As someone with no firsthand knowledge at all, I am inclined to believe your position is correct. But I also think the Economist is making an important point: Russia's continued prosecution of this war will shred their internal economy with consequences lasting for decades or centuries. What people often underestimate is just how much damage an economy can suffer before breaking down entirely.
But Putin doesn't care about that, so the war will continue until something changes militarily.
The EU is rich enough to support Ukraine for a very long time. During that time it is likely that Ukraine develops better and better weapons. This requires Russian army to improve as well.
It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.
The EU is rich enough but will they stay "willing enough"? Unfortunately, many EU parties that are gaining popularity are also against spending money on Ukraine
The EU as a whole is rich enough, the problem is that its the elites that are rich, not the ordinary citizens. However, the burden of support (via taxes and cutting welfare) will be places on ordinary citizens. Hence, the need to flame the war rhetoric. Still, there is no real support for forever war among EU citizenry.
Even if there is enough support for economic/material support of Ukraine, the matter of sending your man to die on the eastern front is an altogether different matter. Even Poland is not willing to do that. I mean, 'I am afraid of dying in a war, so I better go die in a war, to prevent that.'
phicoh|12 days ago
It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.
crossbody|12 days ago
tchalla|12 days ago
don_esteban|11 days ago
Even if there is enough support for economic/material support of Ukraine, the matter of sending your man to die on the eastern front is an altogether different matter. Even Poland is not willing to do that. I mean, 'I am afraid of dying in a war, so I better go die in a war, to prevent that.'