This paragraph is the best example of Putin style pure Russian diplomacy. Since I have the initial level of cultural understanding of Ruzzia, I can now translate: "The best moment to surrender was 2022 second best is today". Â
But, there is an obvious caveat to your "logic" - that "worse outcome" (for Ukraine) is not only not guaranteed, it may actually turn to be the opposite. I would not dare to predict what may happen in Ruzzia is the war continues for another 2 years.
Have you asked yourself why Putin would not conceede on a simple cease fire, not even for 20 days? It is not because Ukraine would take advantage, they have had years. He is simply afraid that NATO coutries move troops into Ukraine. Then he would be killing NATO member soldiers.
BTW there is only one side spilling blood - for nothing but imperial ambitions - the other is just defending their future and their right to choose and progress.
But, there is an obvious caveat to your "logic" - that "worse outcome" (for Ukraine) is not only not guaranteed, it may actually turn to be the opposite. I would not dare to predict what may happen in Ruzzia is the war continues for another 2 years.
Have you asked yourself why Putin would not conceede on a simple cease fire, not even for 20 days? It is not because Ukraine would take advantage, they have had years. He is simply afraid that NATO coutries move troops into Ukraine. Then he would be killing NATO member soldiers.
BTW there is only one side spilling blood - for nothing but imperial ambitions - the other is just defending their future and their right to choose and progress.
And do you dare to predict what would happen to Ukraine if the war continues for another 2 years? How about just another winter?
[...]
Easy to answer, let's try to disassociate a hypothetical so even you would understand. Two sides, "A" and "B". "A" is on the offensive and slowly grinding through while "B" is defending and cannot hold the line and constantly has to retreat back under fire. During a ceasefire, "A" looses initiative and just sits there idling waiting for the ceasefire to end, "B" on the other hand can regroup, rotate tired forces out and bring new ones in, evacuate wounded out, bring provisions and ammo to the front, safely take forces out of disadvantageous positions, and bring forward engineering equipment and dig up as many tranches for defending on the front line and every 5km for retreating under a total safety of a ceasefire. Now can you see who would benefit from this?
Lol NATO the strongest military alliance in the world needs a ceasefire to move in its troops? And they can otherwise be rendered completely useless if one just doesn't provide that ceasefire that they need? This is a joke right? Plus I'm sure Orban and Fico can just give their consensus while they're visiting Moscow.
Easy to answer, you cherry pick what favours Ruzzia, ignore the inflation (even the official is high), the interest rates on the Ruble, the drop in oil price... And even in the front, while Ruzzia is "slowly grinding" they oil facilities and some military installations are being "quickly enough being destroyed".
NATO would not send soldiers to an active front to avoid escalation and other political issues. However, peacekeepers on an inactive front... completely different.
And today, Poland has closed a Ruzzian consulate... you would ask why? Well, apparently Ruzzia arsoned a large commercial centre there - or so does Poland thinks.
The quality of your posts have really gone down lately. I'm not saying that Russia doesn't have it's own problems, but by almost every measure Ukraine has exponentially more problems and they're more severe. So once again, the question is not if Russia can sustain this until the end of the Universe, but rather if Russia can outlast Ukraine. And the answer to that becomes more and more obvious with every day.
Are you really not aware that for peacekeepers to be present both sides need to agree and approve them first. If a third country sends in its troops to help defend another country without approval of both sides, then they're not called peacekeepers but they de facto become a part of the conflict. And read up on NATO's article 5 to see if it would even apply in such cases. This really starting to feel like you're grasping for any straw just to make something up to keep Ukrainians spilling their blood just for a day longer, i'm really starting to question who's interest are you representing here, because it surely doesn't feel like it's Ukrainian interest
