[onepremise]

Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed.

Glad this video of Rubio making an impassioned speech about how "the credibility of America is on the line" when it comes to defending Ukraine has resurfaced: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

The complete collapse of the Republican party into one man's personality cult, any scintilla of principle be damned, is definitely not something I wouldn't have predicted 25 years ago.

[ssssvd]

Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow.

After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.

[palata]

> though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.

That the US and the UK (and obviously Russia) did not honour, did they?

[Aloisius]

It has been honored by the US and UK.

The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.

[_DeadFred_]

That isn't the American Secretary of States opinion:

https://bsky.app/profile/dittie.bsky.social/post/3lji5yzf5ns...

Nor is the US currently 'honoring it' clear from a direct reading of the langauge:

https://bsky.app/profile/igorsushko.bsky.social/post/3ljnqjm...

[ssssvd]

It had been honoured — or at least not directly violated — for 20 years. And in international affairs, 20 years is "forever."

Between 1918 and 1938, how many treaties were signed, broken, rewritten, and ignored by how many powers?

[_DeadFred_]

Man so many American's about to be relieved they can stop honoring their 30 year mortgagee.

[palata]

I'll keep that in mind next time I sign a contract: "I commit to honouring it until I don't".

[pqtyw]

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes

To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense.

Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc.

Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...

[Vilian]

You forget that development and nuclear power knowledge comes from Ukraine, so they had nukes and were direct involved on it's creation if wasn't created by them

[pqtyw]

You forget that Britain and Canada also directly participated in the Manhattan project. Then they were locked out by Truman in 1945 and it took them another 7 years to develop their own nukes. It's just not that simple or straightforward.

Ukraine might have been in much better spot in some ways (they actually had functioning nukes) but in other ways it was simply infeasible politically (Russia was closer to being an "ally" than and adversary back in those days) and obviously economically unjustifiable.

[arandomusername]

> The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed

No they didn't. There was never any promise like that.

[JumpCrisscross]

> There was never any promise like that

There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise.

Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1].

Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine.

[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

[arandomusername]

The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense.

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did.

[JumpCrisscross]

§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).

[1] https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...

[absolutelastone]

This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility

If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.

[arandomusername]

4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both.

Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump

[JumpCrisscross]

> Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced

America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.

[pqtyw]

Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.

[_DeadFred_]

The current United States Secretary of State disagrees with you:

https://bsky.app/profile/dittie.bsky.social/post/3lji5yzf5ns...

[kdavis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[arandomusername]

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

[WinstonSmith84]

Yes they did (with Russia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...

> ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders....

And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time

> While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]

[arandomusername]

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?

[robwwilliams]

Not just a large fraction of US citizens, but essential all Republican “leaders”.

[mlinhares]

> Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.

Most important piece here, don't despair, protect your people, build mutual aid communities with your neighbors and friends, there is no one coming to save us but ourselves.

[deactivatedexp]

hmm what does game theory say about the situation?

right from wrong is not applicable to this situation not even one bit

[clivestaples]

The war has been going on for three years with no end in sight. What's the next move? What are your ideas to defeat Russia and take back the areas they've gained since 2014?

[picafrost]

The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader.

Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatening nuclear weapons. They disregard all negotiated agreements and treaties, poison dissidents in countries the US is allied with, with impunity, engage in asymmetric warfare against Europe and the US, meddle in elections. The Russian government has nothing but contempt for a rules based world order.

Why, suddenly, is the US cowering back when the stakes are much higher and its direct involvement much lower?

[aerostable_slug]

Because this President campaigned on ending the long wars, which he opposed. I'm not sure where the confusion lies because Trump has been very clear about getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements.

I'm not passing judgement on it, just noting that what we're seeing is consistent with his campaign messaging.

[JumpCrisscross]

> getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements

The point is our alliances are also foreign entanglements. These idiots didn’t think through that withdrawing from those means fewer weapons (and other) orders from America, more nukes pointed at America and less strategic depth between our adversaries and our shores.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so.

I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" (https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r...), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global military interventions above and beyond the actual commitments it's made. I don't think they're lying - people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by cutting off support for Ukraine when most NATO members would prefer to expand support. But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.

[JumpCrisscross]

> people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by not supporting Ukraine

You’re correct in this being incorrect.

The informed concern is in Trump and Musk’s coziness towards Putin. That brings up questions around what, if anything, Trump would do if Putin annexed Latvia.

[chronid]

The NATO treaty doesn't imply in his wording any obligation for a military reaction to an invasion of a member of NATO. There's no penalty to just respond with a strongly worded letter, but there's an expectation an ally will react militarly.

Will your allies trust you any longer if you just follow the letter of the treaty? I don't think they will. More critically, nor will anyone else.

The US have historically positioned themselves as "defenders of democracy" and have multiple times used that positioning actively. It's inevitable for an expectation to be there for them to do just that. The US is free to violate expectations and just follow the letter of the treaties it has, it is a sovereign nation after all, but the surprised and frankly childish "we have no obligation!" reaction to the blowback is more unreasonable than the expectations for its support of Ukraine, particularly in how it has been handled politically.

[clivestaples]

Yeah, agree that's what is happening. My original question wasn't rhetorical in nature. I would really like to know what would secure victory without escalating it to involve American troops on the ground and/or potentially a nuclear exchange.

[aerostable_slug]

I would as well. It's unclear to me what would change the picture there. Do they just need more of the same (155mm artillery shells, drones, tanks, etc.) or are there qualitative things that need to change?

This speaks to the fact that I haven't seen any clear "this is how we win it" proposals. I could understand why the details would be classified, but I've not seen broad strokes, either. Has anyone else?

[clivestaples]

I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight?

I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.

[ssssvd]

You can’t fully defeat a nuclear power. You can, at best, drive it back — if you’re willing to pay the price.

And that price means Europe will have to absorb a dramatic, sustained drop in quality of life — plus forced mobilisation.

Even the Poles - the most serious player in Europe right now — only have about 200,000 troops.

The British and French combined have maybe 40,000 soldiers actually capable of high-intensity combat. That’s enough for, what - four weeks of real war?

After that, there will be no volunteers. That means a draft.

So the real question is: Are you ready to be drafted to “defeat Russia”?

[picafrost]

It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out?

The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.

[clivestaples]

War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.

[picafrost]

Ukraine probably does not. Is Russia willing to risk the possibility of US/EU troops ending up on the other side of the trenches? Probably we’ll never know now, and maybe that’s better. But is it better that Russia knows maybe three years and the US might call it quits?

My country, Norway, shares a border with Russia. We have 5.5 million people. Would the US abandon us because we’re running out of troops? That’s the question we’re asking ourselves.

[yks]

The realistic answer is to say that Ukraine is going to be supplied with weapons for as long as needed, case closed. The whole Russian strategy after the initial blitz failure was to wait for Trump to get into power, who telegraphed to anyone with the brain, that he doesn't care about Ukraine and loves Putin very much. Russia can't do it forever, but it focused on appearing "strong" until the elections, the bet that paid off for them. Now imagine they were facing a prospect of non-friendly US administrations for decades, they would've already stopped.

[ssssvd]

Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine.

There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight.

20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation.

Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet collapse, and 30 years of economic decline and emigration. Now they’re drafting 18 to 60-year-olds just to keep units filled - at 40%.

So what happens in a year or two, when there’s no one left to draft?

The Poles aren’t volunteering to die en masse, and they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army — and even that is one-fifth the size of Russia’s.

So who’s holding the line then?

The US Army? The Marine Corps?

Is anyone actually ready to send Americans to die in the Donbas?

[yks]

Russian economy doesn't have enough juice to "outrun Ukraine" under the sanctions regime and the war intensity they maintain to impress the Westerners. It's not a "year or two", it's a decade at least.

[GeoAtreides]

> they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army

??????

guess France is out of EU or... ?

[clivestaples]

Realistically, does Ukraine have the manpower to sustain this tempo for years? If not, what countries should put boots on the ground?

[yks]

Ukraine needs to sustain significantly lower tempo than Russia and there are other options than boots on the ground. Simply flying in and shooting down slow-flying drones inside the Ukrainian airspace would probably give Ukrainian economy years of "runway". And any breathing room in the economy translates into more available manpower in the military and Ukraine still has millions available.

[cloverich]

> I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them

Russia doesn't have infinite capacity, their primary strategy was to take as much as possible at all costs as fast as possible, while waging info campaigns against the far right, in the hopes that Trump would come to power and cement a deal with them. If that option goes away, it strictly reduces Russias exit strategies. They can't escalate, because the west has more leverage and more options, it would be zero sum at _best_ for Russia. The West would likely hand them Crimea for peace, but giving them all of Donbas is too large a victory for Russia. The post WW2 orders foundational principle is that appeasement of land grabs leads to stronger positions for the grabber - see Hitler's numerous escalations before his full on attack as an example. Ideally you don't wait until the attacker is on your door step before fighting back, that's what this whole debacle is about.

Some of the options could have been:

    - Continue on, but with aligned support from the left and right (read: Russian psyops campaign vs the US right failed). Probably enough on its own.
    - Pressure China (tariffs) to pressure Russia
    - Pressure Europe to increase commitments
    - Offer Russia Crimea (already done ages ago, when their position was stronger)
    - Setup an increasing schedule of more advanced weaponry

> How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry?

AFAIK they haven't responded to the last several increases; what would they respond with? The Nuke is their last card, and in addition to pulling in more Western support would alienate the other players (India, China) who have their own leverage on Russia. IDK overall it seems like the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

[ssssvd]

And what exactly is "The West" these days? A glorified open-air Continental museum, a failed British Empire with an army the size of Belarus, and a bickering hegemon half-convinced it should retreat to regional power status, house divided and all.

Europeans are still high on their own supply, fantasizing they’re global players, when in reality they’ve got no money, no energy, no industry, no credible army, no unity, and no diplomatic weight — not even within their own borders.

Europe spent decades as an American piggy bank and a strategic liability. Now the bill’s come due — and Uncle Vlad is doing Uncle Donald a favor, playing the bogeyman just well enough to scare Europe’s capital and industry back into the safe harbor of the New World.

And if Russian pressure helps deliver "MAGA in four years" by triggering capital flight from Europe to the US — is Ukraine really too steep a price for such a valuable service?

[yks]

> the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.

The party that has 50/50 chance of winning the elections has been communicating to Putin all this entire time that they will hand him Ukraine when they win. Now they conclude that this strategy didn't help Ukraine and therefore it's time to hand Ukraine to Putin. Brilliant strategy, I wish them to enjoy their Russian friends who will definitely not screw them over very soon.

[robwwilliams]

Help them win it. Like we did in two world wars in the 20th century. Here in the 21st century we get off easy and just provide material support, and intelligence; not blood. Hell of a deal to defend democracy.

[arandomusername]

US helped Russia win in the second world war. You want them to do that again?

[clivestaples]

We've been doing that. What more do you suggest we do?

[deactivatedexp]

why not lead the way and go join the fight? you never know you might inspire people to join voluntarily

[FranzFerdiNaN]

Ah the we should improve society somewhat meme in the flesh.

[azan_]

Letting Russia keep the territories they control now is a great way to ensure that in few years when they rebuild their military potential they will attack again.

[JumpCrisscross]

It also signals wars of conquest are back. That’s a message that will also be heard by revanchists in Beijing and New Delhi and expansionists in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and D.C.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's the next move?

Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.

There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.

[jimbob45]

The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.

This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Surely we can all see this logic for the farce that it is. Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war and it’s only with massive international support that they’re able to maintain the fragile stalemate they now find themselves in.

[Vilian]

They never had a shot so they used black magic to drive russia out of Kyiv in the first days of the wars?

[JumpCrisscross]

> is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2

Hitler argued that he lost WWII because external powers were limiting the Nazis through diplomatic channels?! (Also, since when do we care about how Hitler justified things?)

> Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war

A significant amount of Russia’s naval and air assets were vulnerable to Ukrainian drone and missile fire in ‘22.

> it’s only with massive international support

You mean like the American Revolution, WWI for the Allies, WWII for the Allies and the Cold War for Europe?

[watwut]

> This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2.

Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.

[Tainnor]

Well yes. But he also claimed that Poland had attacked first.

[watwut]

The equivalent there would be Russian claims about Ukraine attacking them right before invasion. As of now, the Russian invasion itself is provably existing.

It is about zero paralel with "The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy."

[rafaelmn]

> Let the Ukrainians decide.

With money and military/economic tensions for EU and US ? EU might have some interest in stabilizing the border and preventing future threats, but US literally has no interest there. And the only EU member that possibly had to worry about Russia is Finland, but they are in NATO now.

[jajko]

What motivation? russia is US sworn enemy, always was and always will be. Only fools don't take chance to make your enemy weaker, especially when its causing it to itself by their own stupidity and greed. US waged wars for less, far less.

[rafaelmn]

I think from Trumps POV Russia is not that relevant and China is the rival. US has spats with Russia when they play globalist games, but Trump does not seem to be that interested in playing and Chinese are way stronger than Russia recently since they are growing their presence in Africa and SA.

[m4rtink]

Good thing US integritiy has no value anymore and US word is apparently worthless nowadays - otherwise I guess honoring the Budapest memorandum would make sense:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

You know, that one thing that certainly prevented a lot of nuclear proliferation so far.

[Aloisius]

What part of that has the US not honored?

Did we (1) fail to respect their borders? (2) Threaten to use force, invade them or use those nukes against them? (3) Wage an economic war against them? (4) Fail to seek UN Security Council action in response to Ukraine being nuked? (5) Nuke them? (6) Refuse to talk to them about the agreement?

Because that's basically the entire agreement.

[watwut]

The thoughts are to NOT allow them to have time to rearm, get ready for another invasion, get another territory. And then again and again. That is all the peace right now would be - strategic pause so that Russia can get stronger for the next attack.

Also, Trump is supporting Russia while attacking Europe, Canada, Mexico, Greenland ... . Trump talks about annexing parts of Europe (Greenland) and annexing Canada.

[clivestaples]

So by continuing to send more cash and weapons, it will eventually force Russia to retreat? I'm trying to understand what would secure victory.

[watwut]

Prevent further expansion and besides, yes, they are attritioning. Or were before they found new supporter and ally in the form of America.

Like common, Trump is not just stoping to send arms. He is doing everything he can to weaken west and empowers Russia.

[robwwilliams]

More than a maniac.

[erentz]

Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position.

They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.

[deactivatedexp]

what do they get by supporting russia? would love some data

[kdmtctl]

If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.

[CamperBob2]

Give them the tools they need to finish the job.

This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.

[clivestaples]

That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.

[mopsi]

The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction.

Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them.

Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy.

The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives.

It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.

[m4rtink]

Not arbitrarily stopping intel sharing and - reportedly - remotely disabling supplied wepons (!!) would be a good first step.

Like if you ever want anyone to give you a single dolar for your weapons in the future.