The current conflict is the price being paid for complacency and inaction since at least 2014 invasion of Crimea, and possibly long before that.
The risks of direct involvement by NATO are simply too high - Putin is potentially unstable and may have the capacity to initiate chemical biological or nuclear responses.
Betting on the wisdom of those closely supporting Putin to exercise some sort of control over his actions is naive and risky.
Putin will not want to admit failure - it would mean the end of his political career (and possibly his freedom or life). The best hope is that he is quietly removed by his clique and that Ukraine then have a new "name" with no "baggage" with whom they can negotiate.
Otherwise it looks set to continue until either (a) ceasefire/stalemate, (b) ceasefire with a face saving form of words for Putin (eg: Donbas and Crimea formally recognised as Russian), (c) Ukraine eventually overrun but difficult to hold (likely humanitarian crisis).
All NATO can do is (a) aid for refugees, (b) continue supplying weapons to Ukraine, (c) intensify sanctions. The fall out from (c) means high energy and other material costs - a further price paid for complacency.
The UN have once again failed to make any real impact on hostilities. Much the same as Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. They may be well intentioned but demonstrably ineffectual. Why do we bother to fund them?
|