Originally Posted by
Lowslung
I have nothing against healthy skepticism. We all should be more skeptical at times, especially when it comes to media that confirms our own biases. Here’s the problem I have with the above reporting: it assumes that if we stop aid, the war ends. You think the Ukrainians are going to throw their hands up in surrender if we abruptly end support? It’s their country. They’ll fight as long as they can & then wage a guerilla war for years afterwards. The Russians would likely take our withdrawal of support as a green light & attempt to take the whole country. Yes, this thing is ugly now. It gets uglier if we leave, not magically peaceful.
You are assuming that support can or will be continued. Zelensky has repeatedly complained about the West slow rolling support:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...er-2023-01-29/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/zelenskyy-says-ukraine-needs-weapons-allies-continue-defense-russia-rcna140174
https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/21/ukraine-aid-zelensky-comments
/
and with fewer restrictions:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240711-zelensky-urges-nato-leaders-to-drop-restrictions-on-striking-russia
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm52jvn41l7o
Clearly, the US either won't or can't or both. Perhaps if our feckless NATO brethren hadn't unilaterally disarmed since the end of the Cold War (and several even before that) it wouldn't have all had to come from the same inventory now depleted by being the primary provider for Ukraine while simultaneously keeping the Red Sea open, supporting Israel, and deterring China from taking Taiwan, but coulda, woulda, shoulda simply doesn't help much.
I have said all along that much of munitions acquisition is a long lead time process - and it is.
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/09/...d-for-ukraine/
Wishing it were not will not magically make it so.
So what'll it be?
NATO (and overwhelmingly US) boots on the ground?
Or try a few nukes?
Both options with their inherent risks