Military Analyst my arse, as Jim Royle would say.
Read more of his Alice in Wonderland analysis here:
If Ukraine was unable to make progress this summer when arguably it was as well-prepared as it could ever be, would continued Western military support simply lead to a protracted, costly and largely static conflict.
Is that supportable?
From the West's perspective, a key motivation for supporting Ukraine - not a member of NATO - was to avoid Russian aggression threatening the rest of Europe.
Russia's military capability has been badly damaged by the invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has lost more than 2,000 of its most capable tanks - so it looks unlikely that it will have the military capability to threaten Europe again for at least a decade.
The West's primary objective has been achieved.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »