If you say that this is the favorable outcome (for the West) then ofc negotiations = moot point

I'm still reasoning that avoiding such a conflict = better

How does a proxy war that is weakening the US launch us into winner status? At best we losing the best. Russia wants the long game.

The article says quite explicitly that losing or giving up Bakhmut will not be the end of the world, which echoes what I was writing last page.
Russia possesses an almost infinite stockpile of Soviet-era artillery from the 1950s and 60s. Of course Ukraine will lose if they fight this war like it's still 1955 and engage in a slow, artillery-vs-artillery slugfest.





Merkel was a horrible leader, easily the 2nd worst chancellor in German history. She never actually solved any problems, always just stalled and kicked the can down the road. And on the rare occasions that she did take a decisive position, she invariably made the wrong decision and fucked things up. She was dovish where she should have been a hawk, and a hawk where she should have been a dove. Whether its banks, the eurozone debt crisis, nuclear energy, Ukraine, migration, climate change or covid, she has consistently taken the wrong position.

Regarding her and Sarkozy (let's not forget about him) blocking Ukraine's accession to NATO in 2008: at the time, it was not clear yet just how revisionist and militaristic the foreign policy of Putin's Russia would become over the following 15 years. Also keep in mind that a country has to be admitted into NATO unanimously. Merkel and Sarkozy stuck their necks out, but I can guarantee you that there were other NATO members which didn't want Ukraine to join either. Definitely Italy and Austria, probably also Turkey and perhaps the Netherlands.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 21 2023 07:34am

You posted: "US government advises Ukraine to give up Bakhmut after losing Soledar."
Which is the distorsion of an information in order to make its sense completely different.

Waging war always weakens all parties involved while the war is still ongoing. But as long as the enemy is sustaining more damage than yourself, it can still be a win in the long run. Just think of the massive amount of debt, economic pain and loss of lives the US were willing to sustain to defeat the Axis during WW2. The war was weakening the US in 1942-45. They still came out of it in a much better position and were the unequivocal winner, not just on the battlefield but also in the economic and geopolitical sphere.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 21 2023 07:34am

That's a balanced take on it, and an interesting point about other NATO members not wanting Ukraine to join.
I might not go as far as to guarantee something as speculative as that, but its entirely possible.

merkel accomplished what two world wars couldnt, she irreversibly destroyed this country

She missed it on the Nuclear plants, too much syrians refugees, and accepted too much Russian gas. That's it ?

I would not account her completely responsible on each point: she had the pressure of green party, historical history regarding some minorities, and a risk to take regarding gas that many others did too.
This said, i wrote "not completely". After that we also have the pro-russian german far right... Hum Hum Hum

We’re winning in the short term but losing in the macro. By trying to force the world to choose our side we exposed the limitations of our soft power and in a way I think many of our allies are actually surprised by how much pull we actually lost and are rethinking the US role in the world and in their regions imo long term.

You’re seeing behavior from countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, countries in Africa that you would have never expected 30 years ago.

Even countries like France and Germany are pushing back. The tank thing is just a public manifestation of the bigger problem for us that’s not seen.

That’s why they say ‘Ukraine must win’ because if they don’t it’s a massive optical defeat for US/NATO dominated world order.

Also almost the entire Asean.