"Has Russia Won?" Topic

Following the recent statements by Hegseth it's hard not to imagine the grin spreading across Putins face.
No Nato for Ukraine, no return to 2014 boundaries, reduction in US aid.
It's hard to imagine the Europeans digging their heals in and effectively opposing these decisions, or being capable of making up the balance in aid.
Cuprum2 tells us that sanctions have actually been beneficial in the long run to Russia. Has the bully won?

I hope not!

Russia lost the moment it crossed the border.

Depends on how far you define victory down. I think Putin meant to take the whole of Ukraine. Unless it collapses, he's not likely to get it.

As for Cuprum, well, he says a lot of things. I don't know that I would consider his expressed satisfaction to necessarily be a statement on anything.

Indeed. That last sentence was written with a sardonic smile.
That being said, an opinion from the other 'camp' is welcome, and us being able to readily communicate with a fellow wargamer over there is quite something.

Russia may end up with some minor territorial gains, but their losses in manpower, material, and military prestige are a disproportionate cost. Their trade and diplomatic relations will be adversely impacted for years if not decades. Their major potential adversary, NATO, was on the verge of irrelevancy and now it has expanded and is better funded.

Even if Russia were to take the whole of Ukraine it will not have been worth the war by any measure.

I KNOW, I KNOW…
..
LETS HAVE A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!!
That's always fun

Did anyone actually believe the Ukraine could defeat Russia, without a world war, civil war in Russia or Putin dying? I believed it would be a quick Russian victory. I believed the Russian military was stronger than they were. But since the early defeat did not happen, negotiations were the only way some us of believed this could end (baring the 3 above). No matter the arms, the Ukrainians do not have the population to be victorious in a WW1 war of attrition.

Yes negotiating is going on and has been since Trump took office. Zelensky has been, Putin has been. You have the hostage release of yesterday and potentially more. You have Pete Hegseth over there and making the NATO announcement (📣).

Both sides are going to lose. Some loses obvious and others not. The losers will not be just Russia and the Ukraine. The cost of this war will affect and has affected us all. Who will rebuild what is left of the Ukraine? Is Europe willing to pick up that cost? Russia?

I still believe the worst mistake ever, was expanding NATO into countries that border Russia. I know others don't agree, but defense treaties allow NO leeway in times of peace. This is not an excuse for Russia, just a fact as I see it.

As I speak, 3 more detainees released from Belarus, one a US citizen.

Subject: Libs of TikTok on X: "BREAKING: The U.S. confirms Ukraine will NOT join NATO and NO U.S. troops will be deployed to Ukraine. t.co/eeM8Ap9YVm / X


link

And moving…

Subject: Putin Tells Trump 'Peaceful Negotiations' on Ukraine War Possible in Leaders' First Call – The Moscow Times


link

I would say let us talk to those Ukrainians who will now end up as part of a dictatorial Russia and Putin. See what they say. However, with that said. I don't see how this war would end without some sort of negotiated peace.

And moving..
He just talked to Zelensky

Both sides are going to lose.

Agreed.

Following the recent statements by Hegseth it's hard not to imagine the grin spreading across Putins face.

What, by stating the obvious that Ukraine will not get eastern territories it lost in 2014 back? That was never going to happen. Here's what Hegseth said: "U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that retaking all territory that Ukraine has lost to Russia since 2014 is an unrealistic war goal and insisted that Europe must take on a greater share of the burden of supporting Ukraine."

All perfectly rational.

1. Ukraine doesn't get the territory Obama let Putin take in 2014 back.

2. Russia failed to conquer Ukraine.

3. To ensure that in future Russia can't conquer Ukraine, EUROPE will have to do more to guarantee its security. Shouldn't you want that anyways? I mean, many European leaders and pundit whinge a lot about the US being too influential -- so here's your chance to lead!

4. Adding Ukraine to NATO isn't going to happen, it's a huge stumbling block to a peace deal and not needed. See point 3 – nothing stopping the rest of Europe forming their own defense pacts with Ukraine. Call it "BS-SO" The Black Sea Security Organization.

5. Not mentioned, but there will have to be some moves to bring Russia back into the fold and away from China – reducing or eliminating sanctions and so on.

Hegseth is an irrelevance, nobody take the US seriously, look at the tarrifs, instant cave, then US words not valid for 30 days (Tariffs back on after only 2 weeks). Hegseth has failed to Talk to Nato members but presumes (utterly irrationally) that he speaks for them. Clearly Hegseth needed to take a high school diploma in politics before he stared work.

When that phrase "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" was invented, it was probably meant for a comment like "needed to take a high school diploma in politics before he stared (sic) work."

Some good comments …

It really ended the only way it could have at this point. Both sides made compromises. "The art of the deal".

In the end could it be considered is a tie ? I.e. With the Russians losing a a good part of their forces. It will take over a decade before they can rebuild their military.

The Ukraine took loses but stopped Russia for occupying their country.

But IMO Ukraine accomplished their mission. Albeit at a high cost.

Putin will claim victory no matter what.

Plus, NATO realized they better get their 💩 together… "Pray for peace but prepare for war." …

Two nations joined NATO because of Russian imperialism …

E.g. the SCW just before WWII … many lessons were learned …

Still some things to be decided of course …

From the reports I heard today :

Russia keeps Crimea

What about the Donbas

Ukraine can't join NATO

However, the US & Ukraine will do business. The US wants to buy some natural recourses. The US may[some in NATO too] get some contracts to rebuild Ukraine.

The Ukraine will still have to rebuild their military. Probably buying some more NATO equipment …

More details are still pending …

UshCha, I don't have the words.

OPPs 😳 except these:

"Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group (As Delivered)

Feb. 12, 2025
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
Brussels, Belgium

Good afternoon, friends.

Thank you, Secretary Healy for your leadership, both in hosting and now leading the UDCG.

This is my first Ukraine Defense Contact Group. And I'm honored to join all of you today.

And I appreciate the opportunity to share President Trump's approach to the war in Ukraine.

We are at, as you said Mr. Secretary, a critical moment. As the war approaches its third anniversary, our message is clear: The bloodshed must stop. And this war must end.

President Trump has been clear with the American people – and with many of your leaders – that stopping the fighting and reaching an enduring peace is a top priority.

He intends to end this war by diplomacy and bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the table. And the U.S. Department of Defense will help achieve this goal.

We will only end this devastating war – and establish a durable peace – by coupling allied strength with a realistic assessment of the battlefield.

We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.

Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.

A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again.

This must not be Minsk 3.0.

That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

Instead any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.

If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact.

To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.

To further enable effective diplomacy and drive down energy prices that fund the Russian war machine, President Trump is unleashing American energy production and encouraging other nations to do the same. Lower energy prices coupled with more effective enforcement of energy sanctions will help bring Russia to the table.

Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine.

Members of this Contact Group must meet the moment.

This means: Donating more ammunition and equipment. Leveraging comparative advantages. Expanding your defense industrial base. And importantly, leveling with your citizens about the threat facing Europe.

Part of this is speaking frankly with your people about how this threat can only be met by spending more on defense.

2% is not enough; President Trump has called for 5%, and I agree.

Increasing your commitment to your own security is a down payment for the future. A down payment as you said Mr. Secretary of peace through strength.

We're also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.

The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must – and we are – focusing on security of our own borders.

We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.

Deterrence cannot fail, for all of our sakes.

As the United States prioritizes its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front.

Together, we can establish a division of labor that maximizes our comparative advantages in Europe and Pacific respectively.

In my first weeks as Secretary of Defense, under President Trump's leadership, we've seen promising signs that Europe sees this threat, understands what needs to be done, and is stepping up to the task.

For example, Sweden recently announced its largest ever assistance package. We applaud them for committing $1.2 USD billion in ammunition and other needed materiel.

Poland is spending 5% of GDP on defense already, which is a model for the continent.

And 14 countries are co-leading Capability Coalitions. These groups are doing great work to coordinate Europe's contributions of lethal assistance across eight key capability areas.

These are first steps. More must still be done.

We ask each of your countries to step up on fulfilling the commitments that you have made.

And we challenge your countries, and your citizens, to double down and re-commit yourselves not only to Ukraine's immediate security needs, but to Europe's long-term defense and deterrence goals.

Our transatlantic alliance has endured for decades. And we fully expect that it will be sustained for generations to come. But this won't just happen.

It will require our European allies to step into the arena and take ownership of conventional security on the continent.

The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe. Full stop.

But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency. Rather, our relationship will prioritize empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security.

Honesty will be our policy going forward – but only in the spirit of solidarity.

President Trump looks forward to working together, to continuing this frank discussion amongst friends, and to achieve peace through strength – together.

Thank you."

Ukraine holds all the territory it's likely to take. It's not going to get stronger at this point without a major foreign intervention, of the type no responsible leader would undertake. NATO doesn't admit countries with serious border disputes. The US does not want to get more deeply involved in Europe, and certainly doesn't want to intervene directly in the war. Europe doesn't have the wherewithal.

Whether you like them or not, these are facts, and they are probably the facts that will define the shape of a final settlement, whether we like it or not.

Nine pound round is pretty close to the truth here. All of the old, expendable weapons systems have been donated to Ukraine and no one really wants to fund billions in new equipment for them. Without the U.S. and various NATO allies committing forces, Ukraine has no chance of taking back lost territory and it just seems the fight is gone from the West. Also, all of those who think this has done irreparable damage to Russia's economy are only partially right. In less than 5 years Europe will be back to buying Russia's energy and mineral resources.

So Chamberlain .. oops, Trump .. will return from Moscow's victory parade and wave some papers: "I bring peace for you!!"?
And then Putin invade Poland and Baltic after a year..
Russia cannot live in peace, especially when he have only war economy and mentality.

So what's your solution, then?

Russia won the race to lose 10,000 tanks. Putin made his military weaker and gained little.

"And then Putin invade Poland and Baltic after a year."

I hate to bust your bubble but Poland has the largest and best trained troops in Europe. They could reach Moscow within 3 weeks if it wasn't for I've got lots of nukes Putang.

Maybe it is time for Poland to have their own nukes.

Again if Trump is the problem, why only war under the vaunted Obama and Biden in the Ukraine? Don't answer, there isn't a good one.

"So what's your solution, then?"

Peace, of course, but not a Russian victory with the resulting larger war.
Currently, the Ukrainians are destroying as many Russian troops per month as Putin can mobilize. In a peace deal, Putin will quickly increase his army to another million soldiers, and he wants to use them before he dies. So Ukrainians hold world peace with their lives.

So peace on current frontline may be, if

- sanctions hold and even increase until Russia still occupy Ukrainian lands and reparations/contributions have not been paid to the last penny

- along the entire NATO and Ukrainian border are stationed US trigger troops so that Russia would not have the opportunity to invade Europe without getting into war with the US and NATO.

"I hate to bust your bubble but Poland has the largest and best trained troops in Europe."

This is true. But Russians are also learned and will not consider it an easy walk like in Ukraine. They lost more than 850 000 troops in Ukraine with three years and are ready to lost another couple of millions in Poland within a few months. In WWII they were prepared to lose more troops by attacking Germany unexpectedly than they actually lost during the entire war by being attacked by Germany.

Poland will resist but Poland are smaller than Ukraine. If US betrays Ukraine, it will betray Poland, Baltic and NATO also. And Germany will immediately surrender after Poland fall and give their Taurus to Putin.

If the Ukrainians can beat the Russians, why haven't they ejected them from Ukraine altogether? And do you seriously believe that Ukraine can (or will, or should) just bleed out indefinitely, so that the European nations in NATO can be safe? That's asking a lot.

It's nice that you think the US should station a cordon of troops around Ukraine, but where's the part about Europeans assuming more responsibility for the defense of Europe and the deterrence of Russia? After all, they're the ones most threatened. Why is the answer always that the US furnishes the troops and assumes the risk?

"If the Ukrainians can beat the Russians, why haven't they ejected them from Ukraine altogether?"

Because they have not enough weaponry and especially ammo. Also maneuver warfare phase is over, it is trench warfare now. The main strikes are against objects behind enemy lines. Russians target civilians and Ukrainians target military supplies. It is Russian war economy who need to be destroyed. With bombardment and sanctions.

"And do you seriously believe that Ukraine can (or will, or should) just bleed out indefinitely"

No. But they will be definitely without our help or with this peace.
It's just that with this peace, the sons will die, not their grandfathers. And the grandfathers say they can't leave this war to their grandchildren. Russia must be stopped now and forever.

"Why is the answer always that the US furnishes the troops and assumes the risk?"

Because the US is the leader.
You think the Russians are fighting the Ukrainians? No, they're sure they're fighting the Americans. Only they are too cowardly to attack the Americans directly.

Where do people see the Kursk salient (deja vu from ww2) fitting in to negotiations? I'm not interested in a flame war, I'm curious. Also, 1500 troops in transniatria providing a secure place to build up in Ukraine's rear. Should any peace deal include their removal from a strategic perspective?

The idea that Russia can be stopped "now and forever" seems like a fundamental mistake to me. There's no way to an end state that involves complete defeat and potentially state breakup without a risk of worse results, including nuclear proliferation and loss of control. And the US has never had a policy of breaking up Russia (although there may have been some policymakers who wanted that). Europe is in for a long haul with Russia behaving like it has behaved throughout its history- and the only way to resist that is to rearm and defend yourselves.

Your strategy looks to me like using other people (the US and Ukraine) to do the dirty work, so Europe escapes consequences it doesn't want (rearmament, demilitarization, possibly war). I don't think you can realistically continue to depend on either Ukraine's willingness to fight indefinitely or America's willingness to bear the burden of Europe's defense.

Korsun0, it looks like a tradeoff to me. I don't know that it will be traded, hectare for hectare, for Russian-occupied territory, but I would expect in the negotiating process it would be given up in more or less direct exchange for something Ukraine wants.

"along the entire NATO and Ukrainian border are stationed US trigger troops so that Russia would not have the opportunity to invade Europe without getting into war with the US and NATO."

Perhaps Germany can replace US troops in Syria, or France can replace US troops in South Korea, or any of the 80 countries that have US troops in them now?

Why not put Canadian, and British, and Norwegian troops along the border with Ukraine and Russia? How about Italian, or Turkish, or Spanish troops?

Or Finland, and Sweden were so interested in NATO why not let them provide the troops? Or maybe the EU could pay for all the US troops along the Ukraine border, including transportation and upkeep?

Generations of American have fought and stood watch in Europe for over 100 years, how long are we supposed to do that? The US is spends more on debt service than we do on national defense. We have to start cutting and getting our debt under control if we are going to continue to be a superpower.

We have China to face on the other side of the world, and I appreciate Italy, the UK and France sending their ships to patrol there, but somehow I don't think they will be much help if the North Koreans attack the South, or if Japan is attacked by Russia or China.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Buck +1

Nine pound round, Putin's demands were outlined in the "ultimatum" shortly before the war began. The seizure of all of Ukraine or its territories was not listed there. He was not even going to annex the Donetsk and Luhansk regions – for eight years he refused to recognize referendums on the annexation of these regions to Russia, he only demanded the creation of autonomous regions for them within Ukraine. This would guarantee him that Ukraine would not join NATO and would remain neutral. And the preservation of the integrity of Ukraine, since a neutral Ukraine would serve as a buffer for Russia against NATO. In this regard, the West, with its deception with the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format, actually pushed Ukraine to disaster. So here Putin got much more than he wanted.

Throughout its history, Russian troops came to Europe IN RESPONSE to an attack by European armies, on the shoulders of a retreating enemy. Or to fulfill their allied obligations. You are turning history upside down)))

Inch High Guy, everything will be exactly the opposite…

Grattan54, Russia will get territories with a predominantly Russian population.

korsun0, there will be no exchange of territories. The Ukrainian group in Kursk will either leave on its own or be destroyed.

Bunkermeister, why does Russia need Japan?!))) We don't even need Europe… Well, maybe the Baltics ;) Yes, Sho Boki? Are you ready to serve in the Russian army again?)))

In fact, you came up with a false goal for Russia and now you are discussing whether Putin has achieved it or not))) Putin does not need Ukraine. Putin wants to return Russia to the ranks of the great powers. And he has already done it.
Putin wants to increase Russia's security and sovereignty – and he has already done it.
Putin wants a multipolar world – and he has already done so.
And the acquired territories are just payment for military losses. Just like Trump takes Ukraine's resources in exchange for the assistance provided.
Trump is a businessman. He only sees that the "Ukraine" project has exhausted itself and it is time to record profits and losses… He, like Putin, needs a great power. Only Putin wants to recreate it, and Trump wants to preserve it.

Sweden have sent troops to the Baltic states as part of a NATO agreement. Sweden is willing to send peace keepers to Ukraine.

Sweden have sent alot of military equipment to Ukraine that the Ukrainains can use as they please. Not like the US which specified that US weapons could not be used against Russian territory (That did finally change though after a two years or so which is good).

Sweden wanted to train Ukr pilots on the J39 Gripen and supply that fighter but the US stopped it for fear of "escalating".

Sweden wanted to supply Ukr with advanced AWACS aircraft but was stopped by the US for fear of escalating.

So at least Sweden tries to help but is blocked again and again by the US.

soledad, does Sweden want to destroy all men in Ukraine? Or does Sweden want to fight Russia? Then attack)))

Maybe Sweden only love freedom…

Armand

Maybe Sweden wanted to take part in the division of the "Russian pie"? After all, Putin's victory was impossible…

He hasn't had one yet.

As long as Ukraine wants our support we will support them. If they do not want our help we will stop helping.

If you want to attack Sweden then do it. That decision is up to you. Sweden have zero interest in russia. Why would we want anything to do with your country? You have nothing we are interested in, zero, zilch, nada. Also Sweden does not believe in attacking other countries to conquer and exploit them and commit genocide against the population. That is more of a Russian speciality.

I dearly hope Russia is ejected from Ukrainian territory and that there will be peace. Russia can do that in no time, just pull your tropps back! Very simple.

After that we in the west needs to have a strong defense to counter further Russian aggression and hopefully no trade at all with Russia. You can sit in your country and do as you please. Just leave the rest of the world alone.

Why do we need Sweden? We have plenty of our own iron ore))) We haven't fought with the Swedes for over two hundred years. We once bought (forcibly – like Trump wants to buy Greenland) a colony – Finland, made a principality out of them, giving the Finns a state for the first time in history, – from the Swedes and later gave it independence, and that's all))) And then – we were interested in access to the sea, not infertile territories.
Although you can start making problems for the Russians on the Northern Sea Route – and then we'll have something to argue about)))
No need to talk about genocide… Soon all these fairy tales of Ukrainian propaganda will disappear like smoke.

We will calm down as soon as we drive away from our borders the aggressive anti-Russian military bloc, which is much superior to Russia in strength (which is strange, right? For the defender. But these are very clear proportions for the attacker, especially if you consider that Russians don't know how to fight at all….)

"Throughout its history, Russian troops came to Europe IN RESPONSE to an attack by European armies, on the shoulders of a retreating enemy."

Interesting. The direct opposite of truth.
When such nonsense appears?
So far no one has provided any examples.

On the contrary, throughout muscovites history, European troops rarely came to Muscowy and always IN RESPONSE to threat by Muscovites armies who started the war. Or to fulfil their allied obligations.

Rzeczpospolita Polska and Cossacks, Napoleon, Crimean War, both WW, Civil War intervention, current Ukrainian Kursk operation. All are reactions to muscovites aggression and treachery.

I don't know what's funnier- the notion that the Russians "gave" Finland its independence as if it was some kind of generous grant, or the idea that Russian paratroops were dropped on the Kidv airport on the first day of the war to "preserve the integrity of Ukraine."

This is why I hold you in contempt, Culrum: it's wrong to tell a lie, but it's stupid to tell an obvious lie.

Nine pound round I don't care about your contempt))) What you write is a lie. Before the Russian paratroopers landed in Gostomel, there were many events that led to this situation. But it is very convenient for a liar not to notice them)))

"The idea that Russia can be stopped "now and forever" seems like a fundamental mistake to me."

It seems so, but in fact the fundamental mistake was always exactly the opposite.

"And the US has never had a policy of breaking up Russia"

Exactly. US always saved, cured and promoted Russia, often at the expense of Russia's neighbours.

Is Russia grateful? No. Americans are always considered as main enemy.

We didn't stop Russia in Chechnya, Kadyrov is now fighting on Putin's side in Russia's wars of conquest.
We didn't stop Russia in Georgia, Russia took power there.
We won't stop Russia in Ukraine, Ukrainians will start fighting on Putin's side and millions will die.

The pretext that Trump's peace in this form will save and spare lives is a fundamental error. It is instead a surefire path to a larger war and the deaths of millions.

"Your strategy looks to me like using other people (the US and Ukraine) to do the dirty work"

No. Ukrainians are fighting for themselves and are being killed without our help, and the survivors are forced to fight against us as Russian combat slaves.
Did you see what Cuprum told me? "Are you ready to serve in the Russian army again?"

"I don't think you can realistically continue to depend on either Ukraine's willingness to fight indefinitely or America's willingness to bear the burden of Europe's defense."

Ukrainians are forced to fight for their lives and liberty. If Trump forces them to surrender, it will Make America Small Again.
And what a burden it would be for America to have a few light infantry platoons on the Muscovite border. They would not serve as a fighting force, but only as a warning to the Russians, not to start a war. For although the Russians consider America their chief enemy, they dare not attack the Americans until the Chinese give permission.
However, European troops on the Ukrainian border, without NATO cover as Trump's plan envisages, are instead decoys for a Russian attack.

"Many events that led to this situation" is a good indicator, for your readers, of how you shade language to move by almost imperceptible degrees from an unpleasant truth to a comforting lie. Pay close attention, readers: this is the endpoint that state-directed propaganda and control of information takes you to. The longer it goes on, the cruder and stupider it can be- and it shows best when it's exposed in an environment where coercion doesn't exist.

I take it back, Cuprum: I don't necessarily think you're lying, because someone who was lying in his own right would try to concoct plausible lies. You're simply one more middling product of Soviet thought in all of it's totalitarian crudity.

Not if there are enough of them, and they're well armed and plausibly led. NATO has two other nuclear powers to deter Russia. Trump didn't get elected because the United States was willing to continue making up the credibility and capability gap caused by European disarmament indefinitely.

"Bunkermeister, why does Russia need Japan?"
Perhaps Russia can give back the Kuril Islands that they have occupied since World War Two then?

What does Russia need any of the territory they have taken from others for the last 500 years?

Bunkermeister

A Ukranian military victory and recapture of the eastern provinces and Crimea was never going to happen, unless there was total Russian collapse -- like the CIA tried to engineer with the failed Wagner Coup.

No, this war was always going to end in some negotiated settlement, hopefully before Ukrainian collapse from exhaustion. If you didn't see that and fell for the "In it to win it, all the way to Moscow" meme, you were being foolish.

The deal was always going to look something like this:

1. Ukraine cedes control over what Russia already controls, and has since Obama let Putin grab territory in 2012 and 2014.

2. Russia cedes back what it couldn't keep anyway

3. The establishment of a DMZ

4. The establishment of a DMZ "peace keeping" presence

5. No NATO for Ukraine, and no US troops -- we wouldn't stand for Russian or Chinese troops in Mexico.

6. No NATO does not prevent NATO/EUR and US security arrangements and support directly with Ukraine

7. Some measures to relax sanctions on Russia to start wooing them back away from China

8. Some cross border trade and travel deal with Ukraine and Russia, and maybe Ukraine gets cheap (or free) Russian energy for 5-10 years during Ukrainian reconstruction.

Then we can get on with the business of defocusing from Putin, our modern day Mussolini who is so incompetent he can't defeat a smaller weaker neighbor despite his bluster, on onto our modern day Hitler, which is Xi… who has a system of ethnic cleansing and concentration camps, a fascistic command and control economy, deep oppression of its citizenry, who is arming up quickly with US and global trade $$ with the express goal of global domination, fueled by a sense of historical victimhood and grievance and a strong streak of ethnic superiority and chauvinism.

Remember back when this war started we 1) Thought that Russia would likely roll over Ukraine and 2) Someone who killed Putin or overthrow him. Wrong on both counts. Ukraine kissed Russia's butt and Putin is in firm control of Russia.