Ukraine

slowoldman
Full Member
Who’s suggesting appeasement?

Anyone who supports a peace deal which allows Russia continued occupation or annexation of Ukrainian territory.

Would you ever support a peace deal? Or are you happy for this to go on for decades?

Anyone who supports a peace deal which allows Russia continued occupation or annexation of Ukrainian territory.

That's easily said from behind your safe computer, but if your town was next on the list to be obliterated you might see things differently, and "appeasement" might turn into "making the best of a bad situation".

Ukraine voted internally for independence in 1991, which was later ratified by three of the four founder-members of the Soviet Union (the fourth Transcaucasia, was split up in 1936). Leonid Kravchuk (Ukraine), Boris Yeltsin (Russia) and Stanislav Shushkevich (Belarus) signed the Belavezha Accords and dissolution of the Soviet Union
The agreement demanded respect for State sovereignty, including territorial integrity, from Russia
In 2014 Russia took over the Crimea and in 2022 it invaded the remainder, why do you think that Ukraine will be satisfied with another agreement “making the best of a bad situation”?

That’s easily said from behind your safe computer, but if your town was next on the list to be obliterated you might see things differently, and “appeasement” might turn into “making the best of a bad situation”.

Or you might decide it's better to die trying, rather than waiting for the inevitable.

The wouldn’t be a war if they did, just occupation and underground resistance, which is fairly difficult to be successful at.

Depends on whether you have friendly nations helping you out really. Just look at Afghanistan (for both Russia and the west) and Iraq for how it works when you can send your terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate) to get trained and equipped by a competent nation state.

I don't see the war ending anytime soon or within the next two years.

The longer the sanctions on Russia (fuel) the more govts around the world will fall, and that will be the test to see if they will break ranks with the West.

Can you make a list of governments that will fall so we can come back and see which you got right?

Can you make a list of governments that will fall so we can come back and see which you got right?

Come back after 3 years if the war is still on then see if any govts have changed or under severe pressure. I don't know how much reserve developing or 3rd world countries have to sustain themselves but all I know is the price is sky rocketing rather quickly., which is something they have not seen before.

The question is whether they will break ranks with the west.

Pelosi recent trip to Indonesia was trying to make sure Indonesia was still on side. But we already know that in future the West will need Indonesia to maintain their strength in SE Asia.

What's really strange about the view that the West should force Ukraine to capitulate is how only the West has agency or moral obligations. Russia brutally invaded Ukraine and is implementing genocide, but this is dismissed with arguments such as "Russia is a great power and is trying to secure its sphere of influence," or "Russia felt threatened by NATO so they felt forced to respond." Implicit in this is a view that Russia has no moral obligations to other countries, just the "realist" view that Russia will act in its own self-interest and we should just accept that. It also implies that Russia has no real agency, their choices are so constrained by the West that they have no option except to respond with violence.

Ukraine is granted no agency. They are just seen as puppets responding to Great Powers pulling their strings. Rather than Ukrainians choosing to defend their homeland against genocide, they are just seen as acting as agents of the West, so if the West just snapped its fingers, Ukrainians would lay down their weapons and accept genocide without question.

The West, however, is granted agency over everything. Every decision made by the Russians or Ukrainians is seen as determined by the West, so the West could resolve the violence unilaterally by just decreeing that it stop. The West is also saddled with moral obligations that don't apply to others. Russia is violent because it is a Great Power and has no obligations to others, but the West has moral obligations to constrain itself and other democracies and renounce violence, even if violence is limited to defending against genocide.

These views are just incoherent. The reality of it is that Ukraine (and Poland and other east-European countries) have agency and understand that Russia cannot be trusted and will continue to inflict violence on its neighbors until it is stopped by military force. They are not going to just capitulate and trust in something written on a piece of paper and the U.S., U.K., and other countries cannot compel them to. Nor do they have any moral obligation to. The moral obligation here is for Russia to quit its genocide against its neighbors.

dissonance
Full Member

Depends on whether you have friendly nations helping you out really. Just look at Afghanistan (for both Russia and the west) and Iraq for how it works when you can send your terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate) to get trained and equipped by a competent nation state.

I've no doubt Ukraine would win longer term, the Taliban didn't beat the US, but it did take 20 years for them to get fed up and leave.

But talking of long term though. Ultimate question that pops up is how much determination do Putin and those around him have with this? Do they have the generational determination that it requires?

He basically needs to take the rest of the Donbas to even have hope of calling this some kinda success given the publicised aims, but even if he achieves that we all know his ultimate aim was to take all Ukraine and install a Puppet. He can kid himself taking Donbas is a success, but he'll know himself it's a failure, and tbh, I doubt information is that sparse in Russia that they don't know this too, once they take their jingoistic hats off..

But even if he is able to hold on the 20%, it's not an easy take, due to resistance efforts in occupied areas, and an unoccupied Ukraine unwilling to accept it.

I could potentially be talked round to a vague glimmer of positivity here if someone can see another route out beyond a grinding victory. But there is a question mark as to whether they have the stamina, if they are honest with themselves, their aims are lost, and the future is really just a world pain.

Questions... Given Putin's reported reluctance to fully mobilise, obvious from the frustrations of Girkin/Strelkov and people like that. Would Putin take a face saving way to withdraw? If so, is a face saving withdrawal even possible? What would that look like? Or is he completely committed and all in regardless?

I personally struggle to see any face saving way out of this, hence why I think this will go on for yonks.

I think the fact he hasn't called for a general mobilization does probably indicate that there is some rational thought in his brain. If they mobilise, potential for proper escalation would go through the roof, so far looks like he probably doesn't want that. But there's seems to be no real route out and he's backed into a corner of futility, long term war and resistance?

The moral obligation here is for Russia to quit its genocide against its neighbors.

Moral argument is irrelevant when great powers are involved.

I’ve no doubt Ukraine would win longer term, ...

Very very very long term.

Given Putin’s reported reluctance to fully mobilise

He doesn't have to because he is "controlling" the fuel now. The fighting has just turned into side shows.

he “realist” view that Russia will act in its own self-interest and we should just accept that.

The West, however, is granted agency over everything. Every decision made by the Russians or Ukrainians is seen as determined by the West, so the West could resolve the violence unilaterally by just decreeing that it stop.

The West is also saddled with moral obligations that don’t apply to others.

All countries act in their own interest, morality doesn't really come into it. Russia is absolutely responsible for its own actions. But that doesn't mean there aren't reasons why they do things. Saying Russia views Ukraine going over wholesale to the EU and NATO as a threat, isn't a justification, it's an explanation for why russia does things.

The West is also saddled with moral obligations that don’t apply to others.

Are they? The destruction of various countries in the middle east would testify otherwise.

I think you get confused cause you think there is morality at play. There really isn't in world politics.

Ukraine is granted no agency.

I don't see what's particularly difficult to understand about this? Financially without external support they wouldn't be able to engage in the current level of war. I don't even think that's a discussion. By default they are at the mercy of external strategic thinking. just so happens that the US and Ukraine's interests are somewhat aligned. Which granted, looks pretty solid for the foreseeable. It's not guaranteed forever though.

They are not going to just capitulate and trust in something written on a piece of paper and the U.S., U.K., and other countries cannot compel them to

I'm not asking for Ukraine to capitulate, I'm just asking what's the plan if offensive operations don't work as people think. I'm not Ukrainian, I don't need to immerse myself in the need for total belief in victory, I can ask, what happens if that doesn't happen.

Moral argument is irrelevant when great powers are involved.

Russia isn't a Great Power.

I think you get confused cause you think there is morality at play. There really isn’t in world politics.

Morality is about what you should do, not what you actually do. If you argue that Ukraine should capitulate in order to end bloodshed, you are making a moral argument, not a realist argument. A realist argument would be that Ukraine is free to do as it chooses.

Ukraine is granted no agency.

I don’t see what’s particularly difficult to understand about this? Financially without external support they wouldn’t be able to engage in the current level of war. I don’t even think that’s a discussion.

Ukraine has made it very clear that they are not going to capitulate and allow Russia to commit genocide. Other eastern-European countries have also made it clear that they do not trust Russia and are supportive of Ukraine. They can do this because they have agency, they can make their own decisions and the U.S. and U.K. cannot dictate terms to them. Given that Ukraine has decided to fight to the end, the West's decision is whether it's better to send weapons to help with that or just to stand aside and watch as Russia commits genocide. It's very clear that the Russian army is struggling badly, so there's a very good chance that Ukraine can repel the invasion. That will result in much less bloodshed over the long term than allowing Russian genocide to continue.

That's a moralistic argument based on weighing the probable consequences. A realist argument would be that Russia is not a Great Power and this is a good opportunity to reduce its influence. If you're a realist, you need to just accept that, a moral argument that the West shouldn't be mean to Russia has no part to play in realist thinking.

I'm not asking for Ukraine to capitulate. I support their fight. But I can look beyond their stated aims and ask questions As said I'm not Ukrainian belief or not in victory isn't a requirement for me.

I'll leave the moralising to you. I see no relevance in that discussion.

Take one example. Why are weapons so slow in getting to Ukraine. Because of the back fill requirements. Countries won't send stuff beyond what is surplus until they start receiving their back fill orders.

That right there is self interest. If there wasn't self interest 90% of the NATO arsenal would be in ukraine right now and the war would probably be a lot closer to a conclusion. It doesn't take that long to transport stuff. 'Logistics' isn't just about moving things

I’m not asking for Ukraine to capitulate.

The only treaty that Putin will accept is a Ukrainian capitulation. Asking Ukraine to sign a treaty with Russia is asking them to submit to genocide. That's why they refuse to capitulate. Calling for cutting off support to Ukraine to hasten the end of the war is implicitly a call for Ukraine to capitulate and accept genocide. From either a moral or realist point of view, that's incoherent. It would be morally repugnant. If you reject any notion of morality, it's untenable from a realist perspective. Russia isn't a great power and Ukraine's self-interest is best served by beating Russia militarily. The West's self-interest is also best served by Ukraine beating Russia. Therefore, if you are a realist, supporting Ukraine is the sensible thing for the West to do.

Where have I called for support to be cut off to Ukraine?

You are arguing with fairies in your head.

You are arguing with fairies in your head.

Maybe you should tone down the personal attacks, it gets tiresome.

Rather than Ukrainians choosing to defend their homeland against genocide, they are just seen as acting as agents of the West, so if the West just snapped its fingers, Ukrainians would lay down their weapons...

+1 Writers such as Peter Hitchens ^^ continue to push the idea that the West has some sort of colonial power to exert, but I suppose that the idea that we're living 150 years ago appeals to some readers

Given Putin’s reported reluctance to fully mobilise

He doesn’t have to because he is “controlling” the fuel now. The fighting has just turned into side shows.

Putin has signed the mobilisation paperwork, it's debatable whether Russia had "1,902,758, including 1,013,628 servicemen" in 2018 (numbers from TASS), never mind where he's going to find enough to total "2,039,758, including 1,150,628 servicemen" (numbers from TASS) by January. Western estimates are 15,000 killed and 45,000 wounded in the last six months

He doesn't seem to control fuel either. Germany has topped its storage off early so fuel is available at the moment

Peter Hitchens'article does not even bother to spell Kyiv correctly, so hard to really take seriously.

What’s really strange about the view that the West should force Ukraine to capitulate

Setting aside where you picked it up to respond to

Its not strange at all once you seen it chucked about by pro Kremlin social media accounts. Then it actually just makes sense.

Come back after 3 years if the war is still on then see if any govts have changed or under severe pressure. I don’t know how much reserve developing or 3rd world countries have to sustain themselves but all I know is the price is sky rocketing rather quickly., which is something they have not seen before.

So in short, youve no idea.

And most of the world do not have sanctions implemented against Russia.

+1 Writers such as Peter Hitchens ^^ continue to push the idea that the West has some sort of colonial power to exert, but I suppose that the idea that we’re living 150 years ago appeals to some readers

Setting Hitchens aside

I do think there is some US led power projection going on here, as far as being a threat to the West is concerned theyve found themselves a willing combatant able to take a lot of punishment (as a matter of survival) that are able to neutralise Russias ability to go anywhere that would directly involve either the EU or NATO.

All they need to do is weather the energy market shock to the implications of 10% of the world supply not being an (safe) option for the west (and it will adjust to a new normal. Biden said at the start that "this will hurt").

Ive also no doubt that the Western Arms industry is looking at the next few years as a "happy time"

In terms of actual fighting, the US can sit back on this one and just keep the conflict hot for as long as Ukraine is willing, which considering what will happen to them if they stop, both in a loss, and the proven likelihood of Russia coming back for another chunk is looking like a long time yet. Ultimately yes, thats there call.

That right there is self interest. If there wasn’t self interest 90% of the NATO arsenal would be in ukraine right now and the war would probably be a lot closer to a conclusion

Of course there's self-interest and right now that's aligned with the greater common interest view that Russia needs to be put back in its box because the fear is that an emboldened Russia will continue to invade its neighbours and the alternatives of either genocide or economic pain that go with that

piemonster Full Member (I won't quote the whole piece - smiley emoji )

I'm sure that this is seen as a reboot of the Cold War by the more hawkish westerners

Of course there’s self-interest and right now that’s aligned with the greater common interest view that Russia needs to be put back in its box because the fear is that an emboldened Russia will continue to invade its neighbours and the alternatives of either genocide or economic pain that go with that

Russia isn't a Great Power

Has anyone told Russia? Without going into exactly what does, or doesn't, qualify a country to be a great power, the fact that Russia has shown the ability to project military force and resource around the world (Syria, Libya, Horn of Africa), has (had) a successful military export business and has substantial natural resources to exploit, certainly places it in the sphere of highly influential powers.

Whether or not this qualifies them to be a GP is debatable (I'd go for severely declining GP), but it is important to understand in context of the Russian psyche. And that psyche is very much one of Mother Russia being at the head of the slavic nations and having a historical sphere of influence that includes most of Eastern Europe. This idea is deeply embedded in the Russian psyche, and as Chewkw has highlighted a few times, it is important to understand your enemy and their motivations (Sun Tzu anyone?) if you're going to analyse how to defeat them.

Putin’s motivations are as much about domestic politics (a dictatorial, kleptocratic, corrupt regime needs a war to distract and provide new economic opportunities from the seized territory), as they are about the GP ambition, but regardless they depend upon pushing the idea of Russia fighting back against Western imperialism and by so doing, regaining its rightful place as a consequential WP. This is popular domestically (important, dictators fear the mob more than anything) but also internationally. Lest we forget, many Asian and African countries have fairly recent memories of being colonies of Western Powers and whilst we tend to view ourselves as benevolent civilizers, lots of them don't necessarily view the West in that way (more asset strippers and resource stealers - but that's for a different thread). Point is, it would be a mistake to assume that the RoftheW automatically sees the West (and the US primarily) as a good thing.

Putin’s domestic position is dependent upon his ability to continue to provide succour to his supporters. The effective annexation of Ukraine would have provided ample opportunity to his acolytes to steal and plunder for some years. Failure here - combined with the ongoing impact of sanctions - will make Putin’s position increasingly untenable.

So Putin is caught between a rock and a hard place. His invasion is tangibly failing in terms of what he needs it to be, but to withdraw would admit defeat and that would almost certainly mean political, and literal, suicide. To continue will see the ongoing destruction of his army and the gradual collapse of the Russian economy, which also would almost certainly mean political, and literal, suicide. However, he has no choice but to pound away and hope Western resolve crumbles. Anything less and he's toast.

So where does the West fit into this? I'm afraid that I agree with Seosamh that morality doesn't really come into it (that's not to say that I agree. I fervently wish that we were all (myself included) more moral). Fact is Russia has been a strategic threat for a very long time and now, due to their own stupidity, we have an opportunity to put that to bed, certainly for a few generations, possibly forever. We're supporting Ukraine because it is in our strategic interest to do so. On the other side (and as alluded to above) we've not been shy to project our own military power to protect our own strategic interests (Iraq, Libya etc) or turn a blind eye to despotic regimes when it is in our interests to do so. Or indeed not support other countries/nations experiencing similar deprivations when it hasn't benefitted us to do so.

So ironically, any talk about us forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table is probably misplaced. We'll want to keep going until Russia is as crushed as she can be (we can't invade because nukes) because Putin’s strategic blunder of underestimating Western resolve, has given us an opportunity that we can't afford to ignore. A little economic pain (in the greater scheme of things) will be seen as being worth it if we can slay the Russian bear. So we'll continue to support Ukraine. And as that support ramps up (and as Russia's domestic economy tanks and the consequences of sacrificing most of their decent troops and kit continue to be felt) the balance will tip further and Ukraine will indeed retake lost territory (including Crimea) and Russia will retreat to deal with a very bloody nose and probable regime change..

I’m sure that this is seen as a reboot of the Cold War by the more hawkish westerners

Well, yeh. That quote is the unfathomable calculation for me

Which path has the least suffering and best outcome.

I am sruggling to see how rewarding a brutal invasion by a murderous POS in the Kremlin seeking the scummiest of Imperialist wet dreams is the right one.

But none of the options are good, well, none that are likely. As the only good options I can imagine involve not seeking to dominate other countries and violently repressing your own, and that isnt happening in my lifetime. And lets be honest, thats a human failing that will repeat wherever humans are.

Russia isn’t a Great Power

Has anyone told Russia?

Ukraine has. Being unable to supply an army more than 50 miles beyond its border with Ukraine is a pretty good indication that Russia is not a Great Power.

Russia is quite clearly capable of supplying its military further than that from its borders, just not against an adversary like Ukraine.

Russia is quite clearly capable of supplying its military further than that from its borders, just not against an adversary like Ukraine.

So definitely not a Great Power then.

Russia is able to exert military and diplomatic pressure in multiple locations across the world simultaneously.

Including the largest war Europe has seen since since 1945.

It looks like you're underestimating how hard, and how effectively Ukraine is having to defend their country.

What’s really strange about the view that the West should force Ukraine to capitulate

Nobody here has suggested that, so the point is moot.

Have a look at its nuclear arsenal. That alone makes Russia a Great Power.

What’s really strange about the view that the West should force Ukraine to capitulate

Nobody here has suggested that, so the point is moot.

Maybe not, but somebody linked to a Peter Hitchens column suggesting that Ukraine should surrender.

DrJ
Free Member
I feel a bit unclean saying this, but I think there is some truth in what Peter Hitchens writes here:

He doesn't suggest that Ukraine should surrender, I think he suggests that Ukraine should negotiate and be prepared to accept some less-than-perfect outcome. In any case, no reasonable person thinks that linking to an article means that you agree with everything in it. That is obvious, and I won't be engaging with you further on the subject.

No reasonable person thinks that linking to an article means that you agree with everything in it.

So please clarify which parts you do agree with and which parts you do not agree with. Endorsing an opinion piece that you disagree with would be extremely strange so it's reasonable to assume you agree with the overall opinion.

I won’t be engaging with you further on the subject.

He doesn’t suggest that Ukraine should surrender, I think he suggests that Ukraine should negotiate and be prepared to accept some less-than-perfect outcome.

1. Putin and other Russian leaders have made it very clear that their goal is to destroy Ukraine as a nation, not to just take some border lands.

2. Russia has violated numerous treaties and agreements already. Ukraine is not going to accept any promises that Russia makes because they will be broken the moment that Russia thinks it can get away with more violence.

Saying that Ukraine should accept a peace deal that is acceptable to Russia is equivalent to saying that Ukraine should just capitulate and accept genocide because that's the only condition that Russia will accept.

In any case, no reasonable person thinks that linking to an article means that you agree with everything in it

Indeed, as you made clear. Which bits do you think are true?

Rumours that the Kherson offensive has begun, hope it works out. Too early to tell if this is actually it though, we’ll see I guess 🤷‍♂️

One thing about this is that you never know whether Ukraine is really launching a counteroffensive or just yanking the Russians' chain. Guess we'll know in a few days.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1564210502548455424

On the Kherson front, at the present time (today in the afternoon), the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched a large-scale attack from the bridgehead on the Ingulets River, from the area of ​​the settlement. Andreevka and achieved some progress.

All stationary bridges across the Dnieper (two road and two railway) are disabled. It is now possible to cross the Dnieper in vehicles only by ferry and pontoon crossings.

Under fierce shelling Novaya Kakhovka, Berislav, Donetsk, Makeevka, Yasinovataya, Gorlovka and many other settlements.
On the Kherson front, at the present time (today in the afternoon), the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched a large-scale attack from the bridgehead on the Ingulets River, from the area of ​​the settlement. Andreevka and achieved some progress.

Rocket strikes continue on crossings (bridge and ferry) in Kherson.

They report repulsing the first attack of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the village of Blagodatovka. The enemy has not yet succeeded in encircling the units of the RF Armed Forces defending there, although, according to some reports, the Ukrainians have cut the road. I have no information about the depth of advancement in other areas.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine launched a series of missile strikes on targets in Melitopol.

There are fragmentary reports that from dawn until 2 pm there were fierce battles in the area of ​​​​the large village of Aleksandrovka (west of Kherson, on the coast of the Ochakovsky estuary). Our troops repelled enemy attacks and basically held their positions, but who the village itself is now behind is confusion in messages.

The enemy is trying to break through to the village of Bruskinskoe - on the Berislav-Davydov Brod highway in the depths of our defense. On the face - a breakthrough in the front in this area. Our artillery and aviation are actively working on the enemy forces that have broken through. So far, the enemy has not been able to significantly expand the "throat" of his breakthrough.

Amendment - Everything written below (already corrected) in relation to the village of Aleksandrovka refers to the village of Malaya Aleksadrovka (northeast of Davydov Brod).

Thus, the picture of the enemy's offensive is approximately clear. - The coverage and defeat of our grouping east of Kherson between the Dnieper and Ingulets.

Something seems to be happensing anyhow, auto-translated from Strelkov/Girkins Telegram, so some deciphering skills required.

A brief summary of the situation on the Kherson front:

The offensive on the sector along the Ochakovsky Liman line - to Snigirevka - is in the nature of a demonstration, carried out by insignificant forces in order to divert attention from the main blow inflicted in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe previously captured bridgehead in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe settlement. Andreevka-Lozovaya and to the east.

However, here, too, the enemy carried out an attack not from the bridgehead itself (from where it was expected), but from behind the Ingulets River along the newly built pontoon bridge in the Andreevka area with the forces of at least one motorized battalion with a company of tanks and a group of infantry fighting vehicles. Having quickly broken through the front, the enemy divided his strike forces: the first group cut off the highway to Blagodatovka and tried to break into the village itself, but was repulsed. The second - went into a breakthrough on Sukhoi Stavok (which, according to available data, managed to capture immediately) and then - to cover Davydov Brod in the area with. Bruskinskoe.At the same time, the enemy tried to create a foothold in the area of ​​the village of Malaya Aleksandrovka in order to deliver a counterattack from there, covering Davydov Brod from the east. His attacks in this area as of 14 hours were repulsed with heavy losses in manpower and equipment. Malaya Alexandrovka is in our hands.

Thus, the enemy managed to "inflate a bubble" on the southern bank of the Ingulets, but failed to significantly expand his foothold in the eastern and western directions, which gives good opportunities to defeat him with our tightened reserves. At present, aviation and artillery are engaged in advancing units of ukrov. However, the battle has only just begun and the enemy is unlikely to confine himself to the blows already inflicted.

bit more

Have a look at its nuclear arsenal. That alone makes Russia a Great Power.

Yes, but someone (generally speaking from many others beyond this forum) keeps saying Russia is not a Great Power. Is that important? LOL!

Whether Russia is or is not a Great Power is just a label. The bottom line is that until one side is totally defeated and submitted, like Japan & Germany (WWII), there is No winner. Remember only winner(s) is right in morality, belief etc while loser(s) is always wrong. Winner is always "saintly".

Russia will not fall because China will not let that happen. If NATO or the West wants to defeat Russia totally they need to defeat China too. Even if China fall do you want to want to become Chinese? All conquerors of China become "Chinese" like the Great Khan after two or three generations. Historically, China was divided then united then divided for many centuries but the end game is always the conquerors becoming "Chinese" LOL!

The current situation is to use Ukraine to weaken/soften the Russian position (militarily, economically etc), in the hope that when the real war starts Russia will be in no position to defend themselves. The problem is that the reserve force is Not in Russia but China (let's leave the nuke out for the moment). Hence, NATO and the West dare not commit forces to Ukraine because they need the reserve to face China. The current situation is merely sideshow. If Ukraine cannot be defeated by Russia what chance is there for others to defeat Russia which is many times larger.

Then we have the question of who will use their nuclear arsenal first. Historically, US (NATO backbone) has already used their weapon of mass destruction in Japan twice during the WWII and they will use it again because US knows that unless they have total submission, they will not be able to dictate terms. Problem is both sides have nukes. Stalemate.

Therefore, the current situation will drag on for sometimes and will result in sky rocket energy cost. Sanctions is going to hurt the world but since the earth is round, eventually it will also hit those that impose sanctions.

oh ya ... If NATO/US/Russia wants to stop the war now all they need to swallow their pride and speak to each other and let Ukraine be the buffet zone. I am certain Russia will agree because they too know it is not an easy war in Ukraine. Yeah, but judging from the current "morality" stance the likelihood is slim so the pride wins.