"Thank goodness we don't want peace in Europe!" Topic

"What's victory look like?
Is that victory realistic?
What are the risks of trying to get said defined victory?
How much will victory cost in blood and treasure?
What does the post-Victory Peace look like?
How will you secure Peace after War is done?
How much will Peace cost?" SBminisguy

Two can play that game…

What does defeat look like?
Is that defeat realistic?
What are the risks of letting defeat happen?
How much will defeat cost in blood and treasure?
What does post defeat look like?
How will you secure peace after the war is done?
How much will peace cost?

Nope, you support war without question, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

500,000 casualties. $500 USD Billion in war expenses and damage. 6.5 Million refugees.

And you can't answer basic questions…

Victory looks like Ukraine evicting Russia from substantial parts of the four semi-stolen oblasts while inflicting substantial damage on Russian assets such as the Kerch bridge, additional Black Sea naval assets and irreplaceable strategic assets such as strategic bombers and command and control AEW aircraft. Russia gets formal recognition of the Crimean theft, relief from sanctions and Ukraine gets EU membership but not NATO membership.

Anything more for Russia rewards aggression and sets up the next, much worse conflict when the weakness of western democracies makes challenging Article 5 seem worthwhile. I would also expect China to feel quite confident in taking Taiwan by force based on a pretty direct green light for aggression given the weakness shown if Ukraine is abandoned.

@SBminiguy

So only you can ask questions? How hypocritical of you…

McKinstry+1, see, now we're getting somewhere. Much of what you described may be achievable. In addition, there should be a DMZ emplaced between Russia and Ukraine similar to the DMZ in Korea with a 4km wide buffer zone and controlled crossing points.

"see, now we're getting somewhere."-SBminisguy

Only if it fits the narrative you are peddling and your position…

I asked you some "basic" questions what is your aversion to answering them?

"Russian leader makes first visit to North Korea in 24 years
Putin: pact provides for mutual defence
Putin: Russia may develop weapons and technology ties
Kim calls the new ties 'alliance', pledges 'unconditional support'
West fears Russia could aid North's nuclear, missile programmes"

Subject: Russia's Putin and North Korea's Kim sign mutual defence pact | Reuters


link

"It is now clear that Russia has succeeded in establishing an Arsenal of Autocracy together with Iran and North Korea. Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang are leveraging their military potential and producing the quantities of weapons necessary to overwhelm Western resistance and achieve Russian victory in Ukraine."

Subject: Arsenal of Autocracy: North Korea and Iran are arming Russia in Ukraine – Atlantic Council


link

"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said North Korea had provided "an enormous amount of ammunition" to Russia while both China and Iran were supporting Moscow militarily in its war against Ukraine."

Subject: NATO chief says Russia, North Korea pact shows mutual support by authoritarian powers | Reuters


link

Does no one else see the stars aligning as they did prior to WW1 and WW2? The alliances of both sides, NATO and the Alliance of Evil. Even to the point that the catalyst area again is Central Europe.

Everyone ramping up their military and right now, no one willing to talk, (yes we all know how the Russians negotiations go. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.")

One mistake unintentional. One leader with a mental issue, delusions of grandeur or fear of being toppled.

Maybe a real leader in the US would help. Someone who does not care which side he or she pis#es off and who ends up happy.

One of the easiest things to do right now is cut off Iran as much as is possible. Weaken the weakest of the alliance. Then start sending feelers to N Korea and try to ease tensions with them. It seemed to be working in the previous administration. Kim seemed to bask in the attention and recognition. Some will disagree, but that's the way it looked to me. Would be lovely if we all stopped financing China. Stop buying and building. Start producing our products elsewhere and not give taxpayer funds to companies that build and produce there. Pipe dreams? Probably. But no worse than the continued escalation of wars going on worldwide.

This seems asinine, until you read:

"As we answered US Army and DoD contracts for 155mm rounds, for example, there are very specific TDPs [technical data packages]," he said. "Right now, my company has built a better mousetrap, we would prefer to take that generational leap in technology and put that in there. But if we work under US Army regulations and qualifications, we're going to be doing legacy systems that are expensive, and take a long time to produce."

Yes too da#n much regulations and bureaucracy and paperwork, DEI hiring requirements and environmental regulations. We should be building here! The jobs should be here! Ease up on the governmental crap! Europe you are doing the same! Read the article.

But why the Ukraine? If Russia would ever take over, new plants to add to the Russians military machine at no cost. Seems all short sighted.

Subject: Northrop planning to build munitions inside Ukraine – Breaking Defense


link

@Dragongunner, "I asked you some "basic" questions what is your aversion to answering them?"

I asked you first -- no fair answering a question with a question! You may want to consult this article on why you're doing so…

Why Do People Answer A Question With A Question?

link

Does no one else see the stars aligning as they did prior to WW1 and WW2? The alliances of both sides, NATO and the Alliance of Evil. Even to the point that the catalyst area again is Central Europe.

Everyone ramping up their military and right now, no one willing to talk, (yes we all know how the Russians negotiations go. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.")

Yes, many people do -- but not our current leadership or the politically blinded who automatically support them. It is especially worrisome when the same leaders have frucked up time and time again, exhibiting horrible judgement and strategic thought leading to wars and mass death and misery, and are often motivated by domestic political power goals than overall national or international well-being. Lest we forget, US-Russian relations were destroyed when an American politician refused to believe she lost the 2016 election and fabricated a massive Russia collusion hoax to explain her loss and to damage her political opponent, aided and abetted by professional Administrative State bureaucrats and media who were politically aligned. The destruction of US-Russian relations and driving them into the arms of China was not her goal, but a predictable consequence of her actions -- about which they did not care.

Just as the same people in charge of the Ukraine war, in the past did not think about or seem to care of the consequences of:

1. Starting a war in Libya
2. Toppling a friendly regime in Egypt
3. Toppling a friendly regime in Lebanon
4. Trying to topple the regime in Syria, fueling a long and bloody civil war
5. Withdrawing hastily and without planning from Iraq leading to the rise of ISIS
6. The self-made rout from Afghanistan to take domestic political credit for "ending the war"
7. Propping up a hostile regime in Iran

In addition, there should be a DMZ emplaced between Russia and Ukraine similar to the DMZ in Korea with a 4km wide buffer zone and controlled crossing points.

That may be one method. I served 2 tours on the ROK DMZ, '84-'85. Pretty much where the war ended, '50-'53.

We flew the UN flag[US and ROK Flags too] on our 2 Guard Posts and FOB. As it was/is a UN mission since '50. Still only a truce; not an end to the war. We were loaded for bear, packing live ammo etc. on that mission. Minefields, fences, etc. separates the two nations.

IIRC the UN has a similar situation in Cyprus. After the Turks invaded in '74.

So, the question is, if a buffer zone/DMZ was set up in the Ukraine ? E.g. with Russia holding the Donbas, land bridge to Crimea and Crimea. Will either or both parties agree to this ?

With Russia being part of the UN P5 will they even allow such a proposal to be put in front of the UN ?

Will Putin even keep the UN resolution if he agrees to it ? If so for how long ?

And of course, what UN forces will rotate thru this "DMZ" mission? Nations friendly to Putin ? Former WP ? Some Asian, Mid-East and African forces, etc. ? Will Putin accept NATO forces guarding that buffer zone ?

Will this just be just stalling off Putin to attack at a later time/date ? E.g. WWI set the board for WWII … only 20 years later …

@SBminisguy

I am not attempting to avoid this topic. The way you present your position is, you are right and need to be proven wrong. You get to be the judge of whether you are proven wrong. You also also seem to have taken some moral high ground that war is bad. Too answer your questions I would need to be able to predict the future and assail the moral high ground you have awarded yourself.
You would immediately dismiss anything if it does not confirm what you already believe to be true.

So I am using your tactics and your logic asking the polar opposite of your questions without claiming any moral high ground. Just because you asked questions first and hold some imaginary moral high ground does not make my questions invalid. They are the other other potential possibilities you seem inclined to ignore because they do not support your position or narrative.

I already suggested that this could end like Korea and not with a traditional settlement. I think that is where we might be headed. You make a conditional, limited effort, you end up with a partial resolution. But as long as Putin types run Russia they will always be looking for the next play, IMO.

IMO, we ask questions as part of a discussion. You can disagree with a particular point while not having your own answer. Moral high ground, core values, etc. are all part of the discussion. They may clash or elicit strident emotions here. No need to make it personal. No one here I would not want fighting the Russians if we were all 22 years old.

@Dragongunner

I am not attempting to avoid this topic. The way you present your position is, you are right and need to be proven wrong.

No, you're still dodging my questions. There's a war on. People are dying and the risk of escalation is catastrophic. You support the War, so you must ask yourself some of the basic questions I have posed. Why can't you do that?

@Tortorella

I already suggested that this could end like Korea and not with a traditional settlement. I think that is where we might be headed.

I agree.

I think the Axis is a little shaky, based on no first hand info, but from combining some reports. Other than nukes, Russia is no longer the military threat it once was. NK may not be a great ally. They can make munitions, but need food. They have impressive parades. I never see an obese person in the crowds. They seem very happy to see Putin. Looking good! But the reality is unknown. Untested military led by who knows.

China apparently has a heavily politicized military, leaders appointed by Xi, who never served. Lots of loyalty training. No track record. A lot of ships, but no real force projection capacity. No experienced carrier groups. Untested aircraft designs that look like ours. Not enough amphibious capacity to invade Taiwan. Running into a demographic issue with finding the usual millions of soldiers pretty soon. Mostly elderly. Economic issues, vulnerable energy supply lines for a non-nuclear navy. A couple of US subs in the Indian Ocean could hold up a lot of imports.

Iran, terrorist-type leaders. 15th century warmongers seek nukes for mass destruction of everyone not of their faith. Couldn't a united modern multinational force end this threat? I don't know about their army, but their navy must have about a one hour lifespan in a war against most anyone.

Random jumble of thoughts and guesses on the Axis.

@SBminisguy

I believe Ukraine has a right to defend itself.

Why can't you answer my questions? You can quit doubling down with your debate tactics I already called you out on them.

Dragon Gunner +1!

I believe Ukraine has a right to defend itself.

In the end, this.

It does not matter how much you lament the loss of life SBminisguy, but whether the Ukrainains are willing to continue the conflict to maintain their freedom & sovereignty.

Conceding to Russia now only kicks the can down the street a little further, where it may become a worse & more damaging problem. What happens when Putin demands land from the Baltic States? or outright annexation? Tomorrow then is Poland. And now we are in a REAL shooting war, when we could have potentially stopped Russia's expansionism in Ukraine.

Beyond that, allowing Russia to bully the world because they have nukes only opens up& encourages the possibility of other countries doing the same. Like Iran & N Korea. And also convince other countries that the only way to avoid getting invaded is by developing their own nuclear weapons.

The danger is far worse if we do nothing, than if we risk escalation. The latter, as well, is not an excuse from doing the right thing. This is exactly how we got WWII, because some politicians lacked the courage to do the right thing, because they were afraid of escalating the situation.

Damon.

" I believe Ukraine has a right to defend itself."

I don't think anyone questions Ukrainians right to defend themselves, except for a few Russians on TMP.

I think the question is and has been, do people believe the Ukraine can win? If they keep fighting and they manage to bring this to a stalemate, let us say 5 years hence, not a win, a stalemate, will the ultimate settlement end up differently then, as opposed to now?

The Ukraine is eating up Predominantly Ukrainian manpower. The Russians: mercenaries, street grabs, volunteers and non-volunteers from outside, prisoners and some actual Russians. So even if they have 500000 casualties, how many are individuals they actually care about, or anyone in Russia cares about? Also, casualties has never been a detriment to the Russian government.

Russian population 144.2 Million. Ukrainian population 37.8 million. Do the math. And as I said, the Russians aren't just using Russians.

As long as China, North Korea and Iran are willing to resupply Russia, can the West keep supplying the Ukraine, while depleting their own stocks and increasing the massive debt.

I believe Putin is in this for the long haul. As long as he does not die and there is no overthrow (which I don't see), I believe a stalemate is the best outcome the Ukraine can achieve. In a stalemate, the Ukraine will lose more land, unfortunately. Maybe they can cut it to a loss of 2 provinces, but Russia will not give up all their gains.

Let's say the Ukraine has lost 150000 so far, (conservative). If they get the same settlement in 5 years as the would now and lose 350000 more, plus additional infrastructure destruction, are they better off?

If you believe they can win, please explain your theory on how they can, short of Putin's death or an overthrow, which isn't really a viable theory.

Like I said before, we all would love to see the bear with its tail between its legs, but IMO that is not going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

Also the longer this goes on, the easier for that one crucial mistake to be made.

I believe Putin is in this for the long haul. As long as he does not die and there is no overthrow (which I don't see)

Just tell Boeing that Putin's a whistleblower . . . :)

😉

Or he has dirt on the Clintons.

Ukraine needs air power, artillery, ammo, and tanks, is my guess.
F-15s and A-10 s. AA missile defense. Training. You guys know better than me. They are good fighters, still might win if they had enough stuff. But no American admin will make a sufficient commitment, even with NATO help.

Dirt on the Clintons is like a large collection of 8 tracks now😁

I've not yet seen a statement here of conditions by those advocating for one side that those advocating for the other side seem prepared to accept.

Perhaps in the real world the goals and conditions are different, but if this thread is anything to go by, it doesn't seem like we're close to a point where peace could be negotiated.

I tell you something that is sad, where are the "brave" journalists who go to the front lines and report what is actually happening. They did this in previous wars. Now they seem to be few and far between. Those I have seen at the front make it seem to be WW1 with yards of gain and loss. Most seem to be Ukrainian or Russian reporting with the bias of both sides.

I understand their reluctance, I wouldn't want to go into that meat grinder of drones, artillery and trench warfare.

But of course without it, we only make assumptions based on what we all read.

Why can't you answer my questions? You can quit doubling down with your debate tactics I already called you out on them.

Your Uno Reverso card does not work. I asked YOU some specific questions, and rather than engage in good faith discussion and reply to my questions, you simply ignored my questions and threw your own out, pretending like that's some sort of sophisticated debate tactic and that you've "called me out."

That's just silly.

I can repeat what I think should happen as an armchair general with all the vast powers pertaining thereto:

1. Secure a Ceasefire and work towards a peace deal
2. The peace deal will suck because Ukraine has more to lose than Russia does. The deal will be some sort of territory swap, with Russia keeping Crimea and part of what it's stolen.
3. Put a DMZ in place
4. Fortify the DMZ and build layered defenses that raise the cost of future Russian aggression
5. Build up the Ukrainian Army
6. EU recognition for Ukraine, maybe the EU wants to pay for rebuilding the place. I expect untold billions will also be stolen -- after all, isn't that why Kharkiv didn't have defenses?
7. No NATO for Ukraine as a deal sweetener, but that doesn't prevent multi-lateral direct deals with NATO countries.

That's a start. Chime in, put your opinion on the line dude!

@SBminiguy

1. Card does work the only thing you have is a power word called "No" you can keep chanting it doesn't change anything.

2. I asked you some specific questions and instead of engaging in good faith discussion you choose to ignore my questions but keep demanding I answer your questions. You can't have it both ways!

3. Can you respond in good faith to my statement I made at 8:03. If you can't then we have nothing further to talk about. By the way that is not a victory for you that just means I am done listening to you chant "No" and keep repeating yourself. Anything you say from this point on I will keep referring to my statement at 8:03.

"If you believe they can win, please explain your theory on how they can,"-35thOVI

Disclaimer this is just a theory and can be what if'd to death like most of the theories on here…

Ukraine is about to receive somewhere close to 100 F-16 fighter jets. If Ukraine can gain air superiority over the Russians there will be no more glide bombs and the Russians will start losing key systems without air dominance.

NATO allies are creating artillery shells as fast as they can. If Ukraine starts getting timely deliveries Russian casualties will increase.

Estimates are the Russians are losing 1,000 casualties a day. If that number can be increased and their war fighting capacity degraded the Russian army could break and possibly route off the field.

Denis Davidov in his online update suggest Ukraine may only get 10 F-16s in the near future, with more towards the end of the year, and they will be forced to base them in Ukraine. Still, its a start…

Gentlemen I am going on vacation and I will not be in a location where I will have internet access. Enjoy your conversation!

Have a good one

@Dragon Gunner – Last word – and enjoy our vacay -- but you're not having a discussion in good faith.

I am done listening to you chant "No" and keep repeating yourself. Anything you say from this point on I will keep referring to my statement at 8:03.

*19 Jun 2024 12:07 p.m. PST I asked a question.

*19 Jun 2024 5:15 p.m. PST you refused to answer my question and instead said "two can play that game" and posed your own question. Logical fallacy, yes, answering a question with a question.

*19 Jun 2024 5:50 p.m. PST I rejected your logical fallacy and asked you again.

* 19 Jun 2024 6:43 p.m. PST you again did *not* answer my question and instead said "So only you can ask questions? How hypocritical of you…" ignoring that you have still refused to answer my original question, and from here you embark on some fine gaslighting!

* 20 Jun 2024 3:17 a.m. PST you continue to ignore my question and demand I answer yours instead. Gaslighter!

* 20 Jun 2024 8:03 a.m. PST you again refuse to answer my question and instead embark on a diatribe that -- again, avoids answering my question.

* 20 Jun 2024 8:39 a.m. PST I asked you again to define victory in Ukraine. My original questions to you, since you support the war seemingly unconditionally are incredibly basic questions:

What's victory look like?
Is that victory realistic?
What are the risks of trying to get said defined victory?
How much will victory cost in blood and treasure?
What does the post-Victory Peace look like?
How will you secure Peace after War is done?

* 20 Jun 2024 9:02 a.m. PST you again gaslight me my saying

why can't you answer my questions? You can quit doubling down with your debate tactics I already called you out on them.

Yet to this point you have still NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS! Seriously, what's the deal here? So what the hell, I answered your questions even though you still have not done me the courtesy of answering the questions I posed to you first and continue to gaslight and demand I answer your questions.

20 Jun 2024 1:59 p.m. PST fine, answered your questions. And how do you reply? More Gaslighting!!

* 20 Jun 2024 2:36 p.m. PST you replied

Can you respond in good faith to my statement I made at 8:03. If you can't then we have nothing further to talk about. By the way that is not a victory for you that just means I am done listening to you chant "No" and keep repeating yourself. Anything you say from this point on I will keep referring to my statement at 8:03.

You still haven't answered a Drucking thing, done nothing by gaslight and insult me, so what's the deal here? What's the point of acting like a spiteful ex--girlfriend here? I don't get it. I guess you have no answer other than "Ukraine has the right to defend itself." A basic no-brainer I agree with, but then you also want victory -- you want to win? SO…

What's victory look like?
Is that victory realistic?
What are the risks of trying to get said defined victory?
How much will victory cost in blood and treasure?
What does the post-Victory Peace look like?
How will you secure Peace after War is done?

If you answer, fine, let's talk about it. If you gaslight some more -- I guess that's to be expected given our exchange on this topic. Peace out!

In fairness SB, he may have answered some of your questions, in response to mine. Definitely Not all, but some. Actually maybe only the first 2. 🤔
(Below)

"If you believe they can win, please explain your theory on how they can,"-35thOVI

Disclaimer this is just a theory and can be what if'd to death like most of the theories on here…

Ukraine is about to receive somewhere close to 100 F-16 fighter jets. If Ukraine can gain air superiority over the Russians there will be no more glide bombs and the Russians will start losing key systems without air dominance.

NATO allies are creating artillery shells as fast as they can. If Ukraine starts getting timely deliveries Russian casualties will increase.

Estimates are the Russians are losing 1,000 casualties a day. If that number can be increased and their war fighting capacity degraded the Russian army could break and possibly route off the field.

The US and NATO need to lean forward in the foxhole and give Ukraine everything they. This situation could have been avoided is everything and more the Ukraine needed to push the Russians off their territory. The US leadership dragged its feet as again they are risk adverse and fear escalation. And again, Putin knows it …

The Ukraine has attrited Russian assets significantly. The US, NATO and other nations that support them must not let their war efforts to be in vain …

Putin is just throwing bodies into a meat grinder, hoping the Ukraine will take enough losses to break them …

We Can't let that happen …

Even the ROK may send support to Ukraine with Putin's recent visit to Un …

link

Just heard a former CIA chief say that by Putin going to see Un. Has pushed Russia to being a pariah state. And should be, like Un, Iran, etc. designated as a terrorist nation as well.

This whole war could have been averted but given all the pinheads we have running the West, I guess it was inevitable.

I mean, the war should have been over by now, if you believe the pinheads commentating at its beginning.

Fact is, from a global geo-strategic viewpoint, it is an unqualified disaster which has driven Russia into the arms of China.

That situation is what is known as "The American Nightmare."

This whole war could have been averted but given all the pinheads we have running the West, I guess it was inevitable.

With US debacle in A'stan, and yes it was a debacle. Putin took an opportunity that presented itself. After the demonstration of how poorly ops went there. As soon as Putin saw the US leadership was risk adverse and feared escalation. He decided he will invade Ukraine.

His wish was granted when it took months for the Russian Forces to mass along Ukraine's border. While the US did little to prevent this. As it became clear the US leadership was dragging its feet getting Ukraine all the heavy equipment both ground and air. That Ukraine needed. As well as NATO had downsized over the years.

There really was no reason for him not to strike.

The invasion was a huge strategic and tactical mistake on Putin's part, IMO. He has not won the war, has taken huge losses in men and equipment, has lost valuable economic connections and opportunities.

Russia now exposed as a 2nd class conventional army with limited understanding of combined arms tactics, Russian surface navy exposed as vulnerable, troops guilty of multiple war crimes against non combatants, international standing now reduced to pariah status.

NATO revived and functional with new members giving Russia hundreds of miles of new NATO border to defend as they are further hemmed in.

And even we Germans understood that the post cold war peace time is over

The invasion was a huge strategic and tactical mistake on Putin's part, IMO. He has not won the war, has taken huge losses in men and equipment, has lost valuable economic connections and opportunities.

All so very true … Russia's losses are huge. They gained very little ground.

Plus, two more nations joined NATO because of this invasion of Ukraine. With Finland one of the two new NATO members. Having an 800-mile border with Russia.

NATO was awakened and revitalized …

Did Putin et al do anything right ?

Legion, I suppose that depends on your point of view! He probably was glad to clean out the prisons for canon fodder. He seems to have solid public support in Russia.

But I would think having to go to NK for ammo would be an embarrassing step down for Russia. I am sure Xi has the upper hand in that relationship also.Iran now has a bigger market for drones. But in general, these countries have more power and influence by acting scary rather than by actually going to war, IMO. Even China would not have made the choice Putin did. It's cheaper and more fun harassing people with water cannons and balloons. Outrage makes a big noise, as we have learned here in America, without actually doing anything.

I think its funny how similar the situation is to early 1943 in the UK, when there was a lot of political wrangling between the 2 main parties, and a lot of uncertainty how the war would progress, there was a great feeling that there was no end in sight.
A year and a half later, it was very different…!

Legion, I suppose that depends on your point of view! He probably was glad to clean out the prisons for canon fodder. He seems to have solid public support in Russia.

Well if he wanted to clear out his prisons, he could have just flown them to Mexico. And tell them to cross the US border and they are free. IIRC Venezuela and some other South & Central Nations did. Either was they would not be vetted in any detail. And released into the US to rape, kill, etc.

If he has a much support as is reported, that it says he does in Russia. Then Russia is once again an adversary of a sizable threat. And the US, NATO, etc. should continue to support the Ukraine. As much as possible …

It might help to read what you have written before posting.

Did I forget a word or two ?

Misspell something ?

Said something inaccurate, etc. ?

OH !

*Errata: "Either was they …" should read – either way they …

I'm old, I make many errors …

@SBminisguy

I do not believe you understand the definition of gas lighting. I suggest you look it up and tell me how I have gaslit you?

You were the one caterwauling about lazy ad hominem attacks and now you engage in them.

You can cherry pick text to death and spin the narrative you want.

If you can respond to what I said at 8:03 in good faith without gas lighting me pretending you did then we can move forward.

Garand +1

35th OVI +1

I am currently in an oasis of civilization with internet access I am not sure how long it will last so if I don't post again for awhile that is why.

The attack on Ukraine was against international law. So support of Ukraine is support of international law. Giving a criminal what he wants is imho stupid in the long run. If Russia can use the resources from Ukraine territories it might build up a much better army than it has now. Russia gains in political power would be even greater.
I can only laugh about the nuclear threat. The first 23 years of my life the possibility of nuclear war was permanent. And as there is nothing you can do about stupidity if Putin wants to act even more stupid by going nuclear: Inshallah.
Winning a war is done by taking away the ability or the will to keep on fighting from th opponent. I see no way to take away the will to fight from Putin or Russia.
So you have to take away the russian ability to fight. That is a matter of ammunition you are able to produce and transport to the front line.

All the other talk about the responsibility of which government and the border to Mexico and who needs to answer which question first is just a waste of words. And it might even undermine the will to continue the fight.

My opinion…Much of the US is obsessed with its own internal struggles for political power. This is the weakness the foreign dictators think they see. And Europe fears we will become unhinged and reactionary. But our adversaries have their own problems. You are not doing well when you need to ask Kim Jong Un for help.