this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32324 readers
858 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand your reasoning behind:

Your leverage point is moot in my opinion.

If arming Ukraine does not substantially impact Ukraine's ability to fight, how does it prolong the war? In your assessment, Ukraine would be forced to make peace at the same point either way. Could you expand on that?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If arming Ukraine does not substantially impact Ukraine’s ability to fight, how does it prolong the war?

This is not exactly what I said. I didn't say that it didn't impact Ukraine's ability to fight, I said it doesn't change the outcome of the war.

Of course, arming Ukraine adds difficulty for Russia, but it only at most delay Russia getting what they want since because of the way the war is going and the west's inability to outproduce Russia, Russia has time on their side. Russia can largely afford to just wait until western weapon supply to Ukraine can't keep up with theirs anymore, which is exactly what they have been doing since their retreat from the siege of Kiev in 2022, that's why the front line has barely moved since then, Russia know they are in a position where time will do most of the work for them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

I'm not sure this holds. To me that very delay is the valuable point of negotiation I'm talking about; this war is also costly in lives and materiel for Russia. Being able to eventually outlast Ukraine on that front doesn't negate that. But I think that's getting towards too subjective a point for us to find common ground on.