The United States is confident in the success of Ukraine�s counter-offensive, which it believes will strengthen Kyiv�s position in any future negotiations to end the war with Russia.
No offense taken, and I totally get your point. My comment was purely from my own selfish perspective, as my location, nationality and age means that any direct (as in physical boots on the ground or planes flown by personnel from any nato country) involvement from the west would include me.
I really hope that there’d be more direct ways to speed up and ensure Ukraines liberation and rebuilding, I regularly donate money as that feels like it’s the least I can do.
I’m sure this kind of concerns is one of the prime reasons that seems to “slow down” the support. I don’t want to whitewash anyone, but I’ll give credit when credit is due - the officials in the western(-oriented) countries do realize that they’re a temporary asset in their position, with a goal to contribute to the society that enables their entire lifestyle. While some may not be a proper fit for the position of such power, today many, if not everyone, realize that they’re going to have to step down sooner rather than later, and if they want to enjoy the benefits, they better make the electorate happy - today, this surely includes making sure that none of the electorate has to go die because Putin wanted some landgrab out of some pissy revenge and power-hunger.
We all want this war to end as soon as possible. Even Putin wants to, undoubtedly, but he’s too stupid and arrogant to withdraw and admit he made a mistake.
I get where you’re coming from. I don’t necessarily wish for military support that was operated (flown or boots on the ground), by nato countries. Early in the war I was hoping for a coalition aerial campaign to purely defend ukrainian territory, but I guess that’s no longer in the realm of possibilities.
IMO at the present time russia only has two steps left for escalation, nukes or general mobilization. Those steps would hopefully only be seen as viable, if russia was fighting actual nato personnel (they aren’t).
I don’t see the west providing the most effective military material possible (excl nukes ofc.) to Ukraine as a good enough reason russia to escalate with either option. That includes an actually meaningful amount of fighter jets, long range strike capabilities and enough armored equipment to make a real difference.
Saying that fighter jets aren’t cost effective is a moot point if you compare the price of equipping the military for one effective push in comparison to the cost of a prolonged war.
No offense taken, and I totally get your point. My comment was purely from my own selfish perspective, as my location, nationality and age means that any direct (as in physical boots on the ground or planes flown by personnel from any nato country) involvement from the west would include me.
I really hope that there’d be more direct ways to speed up and ensure Ukraines liberation and rebuilding, I regularly donate money as that feels like it’s the least I can do.
I’m sure this kind of concerns is one of the prime reasons that seems to “slow down” the support. I don’t want to whitewash anyone, but I’ll give credit when credit is due - the officials in the western(-oriented) countries do realize that they’re a temporary asset in their position, with a goal to contribute to the society that enables their entire lifestyle. While some may not be a proper fit for the position of such power, today many, if not everyone, realize that they’re going to have to step down sooner rather than later, and if they want to enjoy the benefits, they better make the electorate happy - today, this surely includes making sure that none of the electorate has to go die because Putin wanted some landgrab out of some pissy revenge and power-hunger.
We all want this war to end as soon as possible. Even Putin wants to, undoubtedly, but he’s too stupid and arrogant to withdraw and admit he made a mistake.
I get where you’re coming from. I don’t necessarily wish for military support that was operated (flown or boots on the ground), by nato countries. Early in the war I was hoping for a coalition aerial campaign to purely defend ukrainian territory, but I guess that’s no longer in the realm of possibilities.
IMO at the present time russia only has two steps left for escalation, nukes or general mobilization. Those steps would hopefully only be seen as viable, if russia was fighting actual nato personnel (they aren’t).
I don’t see the west providing the most effective military material possible (excl nukes ofc.) to Ukraine as a good enough reason russia to escalate with either option. That includes an actually meaningful amount of fighter jets, long range strike capabilities and enough armored equipment to make a real difference.
Saying that fighter jets aren’t cost effective is a moot point if you compare the price of equipping the military for one effective push in comparison to the cost of a prolonged war.