Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
How do you see that happening? Without Armageddon, and without NATO boots on the ground?
Ukraine is putting up a fantastic effort, but it’s unlikely they can take back everything Russia has taken in this offensive, let alone Crimea.
That would take foreign troops, or planes. It would need foreign direct action of some sort, which would end up in a potential nuclear exchange, that no one will risk.
The west is pumping billions into Ukraine, but Russia isn’t skint (thanks to Germany) and buying weapons from Iran and China.
I take everything on board about the war crimes but this conflict does not end with total victory for Ukraine or total victory for Russia.
In 1942, when Hitler was expecting a negotiated settlement, the allies could reject that for total surrender, Ukraine doesn’t have that luxury.
|
Notably, you snipped out the first half of my post - the crucial part that explains why Ukraine will not - cannot - cede anything to Russia. And who, exactly, has the moral authority to tell them they cannot attempt to rescue citizens who are presently subject to the utter brutality of a genocidal occupying army?
Ukraine does not have the luxury of a negotiated settlement, because they know that a negotiation now merely delays the next war, it does not stop it. Western support is predicated on an understanding in Nato and other capitals of this very point, and while Western leaders prefer not to talk about Crimea directly, I think it’s fairly clear from listening to the comments made over many weeks that they understand Crimea will come into play sooner or later.