fadedridge903 said:Maybe when I start handing out unsolicited advice like you do, then I'll consider reporting people.
I don't offer advice because there isn't a single actual decision maker regarding this conflict on this forum. I’m simply stating my opinion, and frankly, what you think of it doesn't affect me...
ironranger67 said:But honestly, that’s not their priority. This whole situation feels almost too convenient for them—they can commit the bare minimum of resources while letting the Russians wear themselves out.
The US isn't looking for a massive escalation; they just want to keep Ukrainians afloat long enough to ensure the Russians don't walk away with an easy victory.
To the planners on both sides, individual lives don't really carry much weight—not even the total collapse of nations or economies.
There is certainly truth in what you're saying. However, I don't see a decisive Russian victory as anything other than a loss for the West. NATO and Russia are already at war—directly through economics and indirectly on the battlefield. An Ukrainian defeat would be a Western defeat, regardless of how many people try to wash their hands of it. Putin is just a common bully; if you don't physically push back, he'll just keep doing whatever he wants. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Moldova, and the day after, it could be the borders of Finland if they decide to join NATO. As long as that insecure little man is in power, it's only a matter of time before you're forced into some kind of military conflict with him, unless you let him satisfy his appetite wherever and however he pleases...