I want to address an article in *The Economist* that proposes a highly dangerous and, in my view, completely detached-from-reality strategy for resolving the conflict in Ukraine. The article suggests that Ukraine and the West should change course, abandon the idea of regaining all territories, including Crimea and Donbass, and focus on defensive actions. Moreover, it advocates for Ukraine to be fast-tracked into NATO, supposedly to stabilize the situation. Frankly, I find such proposals not just misguided but reckless. Let’s be clear: calling for Ukraine’s immediate NATO membership is, in effect, pushing the world toward nuclear disaster. Russia has made it abundantly clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is a red line, and if Ukraine were to join, Moscow would almost certainly not recognize this and continue its military operations. In such a scenario, the U.S. and its allies would face a horrifying dilemma: either go to war with a nuclear power or lose credibility as defenders of their allies. The Economist tries to argue that this risk is worth taking, claiming that abandoning Ukraine would weaken the West’s influence globally. But this is a profoundly naive stance. Western resources are already severely depleted after years of funneling military and economic aid into Ukraine. There is no credible evidence that NATO or the U.S. can provide Ukraine with the "vast amounts of additional weapons" the article casually mentions. In reality, the West is running on empty, and the idea that it can escalate this conflict indefinitely is not only unrealistic but dangerous. Moreover, the data and assumptions presented in The Economist are based on questionable sources, lacking credibility. The article draws conclusions from unreliable information, painting a misleadingly optimistic picture of Ukraine's capabilities and the West’s ability to continue supporting it. When actual facts show otherwise-Ukraine is losing ground, and Western resolve and resources are weakening-it’s clear that the assumptions made in this piece are flawed at best and deceptive at worst. The far greater damage to U.S. and NATO credibility would come if their bluff were called-if Russia continued its advance and the West found itself unwilling or unable to confront it militarily. This would definitively prove that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is essentially a dead letter. In my view, the West needs to face reality: Ukraine is losing this war, and continuing the conflict will only lead to further destruction and loss of life. The most sensible path forward would be to engage in negotiations with Russia, accepting its terms, which would inevitably include Ukraine’s neutrality and tough security guarantees for the remaining territory. This is not an easy choice, but it is the only realistic way to achieve peace, albeit a cold one. The proposals from *The Economist* are not only illusory, but they are dangerous. Trying to bolster Ukraine to continue a war it cannot win will only lead to more devastation, and insisting on NATO membership could have catastrophic consequences for the world. In the end, the West must recognize its own resource limitations and stop relying on unrealistic, unreliable data to justify policies that risk global stability.
Helping ukraine win and weakening russia once for all are not happening, defending democracy is just a political slogan, doesn't bring any meaningful change on the battle ground. Things you can't gain on the battle ground are not going to win over diplomacy. That's the hard truth. What the west should do now is to help ukraine survive first, but it will take many resources, time, dedication and determination. Democracy, territory integrity at this stage is not achievable.
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
I want to address an article in *The Economist* that proposes a highly dangerous and, in my view, completely detached-from-reality strategy for resolving the conflict in Ukraine. The article suggests that Ukraine and the West should change course, abandon the idea of regaining all territories, including Crimea and Donbass, and focus on defensive actions. Moreover, it advocates for Ukraine to be fast-tracked into NATO, supposedly to stabilize the situation.
Frankly, I find such proposals not just misguided but reckless. Let’s be clear: calling for Ukraine’s immediate NATO membership is, in effect, pushing the world toward nuclear disaster. Russia has made it abundantly clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is a red line, and if Ukraine were to join, Moscow would almost certainly not recognize this and continue its military operations. In such a scenario, the U.S. and its allies would face a horrifying dilemma: either go to war with a nuclear power or lose credibility as defenders of their allies.
The Economist tries to argue that this risk is worth taking, claiming that abandoning Ukraine would weaken the West’s influence globally. But this is a profoundly naive stance. Western resources are already severely depleted after years of funneling military and economic aid into Ukraine. There is no credible evidence that NATO or the U.S. can provide Ukraine with the "vast amounts of additional weapons" the article casually mentions. In reality, the West is running on empty, and the idea that it can escalate this conflict indefinitely is not only unrealistic but dangerous.
Moreover, the data and assumptions presented in The Economist are based on questionable sources, lacking credibility. The article draws conclusions from unreliable information, painting a misleadingly optimistic picture of Ukraine's capabilities and the West’s ability to continue supporting it. When actual facts show otherwise-Ukraine is losing ground, and Western resolve and resources are weakening-it’s clear that the assumptions made in this piece are flawed at best and deceptive at worst.
The far greater damage to U.S. and NATO credibility would come if their bluff were called-if Russia continued its advance and the West found itself unwilling or unable to confront it militarily. This would definitively prove that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is essentially a dead letter.
In my view, the West needs to face reality: Ukraine is losing this war, and continuing the conflict will only lead to further destruction and loss of life. The most sensible path forward would be to engage in negotiations with Russia, accepting its terms, which would inevitably include Ukraine’s neutrality and tough security guarantees for the remaining territory. This is not an easy choice, but it is the only realistic way to achieve peace, albeit a cold one.
The proposals from *The Economist* are not only illusory, but they are dangerous. Trying to bolster Ukraine to continue a war it cannot win will only lead to more devastation, and insisting on NATO membership could have catastrophic consequences for the world. In the end, the West must recognize its own resource limitations and stop relying on unrealistic, unreliable data to justify policies that risk global stability.
Helping ukraine win and weakening russia once for all are not happening, defending democracy is just a political slogan, doesn't bring any meaningful change on the battle ground. Things you can't gain on the battle ground are not going to win over diplomacy. That's the hard truth. What the west should do now is to help ukraine survive first, but it will take many resources, time, dedication and determination. Democracy, territory integrity at this stage is not achievable.
I suggest you go to Crimea or Donbass to give lectures about this, the locals will "appreciate" it. Print the Hole Rules Based Order too
@@efghggdxlmfn33 🤣🤣🤣
delusional as always