> its clearly not happening without direct nato involvement. it's clearly not happening with direct nato involvement. > just as complete russian takeover of ukraine to overthrow the nazis lol isn't gonna happen. this was never among the stated goals of russians. denazification must be implemented by the ukrainians, not by russians. if the war continues and they keep gaining ground then in due time they will be forced to take ukraine whole, but the gambit is that the war will end when the front reaches the nipru river at the latest. > nato got what it wanted. got what? to spend stockpiles at rates higher than the replenishment capabilities? spend shitloads of money that will never see a roi? what's lindsay graham take on losing all the resources and industrial capabilities of ukraine? > it got russia out of the european economy,  wrong. it got europe to circumvent sanctions by using india and china as intermediaries. > nato expanded can't compare sweden and finland with ukraine. the conflict was over ukraine, sweden and finland were always free to join. > russian military wrecked as a credible threat for years to come. how so? they proved they can fight and win against an army that is supposedly equipped with superior stuff. > this turned out far better than nato expected. sounds like cope honestly. don't tell fink he lost his investments in ukraine, he may not agree with your idea of winning. > they never expected ukraine to effectively resist. it's not like they've ran psy-ops in ukraine ever since ww2 ended.
Romania