Bofferbrauer2 said:
EpicRandy said:
It's probably the same hold-up as when speaking of providing a long-range weapon. They don't want Ukraine to invade Russia in the end as it may escalate things drastically even though it would be more than justified and actually the sole way for Ukraine to win by the way of war.
Even if Ukraine liberate 100% of its territory, as long as Putin remains in power they'll continue their aggression, shelling and bombing Ukrainian cities with emphasis on civil infrastructure and crippling Ukraine's economy/export. The only way for Ukraine to win a decisive victory that forces Russia to stop its aggression is by having the Ukrainian Army in Moscow. The problem with this is it would force Russian allies to reconsider their position by either abandoning Russia or getting involved themselves.
The USA certainly wants to avoid a redo of the Korean War situation where all seemingly went well up to the point they crossed over a line and China joined against them.
The only way to prevent a scenario like this unfortunately might be to keep the conflict within Ukraine's border. If this logic is sound, then it makes sense for the USA and Germany to provide equipment the way they do, enough for some gain but not enough to have them clear out the Russians from Ukraine without ending the conflict and have them think the only way to end things is in Russia. I'm not sure though about what USA/Germany wants from possible future peace talks or if they only hope this conflict ends in Ukraine by making it unsustainable for Russia in a similar way WW1 ended.
|
Well technically, since Russia "annexed" the regions they're occupying, Ukraine is already invading Russia as is. Of course, nobody outside of Russia takes those annexations seriously, but still, depending on who you ask, the Ukrainian offensive would be considered an invasion already.
|
Yes, but I don't think any country with the exception of a Russian puppet one like Belarus recognizes Russian annexation so they don't amount to much, it's not like China would risk anything for an obvious sham. Also, NATO cannot act prudent regarding those territories without providing victory to Russia and confirming the validity of its aggressive stance and terrorist way of doing things.
IMO, the prism through which Nato actions should be viewed is always "how you ensure Russia's defeat without creating any opportunity for escalation with Russian allies that could trigger WW3 by a domino effect".
