Yes we could arm Ukraine more, but the ukr casualties would be bad, really bad
Ukrainian casualties
are "bad, really bad" because we have made a conscious choice not to give them the tools they need.
Even though we do know we know they'll fight regardless.
and as I said, if Ukr was pushing russia hard, maybe even into Russian territory, they would play the nuke game.
And again I ask: So?
Do you reckon a man who owns more palaces than you do trousers is a man who seeks to die?
But it may come to this, Trump may go this route, but if he does, he will also strangle Russia, anyone inc China buying oil would be strongly advised to stop
I put it to you you're grossly underestimating the fact that Russia won't be defeated by a strangled economy. You're wholly engrossed in a Western-centric view point. If the Russians have proved one thing through their history, it's they're capable of enduring immense hardship, and that their governments are more than happy to imprison or outright kill the few who do speak up.
look at the houthis, Trump told them to stop, and bombed whatever of value he could find to get them to do so. He effectively made economic war with real bombs.
Has a situation been created where it is assured the Houthis won't renew their offensive against Israel and international shipping? No. And what did Trump himself say the day before yesterday? That America's strikes against the Houthis will have to resume in case they keep attacking Israel. Now, replace "Houthis" with 'Russians' and "Israel" with 'Ukraine' to spot the missing ingredient in our case.
I'm saying its not worth it for Ukraine. And really all they get back is some rubble, landmines, blown up bridges etc.
You do my head in.
First of all, they'd be getting back way more than merely rubble. Economically, the occupation of the Donbas is akin to some foreign power taking Scotland (and its oil) from the United Kingdom. How bearable would such a loss be to the British?
But never mind that—you're ignoring the fact that Ukraine has long since offered territorial concessions if they get security guarantees in return. Their war effort has only one goal now: Assuring themselves there won't be round number three in a few years time.
You seem willing to roll the dice of hoping the Russians will content themselves with the concessions Trump tries to extract from Ukraine. Well, it seems the Ukrainians don't, and I can't blame them. They've been burned twice, why would they ask for a third time?
If you force Ukraine to become history's next divided Germany or divided Korea, you're going to have to adopt the very measures which ensured the survival of West Germany or South Korea.
I really dont see what trump is doing as foolish or naïve, he is testing the water,
He's testing the water? By doing the same thing over, over and over again, always getting the same defiant response from Russia?
Europe and UK went with what Biden came up with, let Russia bleed, give Ukraine the old crap, and enough ammo to survive, but not cause too much damage, and see what happens. Its really not a great plan - imagine Roosevelt saying we will give the UK 5 new planes a month, in 1940, so they can just about survive.
And how did Roosevelt react to Britain's worsening military situation in 1940?
You've just argued my point.
So if I understand the argument here, it's let Ukraine stay engaged until they simply are exhausted, because it makes the half billion people of Europe feel safe that Putin is currently tied down.
No. That is most definitely not the argument.
The argument is that
if you truly care about Ukrainian lives, then it's patently illogical to promote a solution which all but guarantees an imminent renewal of hostilities at a potentially even greater cost of life.
Let me assure you that both Trump and the American people would be more than happy to have Europe take the lead on this.
Why then did Trump undermine the Europeans by reneging on a previously agreed course of action and delegitimising the ultimatum the Europeans had issued?
No, I beg to differ. Trump has made it abundantly clear he considers European unity harmful to American interests, going so far as to claim the European Union was created to "screw the US over".
More importantly, the Europeans prefer a solution which Trump deems confrontational. They won't force Ukraine to sue for peace at all costs. Trump has often accused Kyiv (and by implication, its European backers) of risking plunging the entire continent into a great war. He thinks that's what the Europeans will be doing, risking war with Russia, and the last thing Trump wants is a European war disrupting America's economy or for the Europeans to invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.
He doesn't want Europe to take the lead. He just wants this war to go away. And he's decided forcing Kyiv to concede defeat is the fasted way to achieve that aim.
