There will be no negotiations because Muscovy is not a modern polity ruled by neoliberal elites. It is a failed colonial empire ruled by oil gangsters, which has decayed into a fascist dictatorship (not the Adolf variant, the Benito variant). That dictatorship is now committing genocidal violence against Ukraine, a struggling but genuine democracy. Muscovy will not stop its murder spree until it is defeated on the battlefield. Ergo, Ukraine deserves the full support of every progressive movement and every democracy on the planet.
Pretty much. The moral case for support is clear enough. The practical consequences look to be in doubt. If Ukraine can't expel RUS, what is the point of prolonging a stalemate?
Fear not, Ukraine is winning the war of attrition. I've been following the open source research closely, and there is copious evidence of Muscovy's colossal equipment losses (grim stuff, endless videos of exploding tanks and APCs). Also, Muscovy's human losses are running at the same rate as Romanov losses in 1914-1917 (i.e. unsustainable), while Ukraine's human losses are running at the same rate as Britain's in 1940-1945 (i.e. sustainable). Faster US help would speed up Muscovy's defeat and save a lot of lives, but the forces of good are going to win this one.
Europe's comparatively light contributions to NATO preclude any European foreign policy, and thus strengthen US hegemony. Whether this is good or bad I leave as an exercise to the reader. (And it also seems to be changing.)
There will be no negotiations because Muscovy is not a modern polity ruled by neoliberal elites. It is a failed colonial empire ruled by oil gangsters, which has decayed into a fascist dictatorship (not the Adolf variant, the Benito variant). That dictatorship is now committing genocidal violence against Ukraine, a struggling but genuine democracy. Muscovy will not stop its murder spree until it is defeated on the battlefield. Ergo, Ukraine deserves the full support of every progressive movement and every democracy on the planet.
Pretty much. The moral case for support is clear enough. The practical consequences look to be in doubt. If Ukraine can't expel RUS, what is the point of prolonging a stalemate?
Fear not, Ukraine is winning the war of attrition. I've been following the open source research closely, and there is copious evidence of Muscovy's colossal equipment losses (grim stuff, endless videos of exploding tanks and APCs). Also, Muscovy's human losses are running at the same rate as Romanov losses in 1914-1917 (i.e. unsustainable), while Ukraine's human losses are running at the same rate as Britain's in 1940-1945 (i.e. sustainable). Faster US help would speed up Muscovy's defeat and save a lot of lives, but the forces of good are going to win this one.
Of course I hope you're right. I'd like to see (and cite) an extended treatment of this.
Europe's comparatively light contributions to NATO preclude any European foreign policy, and thus strengthen US hegemony. Whether this is good or bad I leave as an exercise to the reader. (And it also seems to be changing.)
Good point, which underlines for me they have a long way to go before they can rival the U.S. in FP.