Quote (zorzin @ Aug 28 2024 05:08pm)
Sure but atleast these things can theoretically buy the Ukranians time. It's the same thing with the kursk incursion; it's a gambit to get a firing position deeper into Russian territory. (atleast I think so cause nothing else makes sense)
The only way Ukraine "doesn't lose worse" is by holding on to as much land till Trump hopefully gets elected. A lend-lease program between uncle sam and Ukraine could be devastating to Russia.
I think the buying time strategy can be interpreted in two ways:
1) In one way buying time is realistically a good thing, an enemy invading you slowly is preferable to an enemy invading you quickly, and it could buy enough time for political moods to shift and have more help arrive
2) On the other hand, slowing Russia down only continues to harden their resolve. The more that Russian lives are lost and more time with their sons at war, Russian political will becomes harder and harder, and the Russian public will demand more and more territory from Ukraine. So they might be playing themselves.
Trump being elected, in my view, would not be good for Ukraine. Trump will shut off the trough of American taxpayer money, and then what does Ukraine have? They'll be forced to surrender on Russia's terms, which according to point 2 will be more and more demanding as the war goes on.