Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Ukraine doesn't have the military strength or capabilities to push Russia out of the land they already occupy; sure, they can mount flashy operations with swarms of drones, or send a dozen men to blow up a bridge or two but there's a reason why the only serious military offensive mounted by Ukraine ended in abject failure.
Russia at the same time doesn't have the capacity to overwhelm all the support Ukraine receives from the West, not unless they are able to target that support before it arrives at the front.
Neither side can win at this point because neither side can really grind the other down enough to achieve an advantage.
The only chance for Ukraine to win is for the West to get involved directly, to have German, Italian, French, British, American etc soldiers on the field and fighters in the air.
The only chance for Russia to win is to start throwing long range rockets at the factories producing military equipment, the supply depots, the training camps etc that are located in Poland, Germany, France etc.
In either case the only real results such moves might achieve would be to extend the conflict.
And since Russia has held to the doctrine that tactical nukes are to and will be used in case of foreign invasion since the 50s, any offensive serious enough to threaten Russia might very well result in nuclear war.
So yes, diplomacy will still be the best solution to the conflict and yes, that means Ukraine will have to give up some of their lands, just as Russia will have to renounce some of their claims.
Neither side will be happy about it, both sides will complain and history has shown us it's unlikely this peace will be permanent in the long run.
But the alternative is an endless meat grinder, an even bigger meat grinder or nukes dropping out from the sky.
Personally, I'll take Zelensky and Putin being a bit disappointed over those scenarios.
Trump is a businessman. He understands business. He doesn't understand war.
He played one on TV, you mean.
Protip: dont invade other countries.
And who do you think it hurts more for it to continue? The ones taking land or the ones losing it?