I don't agree. War, and international relations, are dynamic and not in stasis. What was viewed as an impossibility a year ago is now a given. Fear of escalating the conflict have given way to fear of an escalating conflict. Momentum towards equipping Ukraine has gained pace as consensus is reached. Less that a year ago supplying aircraft was viewed as too provocative. Now, as I said, the weakness of Putin's position has emboldened the West.
Direct intervention hasn't happened because it would start WW3.
Think you might have missed the point, if your comments as highlighted aren't contradictory already.
The nuclear risk is principally driven by the "success" of Western intervention, whether directly or indirectly.
Similarly, the weaker Putin is at conventional warfare, the higher the risk for him to resort to nuking Ukraine, how else will he rescue the situation? In that event, is "no forever war" MAGA going to retaliate risking their cities if not the country turning into dust, while they wouldn't risk a soldier on the line currently? And then what? Let China pick up the pieces around the world for free after? Or nuke China without provocation too to ensure self destruction?
Or is Sunak going to nuke Russia on his own? Truss said she would, apparently...
That's the new reality in our multi/tri-polar world, quite unlike during the cold war, or when US reigned supreme for a period after the fall of USSR.
As Mearsheimer explained in one of his talks, it is questionable whether NATO will retaliate with a nuclear counterstrike even if Putin turns Germany into dust, never mind Ukraine.
Problem is, even if US refrained from nuclear escalation, Ukraine getting hit will very likely lead to worldwide proliferation, if not already - before the war Russia would not have helped Iran developing nukes. Now, who can say?
Does anybody (except some bloke from Holland ;-) ) still thinks the West can allow Ukraine to "win"?
Well they say truth is the first casualty of war. Clearly Russia is the aggressor, but I don't think all the truth has been said about the Urkraine. Not the incorrupt democracy that is being portrayed in the West. Chatted to my son-in-law about this who thinks Putin did have some legitimate grievances against the Ukraine and it is folly to ignore this.
Russia may not be as strong as was first thought, but Putin has been able to rely on a lack of direct western intervention knowing it is hollowed out morally on the inside and has been run by incompetent governments who have let their military capability degrade over the last couple of decades. This cannot be put right overnight.
Agreed. There were quite a few Western media pieces negative on the Ukrainian government before the war. No longer.
But what is more dangerous, is the demonisation of "the other side", like Russia was unprovoked and Putin is some imperial meglomaniac madman. Such clouding of facts and logic, without a thought on what happens (and indeed happened in history) if the shoe was on the other foot, is stupid if not fatal.
It seems to me far too many have been led down the garden path by the politicians and mass media, whose principal interest and prime objective is to be popular, which means appearing righteous, principled, tough and gung-ho (like many comments in this thread). Voices of pragmatism and compromise essential for diplomacy is now a sell-out, instantly exploitable by political opponents, and cursed as "Putin apologists" - who cares if they might be right and would save the people/planet?
