I think that’s a bad assumption, given the inevitable NATO response. Putin has already been unsuccessful in UKR… military objectives not accomplished, own forces decimated, NATO galvanized, Finland and Sweden almost certainly will join NATO. That’s a strategic disaster for Putin, even if he holds on to Donbas. The idea that he will somehow interpret this as an incentive to take even greater risk in a direct confrontation with NATO is a fairly absurd proposition.
It ain’t over yet.
Please be reasonable. You seem to be taking a position contrary to the facts on the ground, as a bad faith argument for Western escalation. Putin is doing a great job of marking time on his own dick while wearing soccer cleats without direct NATO involvement. He doesn’t have the capability to confront NATO with a conventional force. That the Baltics, FIN and SWE are “ready” doesn’t constitute I&W of a RUS attack. On the contrary, that readiness deters escalation.
Russia's initial tactics were a failure. They seem to have played to Ukraine's strengths in tactics and terrain.
Ukraine isn't going to win... but Russia has already lost.
I wish they knew it.
That Russia will not invade a NATO member state. That major hostilities cease at some point and Russia likely maintains control of Crimea and Donbas, but Ukraine persists as a nation more or less status quo ante bellum. That Russia settles into its new role as pariah state for a very long time.
How is the West being in any way irrational right now? How is Putin being irrational? He is just trying to save face, otherwise his invasion of Ukraine seemed very rational to me, based on what he "thought" were his military's capabilities and what he "thought" would be the response from the Ukrainians. The only irrationality I see is the weakness that elements of the West have displayed.
I don't think that concern is rational and think that any such strategy would only lead to further aggression in the future.
Rumors are she already sunk, with crew picked up from the water. If so, it's rather something like two to three hits, maybe more
Regarding Ukraine, I'd say we actually do have a responsibility to try and protect Ukraine. The reason is because control of Ukraine is key to a stronger Russia and serving as a basing point to then try and take the Baltics and further expand the Russian empire at a future date. So it's a short-term cost to prevent a longer-term possible war.
Disagree here. Allowing him to save face will show weakness and just allow him to play the long game and then try again at some point. I do not believe the West would treat them like pariahs for long. Look at Europe's eagerness to trade with Iran or turn a blind eye to China. Give it some time and the Euros would go soft again. So instead, give Ukraine what it needs to drive him straight out of Ukraine altogether.
IMO that wouldn't work, because then Putin/Russia could threaten nuclear combat all the way to the Atlantic coast of Europe. It sounds contradictory perhaps, but basically there has to be the perception by the enemy of some willingness to engage, if necessary, in nuclear war, in order to prevent it from happening in the first place. Reagan's much more aggressive stance against the Russians in the 80s is part of what backed them down then.
