> hurting ukraine doesn't hurt nato the ukraine is an asset to nato, so yes, hurting the ukraine does hurt nato.  > it hurts russia tho. the war itself obviously isn't good for russia, but one could argue it is necessary.  > a neutral ukraine isn't possible anymore neutralized, not neutral, as in incapable of functioning militarily.  > i doubt anyone would accept that the ukrainians have no real say in it, it all depends on the goodwill of nato - primarily the us - and its capacity to throw more meat in the grinder.  > it certainly not gonna be disarmed or anything. remains to be seen, and again depends entirely on nato continuing to send them an endless supply of arms. trump has been less interested in european conflicts, more so in the middle east and asia. it doesn't seem too farfetched he would abandon the ukraine and focus more on the latter.
Sweden