You are reading a single comment by @atz and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Just for my benefit, are you just suggesting to let the Russians get it over with, turn Kyiv into Grozny, subjugate and destroy a nation as they seem to have planned even against the stated wishes of the Ukrainian government? I appreciate a government is not every single person, but they're as close as you get to the "will of the people" sort of thing.
atz
Thanks for the offer of words in my mouth but I'm not saying either of your straw-man arguments.
I see two big flaws in what you are saying.
Firstly, what the UK or any third country does in a war is a decision for us that we have to make ourselves, mainly based on our own interests and taking into account international law regarding supplying arms to combatants. That is what we always have done and - like it or not - it is what we will do now. The decision is ours to make, not Ukraine's.
Then you implicitly assume that Ukraine will get a better outcome by fighting longer, harder and more dirtily.
You might be right - maybe the Russians will say, hmmm, this one is proving a bit harder than we thought. Perhaps we'll pull out now, hope the Ukranians forgive us, although they'll probably join NATO and we'll have American bases that bit closer to us.
I don't believe the Russians will do that, not any time soon. Based on what I've heard and read, I believe they have decided this is the point at which they stand and fight for their interests which, rightly or wrongly, revolve around preventing Ukraine being part of a hostile alliance. If the resistance is stiffer they will hit harder, fire more missiles and bombs, flatten more cities, kill more people over a longer period, and we'll end up with Chechnya on a larger scale.
If I thought that sending some arms to Ukraine could prevent that outcome I would support it. I just don't think it would work. I'm fine with others having a different view and I would love to hear the explanation why / how it could work.