the problem on Europe, that's a win-win."

The thesis running through the debate is that Washington has found the perfect formula: wear Moscow down without risking a single American life, while Ukrainians bear the human cost and Europe bears the economic cost. "The US has done that now and always. If it pulls it off, great for them; if it fails, Europe pays the price," sums up another message.

Ukraine as cannon fodder: who says it and with what arguments

The phrase "cannon fodder" appears repeatedly in the thread, but not always with the same meaning. For some, it describes the reality of a country that supplies the dead while Washington supplies the hardware. For others, it's a way of insulting those who resist. "Zelensky is a puppet of a country ruled by the Soros-style Maidan coup plotters. Russia is protecting itself and protecting massacred Ukrainians," argues one of the harshest positions.

Against that reading, another camp reminds that it was Ukraine that asked for weapons and that it is Ukrainians who are defending their territory. "As far as I know, it was Zelensky who asked for weapons and it's Ukrainians who are defending their country. You write as if Ukrainians loved the idea of the damn Russians invading them," one message retorts.

The sticking point is not so much who started it, but whether Western support turns Ukraine into an instrument or an ally. And on that, the forum splits.

The economic calculation: who wins and who pays for reconstruction

Beyond the rhetoric, the thread introduces an economic argument that usually stays out of the headlines: American aid to the Soviet Union during World War II was repaid, with interest, decades later. "The debt owed to the US was finally paid off by Pilingui four damn days ago, with interest. The Anglo pirates never give anything for free," one message states.

That precedent is used to predict that Ukraine's reconstruction bill will not come free. The underlying idea is that Washington doesn't enter a war to lose money, and that someone will eventually pay for the loans, the weapons and the equipment. Who? The thread points to Europe, and within Europe, to taxpayers.

The pincer theory: the US and Russia against Europe

One of the most recurring currents in the final stretch of the debate holds that Washington and Moscow, far from being irreconcilable enemies, would be acting as unwitting partners in wearing Europe down. "Many of us are starting to think the USA and Russia are ultimately running a pincer move on Europe," one message sums up. The comparison with World War II is explicit: "Just like in WWII. They were bitter enemies and all that, but the US never stopped shipping materials and technology for free, before, during and after the war."

The thesis is not new. It echoes the old suspicion that prolonged conflicts benefit those who sell weapons and energy, and hurt those who suffer them on their own soil. In the thread, that suspicion takes the form of a prediction: Europe will pay for the reconstruction, take in the refugees and lose energy competitiveness, while the US sells liquefied gas and military hardware.

What about China, and why some no longer see Russia as the real adversary

Part of the debate shifts the focus: America's true adversary would not be Russia but China. "I don't think Russia is an adversary of the US; it's probably been used at times to justify military spending, but the real adversary is China," one message proposes. Another adds: "Nobody dares push China around anymore."

That current holds that wearing Russia down is, in fact, a way of preparing the ground for a conflict with Beijing. If Moscow is weakened, China loses a strategic partner and the US gains leverage. The logical consequence, according to this reading, is that Europe is trapped in a war that is not its own and that leaves it without room to maneuver.

---

What if Crenshaw's tweet were not a confession but a statement of the obvious? Destroying the adversary without losing your own soldiers is, literally, the goal of any military strategy. The uncomfortable question is a different one: how much is Europe willing to pay for a war that Washington considers an investment?