[Skybird]

One thing is clear. If people in the West shy away from anything that could weaken the Russians so much that they indeed lose the war and then might do something even worse than what they already have done to Ukraine, then the logical conclusion is that the West will never do anything that would enable the Ukrainians to win. This means that the West already has resigned and accepted the Russians will earn victory in the end, and the West then is even helping to secure it for Russia. By refusing to do what it takes to prevent that.

The Russians are already doing what even a small nuclear bomb can do, even worse. They have razed entire cities to the ground. They have only taken more time than a nuclear bomb would have needed, with at least equal destruction. Their logic is parallel to that of the West: by delaying the war intensity to a lower level than that of nuclear explosions, as they do, they do not provoke a decisive Western response, and even more: they intimidate the West with the threat that they could still do it at a later date. Thus they ensure that the West will not really stand in the way of their victory, but will be content merely to pretend to do so. The West maintains the appearance of being on the morally right side - while in reality it stands on the sidelines and only drives up the price of the Russian victory. Nonetheless, both the West and Russia have long since agreed to sell Ukraine to Russia.

If it is like I just said, it means that they are really only haggling over the price now. But the deal is in principle already agreed on.

I hope I get proven wrong by events. But I refuse to make consequences artificially complicated when in fact they are obvious and simple. I stick to Occam's razor. I judge the Western acting by the consequences it causes - not on words and claims and holy promises. Thats why especially the German acting does not impress me. Babble Olaf plays with marked cards. So does Macronman.