Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60skhl wrote

Yes, you are right. There was however a perception that the Russian army was the closest adversary you could have to the US, and NATO still had Russian containment as a role. After this conflict, I doubt that will be tolerated. Whatever peace follows, Russia would have been knocked down enough that it's not a threat / able to project power again. That's what I was meant to say.


Responsible_Walk8697 t1_j60m1ui wrote

I get your meaning, but I don't think Ukraine's agenda is different from the US / NATO / rest of the West.

- If you hear the Ukrainians (meaning their Gov), they are nowhere near ready to sit to negotiate with Putin. For them it's taking their territory back (including Crimea) or nothing. Analysts (for what they might know) think that could take years.

- Russia made a mess in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea (Ukraine) and now Ukraine again. Everyone was hesitant to intervene, but now that they did, it's unclear a quick hack would do.

- There is the precedent of intervening in Iraq, not finishing the job, and the US establishment pushing for a second round. Not sure they will leave the table until Russia has been knocked from old superpower to regional power.

- The US has Russia in mind, but also China. The US has been talking about the "shift to Asia" for 20 years. Multiple latent conflicts (Philippine, Vietnam, Taiwan) could kick off in the future. Crippling Russia has both the benefit of removing one problem off the table, weakening a China partner, and sending a clear message to China.

I cannot see the conflict being brushed under the carpet and forgotten. All participants (except Russia, one would assume) appear to be happy to go on for years if it gives them what they want (a strong Ukraine, a weak Russia?).

Of course they might all decide to have peace talks next week and settle. Who knows. Just not what it looks like...