I think the fair question is whether there’s any reasonable basis to expect Ukraine to “be in a better position to negotiate” in any near term. The war has been going on for three years at this point, and the amount of Ukrainian territory held by Russia has been relatively static for roughly two years. If Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to recapture Russian-held lands even with Western military aid (which certainly seems to be the case), what’s the end game for ever getting Russia to agree to vacating that territory? Just hope that if you keep feeding the meat grinder long enough they’ll eventually give up and go home? While I would like to see Ukraine succeed, I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to entertain the thought of whether, if all they’re capable of doing is fighting to a stalemate that still leaves Russia in control of 18-20% of Ukrainian territory, there’s actually appreciable value in continuing to pour hundreds of thousands of Slavic bodies and tens of billions of western dollars into a hole in the ground in the hopes that Russia will eventually just give up and abandon the territory it has already seized.
What do you consider “near term”? There are some groups that track the Russian economy and they believe the sanctions are having a strong effect and are starting to bear on Russia. They’re not in any immediate danger of collapse but over the next 18 months they seem to think there will be further developments. I think it’s worth it to stay in the game for that period and apparently Ukraine would like to keep fighting. I certainly wouldn’t undermine Ukraine at this point. It makes no sense to do so unless all you care about is the war ending on literally any terms.
yes. russia is literally sending fighters back to the front on crutches carrying colostomy bags give ukraine what they need, take the range and targeting limitations off. and give them a chance to show you the hope isn't to get Russia to giv eup. the goal is to give Ukraine rock solid security guarantees that they will not do it again and get reparations for Ukraine reconstruction Russian Soldiers in Crutches Keep Appearing at Front Line: UK MOD - Business Insider Russia is ‘recycling’ wounded troops, sending some to the frontline on crutches | CNN
Why did Russia abandon their invasion of Afghanistan in 1989? They were looking forward to gaining a warm-water port for their navy (their next invasion likely would have been Pakistan). They only had 14,500 soldiers killed, 54,000 wounded, and 416,000 who fell ill due to unsanitary conditions. The Russians are famous for sustaining casualties in the millions without batting an eye. Something else must have convinced them to give up the fight, besides the futility of fighting the Afghans in the mountains with a European set-piece war strategy. It was likely the economy causing unrest at home.
Meh. You don't have a plan either. Nor does the Russia-stooge you helped elect. A gank of Ukrainian mineral rights and gift to Russia of appx 30% of Ukraine, gained through illegal aggression, is not exactly a "peace plan." So in the absence of that, the best thing is to not reward warmongering aggressors. Even if they did help get your preferred candidate elected in the USA.
The thing to do is crank up the U.S. military manufacturing machine and supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defeat Russia. It's not complicated. Our military manufacturing machine went a long way towards defeating Germany and Japan in WWII, and could easily do the same with Russia in Ukraine. Quadruple our production of artillery shells and send them to Ukraine, and if necessary, quadruple it again. Send more Abrams tanks to Ukraine--we have thousands of them in storage, and they are reaching the end of their shelf life (what else are we going to use them for?). Send more missiles (Patriots, ATACMS, HIMARS, etc.). Send them the hardware they need to defeat Russia. Yes, we'll spend a few billion dollars supporting Ukraine. But we'll save trillions of dollars after Russia is defeated. The world will be a safer place, just like it was in the 1990's. And that will benefit democracies like the U.S. of A. Chaos only benefits the dictators and marauders looking to pounce on their neighbors. Peace benefits everyone else.
The suit had very little to do with making Winston Churchill one of the greatest leaders of his generation. His intelligence, wisdom and courage did. Qualities that Zelenskyy also has, although maybe not to the extent that Churchill did. Qualities that Trump could only hope to have some day (but he never will, IMO). Trump not only wears a cheap suit, he IS a cheap suit. Actually, one of the suits Churchill was famous for was his birthday suit, which was on full display for FDR when Churchill was visiting FDR in the U.S. and begging for more military assistance. (No pictures of that suit are available, as far as I know, but it is well-documented that it happened.) I presume you would prefer for Zelenskyy to likewise get naked in front of Trump for you to agree to help Ukraine? "Nothing to Hide: The Truth about Churchill's Naked Encounter
problem being Trump doesn't understand this...thinks Putin and he can control the world.....Putin gets Europe Trump gets Canada, Greenland and Panama....
“Ha-Ha! Putin’s only taken 18% of Ukraine but if he’s not stopped we’ll all be speaking Russian tomorrow!”
Fun Fact: Churchill was a chain-smoker, drank like a fish … and lived to be 90 without a Covid vaccine.
Zelensky has changed his mind again and says he will not negotiate with Putin. But it’s almost tomorrow in Kyiv, so maybe he’ll change his mind again.
