The fact that you think another 60 billion is going to change the course of the war after untold billions have already been poured into it over the past two years is absolutely hilarious. The best chance NATO had to defeat Russia was last summer when they scrounged everything they had for the big offensive. Ukrainian army was still in decent shape back then, NATO supplies tanks, ammunition, and AD systems, and so on. The offensive was an a complete and utter disaster. That level of support is simply not possible now because the west is running out of material things like artillery shells and missiles. Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of manpower. Anybody who keeps promoting this war is a sick individual who simply wants people to die for the sake of it.
And what, pray tell, is the alternative here? A surrender to Russia is tantamount a full on capitalisation of the west and a defacto encouragement for Putin to keep pushing aggressive expansionist agendas.
Ukraine will have an ongoing border dispute that can turn violent at any time with an adversary that’s been emboldened by a proven lack of support by Ukraine’s allies.
There is no winner in war, but this would be about as close to winning as Russia could possibly get.
No, I’d say my biggest issue is with the US becoming an unreliable ally just because the conservative party wants to score some stupid political points. See my original comment.
US has always been an unreliable ally as every US proxy eventually finds out. Europeans made the mistake of thinking that there was some kinship with the US, but the reality is that you were simply a tool to be used and discarded when you outlived your usefulness. The US is already cannibalizing European economy to bolster its own.
The fact that you think another 60 billion is going to change the course of the war after untold billions have already been poured into it over the past two years is absolutely hilarious. The best chance NATO had to defeat Russia was last summer when they scrounged everything they had for the big offensive. Ukrainian army was still in decent shape back then, NATO supplies tanks, ammunition, and AD systems, and so on. The offensive was an a complete and utter disaster. That level of support is simply not possible now because the west is running out of material things like artillery shells and missiles. Meanwhile, Ukraine is running out of manpower. Anybody who keeps promoting this war is a sick individual who simply wants people to die for the sake of it.
And what, pray tell, is the alternative here? A surrender to Russia is tantamount a full on capitalisation of the west and a defacto encouragement for Putin to keep pushing aggressive expansionist agendas. Ukraine will have an ongoing border dispute that can turn violent at any time with an adversary that’s been emboldened by a proven lack of support by Ukraine’s allies.
There is no winner in war, but this would be about as close to winning as Russia could possibly get.
What part of Russia is going to win this war are you struggling with?
Read the above. I’m having issues with them winning at all, given the implications for the future security of Europe.
So, what you’re saying is that you’re having issues dealing with reality?
No, I’d say my biggest issue is with the US becoming an unreliable ally just because the conservative party wants to score some stupid political points. See my original comment.
US has always been an unreliable ally as every US proxy eventually finds out. Europeans made the mistake of thinking that there was some kinship with the US, but the reality is that you were simply a tool to be used and discarded when you outlived your usefulness. The US is already cannibalizing European economy to bolster its own.