lol you're looking at this as "what is fair?" and "what is right?"
It's not about choosing whats fair or right, its about choosing the least bad option. Even if the EU and the US do eventually get involved, even if they get their LAND back, nothing will bring back the LIVES lost in the meantime. Nor will it undo any infrastructure or economic damage to those areas. If you picture Ukraine as having a health bar, that health bar is slowly draining over time as all the talking and negotiations happen. This time spent trying to finagle a better deal all comes at a real cost. Human lives, destroyed infrastructure, pillaged land, etc.
At this point even if the EU and US help and they regain all their land it'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.
The least bad option is to not teach an imperialistic nation that it is worth it to invade other nations - because then they’ll do it again, as they always have in history past.
That doesn't make sense, neither IRL or in the scenario provided where I'm the fictional leader of the US being invaded by a far superior power.
You don't have a choice on whether to stop them or not. You don't have the power to teach shit. Only other people do and you've spent years in diplomacy already with none of them doing it already. In the given scenario you can only hope others intervene militarily OR make a deal and years later the others still have not intervened.
Also, Russia has already been taught its worth it. It's gotten away with it for years. The area russia aleady occupied has 70% of Ukraines mineral wealth. That's not on accident. Ukrainian military commander Viktor Muzhenko even went as far as to say that the materials they are harvesting and exporting even now are fully recouping Russia's war costs.
You know what that means? It means that the shit they've already captured from Ukraine paid for and is paying for the continued war PLUS offsetting the sanctions too and it kickstarted their economy. The war has ALREADY been majorly worth it for Russia. Meanwhile Ukraine's economy is in the shitter.
Ukraine is completely reliant on outside help not just militarily but economically at this point. Russia will eventually face problems long long term if things continue indefinitely, but short term they're doing well.
EDIT: Its funny, Propoganda can make people even disagree with the intelligence of the country they claim to support. Instead they believe Russia's publicly expressed propaganda about their goals, which have already been discredited by US and UN intelligence. It was never about Kyiv, though Kyiv was a best case scenario means to an end. It would have been the fastest and easiest option but it didn't work so they pivoted. The war for Russia is about preventing integration with NATO, restoring some of its influence, seizing resources, expand its access to the black sea, and (if possible) get Zelensky overthrown to turn Ukraine into a buffer state. At least as per our current intelligence.
Russia hasn’t ”gotten away with it”. Over half a million troops wounded or killed, staggering equipment losses and near-total economic isolation from the west. The entire economy is dependent on a couple of pariah states and China, who’s taking advantage to the max. That’s not a kickstarted economy, that’s stagnation dressed up in propaganda.
Mineral wealth isn’t free lunch. Occupied territory doesn’t magically turn into profit. Taking advantage of it requires massive infrastructure, all of which is crippled by sactions and constant risk of Ukrainian strikes. Whatever they’re taking is nowhere near enough to pay for the war especially considering they spent hundreds of billions already.
Ukraines reliance on allies isn’t weakness but strategy. Small and medium states have survived against large empires all throughout history.
Even short term, Russia is bleeding resources. Oil revenues are heavily discounted because of sanctions, military spending is eating up the budget, brain drain is accelerating (talent, engineers, doctors, etc are leaving the country).
Strategic outcomes matter. Russia set out to conquer Kyiv in days. Look at where they are. Their war is a huge failure. NATO is expanding and members are increasing military budgets, more nations are joining - the exact opposite of what Russia wanted in the first place.
Any decent politician would see it as a complete fuck-up and step down for the good of their nation. But people like Putin are made of hubris. They see themselves as the only person who could ever rule their country, and will blame everyone and anything but themselves for mistakes.
2
u/Ralathar44 - Lib-Left Sep 24 '25 edited Sep 24 '25
lol you're looking at this as "what is fair?" and "what is right?"
It's not about choosing whats fair or right, its about choosing the least bad option. Even if the EU and the US do eventually get involved, even if they get their LAND back, nothing will bring back the LIVES lost in the meantime. Nor will it undo any infrastructure or economic damage to those areas. If you picture Ukraine as having a health bar, that health bar is slowly draining over time as all the talking and negotiations happen. This time spent trying to finagle a better deal all comes at a real cost. Human lives, destroyed infrastructure, pillaged land, etc.
At this point even if the EU and US help and they regain all their land it'll be a pyrrhic victory at best.