The state of peace in Europe should always be primarily the highest priority of Europeans. The U.S. should act in its own interests and not indemnify European countries to the extent that they do not take seriously nor commit to their own defense. It is up to them to present a credible deterrent. The "end game" options as far as Ukraine …
The state of peace in Europe should always be primarily the highest priority of Europeans. The U.S. should act in its own interests and not indemnify European countries to the extent that they do not take seriously nor commit to their own defense. It is up to them to present a credible deterrent. The "end game" options as far as Ukraine is concerned are to continue with more of the same war, which will ultimately result in its destruction; to convince NATO to escalate in dramatic fashion with the attendant risks; or to settle for a negotiated peace based upon the cards each side holds. The latter, by the reality on the ground, does not include Russian retreat from Donbas and Crimea. It is unrealistic to presume otherwise. The moral high ground cannot be imposed on a belligerent who holds the military high ground.
The state of peace in Europe should always be primarily the highest priority of Europeans. The U.S. should act in its own interests and not indemnify European countries to the extent that they do not take seriously nor commit to their own defense. It is up to them to present a credible deterrent. The "end game" options as far as Ukraine is concerned are to continue with more of the same war, which will ultimately result in its destruction; to convince NATO to escalate in dramatic fashion with the attendant risks; or to settle for a negotiated peace based upon the cards each side holds. The latter, by the reality on the ground, does not include Russian retreat from Donbas and Crimea. It is unrealistic to presume otherwise. The moral high ground cannot be imposed on a belligerent who holds the military high ground.