https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ukraine...00102.html
IMO a good insight into what the "NATO thinking" is and has been. I do not agree with the belief that providing a limited set of weapons to Ukraine would have prevented the invasion. In fact, it may have forced Russia to actually plan for significant resistance and resulted in them winning many of the initial battles they actually "lost" in the event. Of course, it may not have mattered to Russia at all. Ukraine wasn't ready to fight an all-out war and supplying a few weapons wouldn't have changed that. In any case, it is good to know what the "official" line is.
It is very unlikely the latter case can arise because Ukraine isn't willing to sign away 20% of their land area, allow Putin to "declare victory" and set up for the next war. Failing that, Putin must continue trying or he has failed to bring about a new Russian empire. He knows that. He also knows retaining power after that failure will be at best difficult. Putin will fight until Russia can't or Russia "wins".
IMO a good insight into what the "NATO thinking" is and has been. I do not agree with the belief that providing a limited set of weapons to Ukraine would have prevented the invasion. In fact, it may have forced Russia to actually plan for significant resistance and resulted in them winning many of the initial battles they actually "lost" in the event. Of course, it may not have mattered to Russia at all. Ukraine wasn't ready to fight an all-out war and supplying a few weapons wouldn't have changed that. In any case, it is good to know what the "official" line is.
Quote:I don’t believe we can change Putin’s mind, but I believe we can change his calculus, that he realizes that the cost of continuing the war is too high.This belief is very common in the NATO members that are not former Warsaw Pact members. It is held by both the public and the politicians. IMO it is dangerously incorrect. Putin will never stop fighting because the cost of continuing is too high. Putin will not stop until 1) continuing is impossible (i.e. Russia simply is incapable of continuing), or 2) the political cost of continuing becomes greater than the political cost of stopping.
It is very unlikely the latter case can arise because Ukraine isn't willing to sign away 20% of their land area, allow Putin to "declare victory" and set up for the next war. Failing that, Putin must continue trying or he has failed to bring about a new Russian empire. He knows that. He also knows retaining power after that failure will be at best difficult. Putin will fight until Russia can't or Russia "wins".