US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

"Biden has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy decision in the past 40 years." ~ Robert Gates

And, he is keeping that record going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

SOmething here is not adding up. Compared these refugees.

Sorry, what is not adding up? Krajina refugees (Croatian Serbs) largely fled to nearby Serbian ethnic areas of Bosnia in what was later to be called Republika Srpska, or to Serbia proper (Belgarde and other areas) . It is natural that they would flee to areas where they had relatives and spoke the language. They could not flee to Europe because they would have physically had to flee through significant distances of Croatia, which at the time was the perpetrator of the fighting against them (Operation Flash and Storm - in which Croatia reclaimed separatist ethnic Serb areas of Croatia).

Are you implying something about how well dressed the Ukrainian refugees are? Ukraine is a wealthier country than the Krajina area was 30 years ago. Most people who lived in Krajina were rural Serbs who farmed, so they left in their (Soviet made) cars, wagons and tractors or on foot. There were no rail lines to speed people away from the war like there is in Ukraine.

In fact, just like w/ Krajina Serbs, many Ukrainians fled with only one suitcase or a knapsack, abandoning their cars at some poing to walk miles to reach the Polish border.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

You must be a real mo ron. If course, NATO benefits from weakened Russia and might even get another stronghold, occupation ground in Ukraine.

Totally. I'm a complete idiot. Of course NATO tricked Russia into invading. Tricked Russia into having a bunch of corrupt yes ken in charge. Tricked Russia into bombing maternity wards. Tricked Russia into giving their troops expired rations. Tricked Russia into not maintaining its tires. Tricked Russia into not providing its vehicles with enough fuel. Tricked Russia into shelling civilian evacuation routes. Tricked Russia into filling up the morgues in Belarus. Tricked Russia into getting caught in the mud It's all been a long con. Just wait for the Slavic genetic bomb we're working on. NATO has been laying the groundwork for Russia shooting itself in the foot for decades. What other possible explanation could there be for the sheer embarrassing incompetence of the Kremlin? In fact, Putin himself is a NATO spy. Think about it. Who benefits from him being so short? Who benefits from him being a fool? Who benefits from Russia committing widespread war crimes? It's certainly not Russia that benefits from being a global laughingstock and pariah. It must be NATO. Who else could be such a genius to trick Russia into such a cluster?

You just proved my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

You must be a real mo ron. If course, NATO benefits from weakened Russia and might even get another stronghold, occupation ground in Ukraine.

Totally. I'm a complete idiot. Of course NATO tricked Russia into invading. Tricked Russia into having a bunch of corrupt yes ken in charge. Tricked Russia into bombing maternity wards. Tricked Russia into giving their troops expired rations. Tricked Russia into not maintaining its tires. Tricked Russia into not providing its vehicles with enough fuel. Tricked Russia into shelling civilian evacuation routes. Tricked Russia into filling up the morgues in Belarus. Tricked Russia into getting caught in the mud It's all been a long con. Just wait for the Slavic genetic bomb we're working on. NATO has been laying the groundwork for Russia shooting itself in the foot for decades. What other possible explanation could there be for the sheer embarrassing incompetence of the Kremlin? In fact, Putin himself is a NATO spy. Think about it. Who benefits from him being so short? Who benefits from him being a fool? Who benefits from Russia committing widespread war crimes? It's certainly not Russia that benefits from being a global laughingstock and pariah. It must be NATO. Who else could be such a genius to trick Russia into such a cluster?

You just proved my point.

Exactly. Putin is a NATO double agent that has been weakening Russia from within. This invasion gives us the perfect opportunity to infect migratory birds with a Slavic genetic bomb. Is Putin even Russian? It's all been a ruse. A gigantic false flag. The greatest false flag in history. Think about it. It all makes sense now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

NATO is a defense alliance, not an attack dog like Russia.

In which world? In which world? Imaginary mo ron world?

The resident 3-word troll is here trying to stir things up before he gets shut out. How are you?

Anyone who thinks NATO is a defense alliance is too stupid and uneducated for me to waste my time on. Have a great day in your own ignorant mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

He will do the same thing he is doing around the other cities: he will make a ring around Kyiv and leave people in the city without water and food. Kyiv said that they have 2 weeks worth of supplies... If a "crap job" means inhumane - you are right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

And all the sanctions magically vanish overnight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

And all the sanctions magically vanish overnight?

Those sanctions should stay in place for a very very very long time. Sell the yachts and the apartments to help rebuild Ukraine. The cultural stuff will just die by market forces. Who is going to pay money to watch a putin lover sing opera or play hockey?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

Promising to never join NATO wouldn't be enough. Joining the EU is just a backdoor way into support from a number of NATO member countries. However, Putin could let it slide knowing EU membership is a long long way off due to "requirements." Assuming he trusted the west to follow the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.

I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.

Yes of course. That makes complete sense. Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war. Are you the same derp from the other thread? Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed. It turns out that their vast amy sucks. No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale,

And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo. If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks. And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state. I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine. Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine?

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

And all the sanctions magically vanish overnight?

They hope they are still in time to reverse the economic damage. I think they will find that that not only the West but also China is done with Russia.

[Anonymous]

At this point, sanctions are hurting us more, than the average Russian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Biden has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy decision in the past 40 years." ~ Robert Gates

And, he is keeping that record going.

Weakly sourced article that isn't true, and doesn't even say what you claim it does (ie: that Biden made the decision). I know for a fact that special forces trainers were in Ukraine and were not withdrawn until February - and they remain nearby to advise our Ukrainian partners. Be smarter - you have no idea even the tenth of what our military is doing for Ukraine.