- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
He [Rep. Andy Harris] said of Ukraine’s springtime offensive that was intended to turn the tide of the war: “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.” And he was blunt, too, about the prospects for a victory ahead: “I’m not sure it’s winnable anymore.”
Keeping a competitor bogged down in an “unwinnable stalemate” (I don’t think it’s unwinnable but he does) is a win for the US at a very low cost to the US. If he believes that the cost in human lives is too high, then maybe providing the resources to facilitate a swift victory is the way to go. The US will not do that because a prolonged conflict is actually the true win scenario for the states.
I disagree, a decisive and crushing defeat for Russia is the best outcome for the US because it’s the worst outcome for China, they both lose an effective ally and the west is shown to clearly be able to defend its own.
Sure, but there is no way to achieve a “decisive and crushing” defeat for Russia in the present scenario. That would require NATO to actively participate, which they never would (unless forced by Russia). So this is the best outcome for what is actually possible.
F16s, and honestly some predators or similar.
Russia is surviving by defense in depth, their only truly functional strategy, but each serious blow, like knocking out artillery or ammo dumps, is a debt from their soviet legacy that cannot be repaid.
While western factories are barely ticking over with technology beyond vatnik dreams.
That leads straight to open conflict and a reorganization of the status quo though. Some people really like the status quo even if it means keeping the human meat grinder turned on.
The status quo broke last year, we’re not getting it back without something happening.
Putin broke an insanely expensive peace, and the only way to get it back is to enforce “you broke it you bought it”.
Oh I agree. I’m saying some people really like the status quo, even if it’s broken.