[lazyjones]

Putting NATO soldiers on the ground is equivalent to declaring WW3, few are willing to do that.

Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.

The open question is how long it will take and at what cost, to Ukraine, its allies and Russia. And it seems that there are vested interests in prolonging the conflict as much as possible.

[hkpack]

> Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.

That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events. It is possible to fight against Russia, and it is in the best interest of the Europe and the collective west to do so.

For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.

It was never only about Ukraine - occupation of Ukraine was always the first step. Baltic countries and Poland understand that very well, please listen to them. If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.

Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety. Inflation is a very small price to pay compared to the alternative.

[lazyjones]

> That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events

You are forgetting or ignoring Russia's bigger guns. If Russia wanted to use NATO methods, it would be over in one day with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

> For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.

"Interesting" narrative.

> If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.

If Russia wanted to attack NATO and start WW3, it would already have done so. Why would it need to attack Ukraine first?

Please try to think logically.

> Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety.

The same as above applies. If Russia wanted to conquer Europe as you seem to believe, independence from Russia's gas isn't going to help in any way to prevent that.

[Isinlor]

As a Pole I fully agree with you.

Also with regard to the nuclear threat.

Russia can threaten with nuclear holocaust at any time for whatever reason.

They could say tomorrow: give up all land that belonged at some point to Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact or we will start nuclear holocaust. They could even demand Alaska. Then what? We give in? No!

[Isinlor]

It's not equivalent to declaring WW3.

Russia is not capable of fighting NATO and nobody besides Russia has any interest in Ukraine invasion.

But NATO soldiers are not needed in Ukraine. Ukrainians just need weapons.

Ukrainians have plenty of capable and very motivated men.

And the weapons are cheap, very cheap in comparison to loses from gas etc.

[BurningFrog]

Russia can kill everyone in NATO over an afternoon.

[celticninja]

Weapons are already being supplied. What is your point?

[QuadmasterXLII]

If russia could conquer ukraine by wanting it harder, I think they’d have tried that? Russia has stalled and began losing ground because their army isn’t very good, not because of some detail of russia’s desires

[ghostwriter]

They haven't tried that with all means available to them, and the means aren't nukes. As the recent events show, Russia could put Ukraine into a total energy blackout [1][2] if they decided to pursuit this strategy of waging the war. This would be the same strategy that was used by the US military in past conflicts [3], and it implies significantly more civilian casualties in a long run.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62873205

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/11/russian-strike...

[3] https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861964/-1/-1/0/T_G...