You're setting up a phony nonexistent straw man to get others into your appeasement bedwetting fear. This war isn't Vietnam nobody has or will have a draft lottery number.
Ukraine has repeatedly said it wants no foreign armies fighting for it, just the tools to fight to win: "ammunition, not a ride"--or foreign boots.
Now that Wagner Nazi Prigozhin is complaining about his troops getting killed due to "ammunition starvation", the time to ramp up weapons deliveries is now. Give Zaluzhny what he said he needs and they'll deliver victory.
Listen to what Russian soldiers are saying:
https://www.youtube.com/@insightsfromukraineandrussia/videos
The Vuhledar tank massacre was a leading indicator, a foretaste of military things to come.
Your headline that Ukrainian is a fantasy is evidence-free nonsense.
Every town liberated = torture rooms shut, no more forced adoption kidnappings of Ukrainian children, no more mass graves of executed civilians, no more mass deportations to filtration camps and to the Russian far east, no more plundered art treasures.
Not aiding Ukraine = acceptance of all of this genocidal crime wave.
If Putin doesn't launch first use of a nuclear weapon, no foreign armies are going to Ukraine.
Here's why Putin won't use a nuclear weapon:
1. He can't risk the order not being obeyed.
2. It gains him nothing on the battlefield since the territory where it's used becomes uninhabitable.
3. His army has no protective gear and is untrained for fighting on a tactical nuclear battlefield.
4. The week after that first nuclear use his army and navy in Ukraine would cease to exist due to NATO's conventional response.
5. China has told him he's on his own if he does.
Transcript of interview with Kurt Volker, former US ambassador to NATO:
"the Russian military is not prepared to
0:02
be on a nuclear Battlefield they don't
0:04
have the equipment they don't have the
0:05
protective gear they they don't want to
0:08
suffer any repercussions of any kind of
0:10
retaliation by other countries against
0:11
them for using a nuclear weapon so I
0:15
don't think the Russian military is
0:16
really up for it and Putin can't afford
0:18
to risk giving an order that the Russian
0:21
military doesn't follow there are two
0:22
different things that we're talking
0:23
about now one of them is their
0:25
non-adherence to the new start treaty
0:28
which is actually not new because
0:30
they've been violating the treaty anyway
0:31
so he's just saying it publicly the
0:34
other thing is the possibility of a
0:36
nuclear use that they might actually
0:38
decide to use tactical nuclear weapons
0:40
in Ukraine there is a risk of that I
0:43
think it's a low risk and the reason I
0:45
think it's a low risk is that it doesn't
0:46
achieve any goals for Russia if you use
0:49
a nuclear weapon means the territory
0:52
where you use it becomes uninhabitable
0:54
and doesn't actually help you take and
0:56
hold territory which is what their
0:58
objectives actually are and in addition
0:59
to that the Russian military is not
1:01
prepared to be on a nuclear Battlefield
1:03
they don't have the equipment they don't
1:05
have the protective gear they they don't
1:07
want to suffer any repercussions of any
1:10
kind of retaliation by other countries
1:12
against them for using a nuclear weapon
1:14
so I don't think the Russian military is
1:16
really up for it and Putin can't afford
1:19
to risk giving an order that the Russian
1:21
military doesn't follow do you share the
1:23
view that the the window of opportunity
1:25
to get out of this war for Ukraine to
1:27
drive Russia out of Ukraine is this year
1:30
that actually particularly if we regard
1:32
the nuclear threat as low it is behaven
1:35
upon all of the West to give as much
1:37
Armament to the Ukraine as possible in
1:39
order that Ukraine can have a very very
1:41
successful counter-offensive over the
1:43
course of the spring and summer and kick
1:44
Russia out because if they don't this is
1:47
Vietnam this is a long long long War of
1:49
Attrition and those sorts of Wars Russia
1:52
are very good actually they don't care
1:52
about human life uh not least their own
1:55
I do think that time is of the essence
1:57
we should be giving Ukraine the
1:59
equipment that they need now and that's
2:01
because it's going to create less
2:02
suffering for ukrainians Less loss of
2:05
life and frankly less disruption to the
2:08
whole world the sooner this gets over
2:09
but the flip side of that is if they
2:12
don't do it this year I'm not sure that
2:15
it is just you know a hopeless
2:17
circumstance and an award that just goes
2:20
on forever because the ukrainians are
2:21
not going to give up if they don't push
2:23
the Russians out this year in 2023
2:25
they're going to push them out next year
2:27
and if they don't get it next year
2:28
they'll do it the year after that that
2:30
this is their home this is their land
2:32
these are their families these are their
2:34
people they're just not going to give up
2:36
on pushing the Russians out of their
2:38
Homeland do you think that means in
2:40
practice the US and the UK under the
2:43
NATO country would you be calling for
2:44
this if you had your old job effectively
2:46
that we need to be on war footing we
2:48
need to be making sure that our
2:50
Munitions Industries are churning out
2:52
and lots of ammunition we are supplying
2:54
all the way up to fighter jets if
2:57
possible things that can actually shift
2:58
the ball do we need to move the US and
3:00
the UK for example to to this war
3:02
footing when it comes to the provision
3:04
of armament yeah you know we should and
3:07
you know it's not that long ago I guess
3:09
it's three years ago that we uh
3:12
commandeered U.S industry in order to
3:14
make ventilators because of the covid-19
3:16
pandemic we use the the defense act that
3:20
existed on the books since World War II
3:22
times and yet we're not doing that sort
3:24
of thing today to actually increase our
3:26
production of military armaments so that
3:28
we have enough ammunition for ourselves
3:30
and for Ukraine we ought to be thinking
3:33
about that sort of thing right now would
3:34
you draw a lot link between the two
3:36
actually a pandemic a crisis that was
3:38
faced three years ago there was an
3:40
immediate industrial response this is a
3:42
crisis that we're all facing there
3:43
should be an industrial response in
3:45
return
3:45
I think there should be because we can
3:48
see the impact of our not doing it that
3:50
we are now producing less ammunition per
3:53
month than the ukrainians are using per
3:55
month by by a long shot so this can't
3:58
continue this way ukrainians are losing
4:01
lives at a heavy rate not as many as the
4:03
Russians but the Russians have a lot
4:05
more to throw at it so we have to do
4:08
something to change the dynamic and what
4:10
would change the dynamic is better
4:12
equipment in the ukrainian's hands more
4:15
quickly because it is the quality of
4:18
their effort that's actually going to
4:19
win the war they're not going to win on
4:20
quantity the Russians have that but they
4:22
are going to win on the quality of what
4:24
they do and the sooner the better would
4:26
that go so far as to go to Pfizer Jets
4:28
and the training for the fighters just
4:30
get it done yeah well this is something
4:33
you know that people were we were
4:35
talking about this if you remember a
4:36
year ago when President Biden was in
4:39
Warsaw in March of 22. there was talk
4:42
about getting fighter jets to the
4:44
ukrainians we're talking about mig-29s
4:46
at the time rather than f-16s and it
4:48
looked as though it was going to happen
4:50
and then it was stopped at the last
4:51
minute and saying no no we're not going
4:53
to do that but that was the time to then
4:56
say okay well let's start training the
4:58
ukrainians so that they would be capable
5:01
of getting f-16s and employing them as
5:04
soon as possible we've lost a year on
5:06
that but even so you know every Journey
5:09
starts with one step we should start
5:11
with training right now and see how
5:14
quickly we can actually get Crews
5:15
trained on on maintenance on Logistics
5:18
on flying the planes and then getting
5:20
the planes there themselves cells so
5:23
that maybe several months from now it
5:24
may still be but we can actually get
5:26
them there and if we don't start that
5:28
today every day we don't we're pushing
5:30
it off into the future it's just funny
5:32
why hasn't been this this sort of
5:34
strange jainous facing on this because
5:37
at one level the UK has led the way to a
5:39
certain extent very keen to arm Ukraine
5:42
the US has been pretty positive on it
5:43
Germany has undenired quite a lot France
5:47
has had its moments of being positive
5:48
and yet we still feel that we've not
5:50
quite gone all in why is that is that
5:52
because there's political opposition
5:54
because there's monetary opposition
5:56
because there is this nuclear threat
5:58
that's in everyone's Minds it seems that
6:00
we're trying to be half pregnant here
6:02
and um why is that that's right there is
6:04
a deliberate policy of incrementalism of
6:07
not doing everything that we can and it
6:10
is as I understand it to avoid risking
6:13
Russian escalation against NATO
6:15
countries or into a nuclear space and so
6:19
by doing enough to help Ukraine it not
6:22
going too far our leaders are thinking
6:25
that they are somehow managing this
6:26
escalation risk
6:28
I personally don't agree with that I
6:30
think that that is overestimating the
6:32
importance of what we're doing Russia is
6:35
already throwing everything it can at
6:37
this war they can't do much more than
6:39
what they're doing right now and they
6:41
already assume that we are already in
6:43
the war ourselves so doing more is not
6:45
going to change their calculus they're
6:47
already there so what we're doing
6:49
through this incrementalism is actually
6:51
prolonging the war and causing more
6:53
suffering
