At the current rate, what's the realistic time frame that Ukraine could continue having its men slaughtered?

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

" The UK, France and Ukraine have just signed a Declaration of Intent to deploy forces to Ukraine in event of a peace deal"

So they will only send troops once the war is over. If they wanted to help so badly, why not send troops while the fighting is still on going?

---

Because Ukraine wants some kind of guarantee they won't be invaded again.

---

NATO being in Ukraine is one of the main reasons the war has been going on in the first place.

A treaty which that puts NATO troops in Ukraine "after the war ends" pretty much guarantees that the war does not end and Russia keeps driving towards Kiev and killing Ukrainian soldiers by the hundreds of thousands - and that is the point of such a political exercise by the EU.

---

IMO Putin was going to invade anyway and uses all of this as an excuse.

BearlySane88 said:

---

That's not my point. My point is, don't offer troops unless you're actually gonna help with the fighting. It's performative

---

Well, at the moment they are also funding Ukraine's military effort. Obviously these countries would prefer to not get their own militaries directly involved in a hot war.

Russia claims Ukraine attempted to hit a Putin residence, and yesterday Russia replied with drones, missiles, and possibly just one Hazel (Oreshnik) missile. (It can carry up to 36 sub missiles.)

They allegedly targeted a large fuel storage, and military production. Apparently struck several cities, including Lviv and Kyiv. 6,000 buildings without power and temps are at -10 degrees.

Here are one set of clips from the use of Hazel. Some speculate this was also a warning for NATO (the unexpected use of Hazel).