There is certainly more, much more, we could be doing to swing the balance of negotiations toward Ukraine and leave them with a less-bad deal. And, yes, we should be, which is probably your point.
I think it is possible as well but much more likely after Putin has passed from this life from natural causes or fallen from a window. That opens up a whole new range of options based on who follows him. So maybe a deal now may end up being an interim deal until Putin leaves us.
Sounds about right, Colby was pursuing his own agenda. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/poli...white-house-ukraine-weapons-pause?cid=ios_app
Maybe our Russian supporters here are supporting the wrong side? Perhaps the Russians are actually involved in more than a bit of aggressive tourism?
Maybe. But that is also thinking similar to back in 1953: "Yeah, this deal sucks for the Republic of Korea. But chin up. It's more important to get the fighting stopped and our POWs back. This Kim Il Sung is an idiot. No way he holds on to power for much longer, and no way his replacement is as big of a goober as he is. Once that dum dum shuffles off, we will be able to negotiate a just peace." The problem with terminating a conflict along an established ceasefire line is that you have inadvertently created a border in fact. That is the risk we forced on South Korea, and that is the risk we are asking Ukraine to assume.
Russia supposedly using cluster munitions on Luhtsk, Ukraine. So much for not targeting citizens, right? https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8ApkxhEH5t