Ok. you are ignoring any form of geopolitical consideration point i think the discussion no longer makes sense if it is only manifestly argued in terms of good and evil. the Russian army would never be able to occupy Europe permanently, that should be clear to everyone. at the same time, NATO is completely bled dry, both economically and militarily. the prehistory with the maidan coup in 2014 and the attacks on the Russian population in Donbass, the decimation of the population there, none of that plays a role in your considerations. that's okay with me, but you are simply victims of the propaganda of your own newspapers. have fun with that. and, I think I've explained this here 20 times by now, the rearmament of the Ukrainian army, the total shithol of Europe, into a top NATO army should actually make you wonder, shouldn't it? at least if you're prepared to switch your brain on again at some point. plus the eternally broken promise of NATO's expansion to the Russian borders. none of this matters, does it? and besides: what do you call the wars of aggression by NATO in recent decades and the United States? Kosovo Vietnam Korea Iraq one Iraq 2 Syria afghanistan-all with hundreds of thousands of civilians as collateral damage. those were probably all peacekeeping missions in your ideology, huh?
this territory is moderated
Agree with your analysis. Ukraine needs men and artillery to prolong the war but draft dodgers make it impossible. Even money to Ukraine would not help.
Aid to Ukraine is expensive virtue signaling.
I predict there will be a ceasefire with Russia annexing part of Ukraine.
Why does NATO continue to send money to Ukraine when most of its members won’t pay their membership annual fee. USA pays full amount. Europe keeps welching on its financial obligations to NATO.
Another reason they hate Trump who was the first president to publicize this fact
reply