As an aside, I do wonder what NATO and it’s members see as a realistic end game, from their perspective? Easy to say Russian withdrawal, Russian defeat, etc. But at this stage:
- Without NATO military intervention, surely Ukraine ultimately gets defeated? Even if it takes a long while. Is it realistic that arming Ukraine alone along with sanctions is sufficient to defeat the invasion?
- Assuming the above and happy to be corrected if not a fair assumption, I guess the west is by definition for Ukraine to be lost? Even if the assumption is false, the west must consider it an acceptable trade off to avoid a full scale war, to let Ukrainian cities get turned to rubble and it’s people suffer greatly?
- Or do we think they are aiming for something more seismic I.e changing Russia as we know it by destroying the economy and / or seeing Putin removed?
I ask because it’s all good we are throwing arms to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, but it surely (at least I hope) can’t purely be to give Ukraine a fighting chance and see Russian forces removed? It’s one thing to accept not getting involved with military to avoid escalating to a full scale war, but it’s another to think the end game is ok at simply Russia withdrawing from Ukraine? There must be more then that. It can’t be that Russia withdraws and we carry on as normal. Surely this can’t go unpunished and whilst we won’t ever invade (obviously), the objective here has to be fundamental change in Russia?