[jacknews]

I think the west needs to avoid being over-zealous in this fight, and let's face it we are heavily involved.

This war seems to be quite personal for Putin, and if he is pushed back too hard, he may act irrationally, or be ousted, and then who knows what chaos may ensue.

Europe should accept that cheap Russian gas is history.

And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.

It will be a tax on the west for sure, especially Europe (America should send aid), but a crippling all-consuming drain on Russia. There are rumors Putin is seriously ill. He will not likely last long as leader in any case, if the war drags on and drags Russia to the ground. But a more orderly transition will be possible if there is a stalemate in Ukraine, rather than a humiliating defeat.

As for nuclear escalation, it is now clear that the West's capabilities are so far superior to Russia that we need not respond in haste. If a dog bites you, you don't need to get on all fours and chase it to bite back; it's fate is sealed already. And honestly, will their nukes even work? I have my doubts given everything else that's been exposed by this misadventure.

[dsq]

> will their nukes even work

Even if only a third if them work it’s enough. That’s the point about nukes, they provide egregious overkill.

[jules-jules]

The issue with waiting out Putin is that it assumes any successor would be more likely to go for a peaceful/negotiated solution. I think this is shortsighted as the most credible opposition figures take a far more hawkish stance, which would increases the odds of an all-out escalation.

[jacknews]

But those figures will likely try to seize power in the chaos of a humiliating defeat for Putin, and possibly use the situation as an excuse to escalate, even if Putin himself does not.

Far better to keep things on a slow boil, so when things eventually shift internally in Russia, there is at least some stability externally. And when they do shift, it may be in the other direction, with the hawks washed away by popular dissent, or just fatigue for the war.

[beachy]

> And so, a long drawn-out stalemate in Ukraine is maybe the best course, for everyone except Russia and Ukraine.

Imperialist thinking. Why should Ukrainians accept having their country invaded? Why should they just put up with it because of some imaginings about how the world as a whole would be more stable if they bowed down to the dictator?

Screw that. Putin in a wild card, a megalomaniac. You can't reason with or even about such people. The only course with such bullying is to stamp it out.

[jacknews]

It's their country, they should fight, but why should we?

Of course the loss of life is horrific and we should absolutely do what we can to help stop that, but apart from that moral concern, we're really helping because of the bigger picture of containing/punishing a bully, and deterring similar action from others like China, NK, etc.

Given that we're helping because of the wider implications, we should have a clear idea of what that bigger picture is, and calibrate our help in support of strategic goals.

Putin, and the Russia allied with him must fail, but that does not necessarily mean a battlefield defeat, in fact they will lose hardest through exhaustion.

The west, particularly America, too often gets sucked into the 'sport and glory and winning' of these situations, and Zelenski is understandably egging it on.