Sorry, just back from the pub. You're right, geopolitics is ugly, and this situation is filled with difficult choices. The model I'm referring to is essentially one where a coalition of nations strengthens the defense capabilities of vulnerable countries to prevent future invasions, thereby reducing Russia’s ability to expand its influence through force. The west is providing weapons, training, and intelligence to Ukraine, not just as an act of self-interest, but also as part of a broader strategy to deter future aggression. However, it's crucial to recognise that the support does come with the risk that some see it as a proxy conflict, which can easily lead to perceptions of Ukrainian lives being used for larger geopolitical goals.
When it comes to the will of the Ukrainian people, their voices should be at the forefront. If they ever do reach a point where peace is preferred, despite the potential risks of future aggression, then I hope that the west would respect that and support a peaceful resolution. But at the same time, there's a very real fear that any deal could be temporary, and Russia might take advantage of it down the line. Also as mentioned previously thst the conflict would continue as an insurgency. So, it's a deeply challenging scenario, balancing hope for peace with the grim reality of potential future conflict.
Ultimately, it's up to Ukraine to decide when enough is enough. The rest of the world can provide support, but not dictate the terms of their struggle or peace. As long as they are set upon repelling the invaders we should support them.
Russia and dictators like Putin need to be faced dor the sake of what remains of democracy.
theintercept.com
