gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I think the US are content with supplying enough support to Ukraine to ensure a sustained degradation of Russian military capability, which suits their wider interests and those of their Baltic partners.Actually for many years US military doctrine has been just that, to have enough equipment and manpower to sustain two major conflicts simultaneously.
No-one will do anything to placate a dictator such as Putin or it opens the door to other terrorists invading places and hoping for a resolution in their favour. There’ll be no backing down to that **** or anyone else that threatens others’ freedom.
Think they are probably content with the way things have progressed.
The question is not whether Russia has lost from this conflict, but how much.
All right thinking people want to see Russia pushed back to its 2014 borders but even if the current status was frozen (and I’m not saying it will or should be) Russia will have gained relatively little and lost a great deal more from this invasion: an expansion of NATO counties bordering it to a level inconceivable two years ago; Western Europe weaning itself off the teat of Russia fuel; Russia being isolated for at least a generation, and their international standing greatly diminished; much of the assets their controlling elite have stolen from the people seized by western governments; even the land they have stolen in Ukraine, whilst important agriculturally, will have huge insurrection related challenges ahead.
As I’ve said many, many times, what’s the point in negotiating with a party that won’t keep to anything it ‘agrees’ to? No one has yet adequately answered that question.
Just hope that this current approach of degrading Russian lines leads to a significant breakthrough in the next nine months.