they didn't "lose the war" their priorities have changed. i thought their preference would be to keep Russia busy as Iran is attacked but perhaps i was wrong. we can print infinite money at a click of a button but we can't print infinite amount of weapons and other equipment at a click of a button - perhaps they have done the math and decided they need to prioritize their supplies for Iran

does that mean NATO has lost ? i think Win / Lose when it comes to that type of conflict is an oversimplification to the point of being meaningless. we didn't go in there to protect Ukraine - we went in to hurt Russia. if we abandon Ukraine we will have failed at something we never really cared about in the first place. the question is - will Russia be weaker or stronger after the conflict than before it ? That will probably depend on how much of Ukraine they end up grabbing.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

russia should take all of ukraine and live stream jewlenskys torture

no there are pro-russia parts of ukraine and anti-russia parts

they should take the pro-russia parts and leave the rest alone

maybe the war was necessary to determine which parts are in fact which.

the current front line is not accidental. it is easier to capture and hold land where the population is sympathetic to you and vice versa.

maybe the stalemate has nothing to do with weapons and such and is simply a reflection of the fact that Russians can't take ( or don't want to take ) Pro-Ukrainian areas and Ukrainians can't retake Pro-Russian areas.

if Russia ends up chopping off Pro-Russian areas of Ukraine it will be a win for both sides in the long run.