Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I am not sure you can trust them. Russia will rearm and try again. They don't think of Ukraine as a legitimate state. They also know that any agreement with the West would be tested.
In 5 or so years they'll develop a pretext to move further in and the discussions in the West will be the same as they are now. Do we want to risk Russia using nuclear weapons? Why did we 'provoke' Russia by offering to protect Ukraine? Ukraine has already given up some land for peace in 2024, what's the harm in offering a little bit more?
I think in the near term we might enter a frozen conflict though.
|
Nuclear weapons are no more likely in a future conflict than they are now. Only today we see US assets and cluster bombs falling on the civilian population of Russia in Crimea. If that’s not a pretext for using nuclear weapons I don’t know what is. The difference between this and America doing it themselves could be split by a cigarette paper. America have invaded two countries on the same basis as a consequence of Saudi funded terrorist operations by Al-Qaeda.
In 5 years or so Ukraine could develop and train a volunteer army. NATO countries could (and should) identify assets that could quickly be transferred, with training of Ukrainians so that this is good to go from day 1. Not F-16s when anyone can be bothered, and not something that can easily be bogged down in a Congressional deadlock.
If Ukrainians are paying in blood for a proxy war this is the least they deserve.