[caoilte]

Funding this war (which we're losing) is gutting funding for further education and scientific research.

It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.

[_kbh_]

> It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.

The benefit of a Russia that is incapable of committing more or any forces to there numerous wars of conquest is a net benefit for the entirety of the Europe as it increases stability in the region.

[dmix]

It could still mean a Vietnam type situation which wasn't fun for the Vietnamese. But I doubt Ukrainian citizens would choose the other option just to end it early.

Might be worth asking again in a year from now when this war will likely still be deadlocked.

[jemmyw]

How are we losing? Ukraine was supposed to fall in days. For them, even holding the line isn't losing, and they've pushed the line back.

I talked about politics that I don't like here it is: the west is not losing, it's winning substantially. Even if Ukraine doesn't win back territory, the west sees Russia bash itself against a wall losing men and equipment, and showing its hand operationally. And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments. We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer to weaken Russia even further and perhaps even pull out its alliances, see what happens.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine are going to "win" in the sense of coming out of things better than they went in. Ukraine obviously. But Russia has probably fallen further from higher. The war has essentially solidified Ukraine identity and politics, but it's starting to unravel Russian politics. Nobody can know what the future holds, but I cannot see a future now where Russia is not considerably weakened - it's turned it's western neighbours/customers into enemies, shown weakness to its vassal states, and gone begging to China for material and trade.

Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.

[caoilte]

> And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments

I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance.

> We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win.

And yet we haven't. The Ukrainians are still rationing artillery fire, appear to have lost most of their air defence cover and long ago lost air cover.

If we were serious about winning the US government would have switched to a planned economy (as we did in WW2), taken control of munitions production and gotten a handle on our out of control military contract padding.

> But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer

That's certainly one way to spin trying to lose more slowly.

> Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.

a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force.

Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.

[megous]

> The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ

How is that even remotely plausible? It would be absolutely unprecedented in scale, Ukraine would have to cede protection of massive amounts of its territory in exchange for Russia doing what? Stop trying to unsuccessfully advance frontlines and be saved from counteroffensive?

It makes no sense to me.

[_kbh_]

> I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance.

You may not but the west does, the US is spending less then 10% of its yearly military budget and is mostly giving Ukraine stuff that was going go be replaced soon anyway.

> a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force.

Why should Ukraine trust a negotiated peace with a country who already has multiple international agreements to not invade them?.

Ukraine already has a negotiated peace agreement with Russia it’s called the Budapest memorandum it didn’t stop them invading in 2014 or 2022.

All a negotiated peace does is allow Russia to rearm itself and try and grab more land.

We have tried appeasing Putin in the past when the west did nothing about what happened in Georgia, Chechnya and in Ukraine in 2014.

Appeasement doesn’t work, the only thing Russia understands is force so the only way this works out well for the rest of world is if they suffer a huge defeat.

I don’t see this working unless the DMZ starts on Russias side of the pre 2014 border.

> Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.

If you want to really end these threats then get Russia to leave Ukraine. But I have a feeling you don’t want that to happen.