>
The countries that have provided military and economic aid and training are members of NATO ... So when you say "NATO funded, NATO trained army", you're vastly overstating the NATO-ness of the UA.No, sounds about right - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. NATO "members" are funding Ukraine and its military. NATO "members" are training Ukraine's military. NATO "members" are arming Ukraine's military. For me, that is indeed a "NATO funded, NATO trained" army. (And surely, Ukraine's political and military leadership aren't attending NATO summits and meets for the drinks they provide, are they now? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c29d03574zdo ).
> This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side.
I disagree. If the west send their soldiers to fight alongside Ukrainians Russia can be defeated. But they won't. Otherwise, Russia is already winning militarily. Without NATO "member" funding, Ukraine doesn't have the economic or military capability to fight the Russians. That is a reality that remains unchanged.
> Ukraine wins by surviving
What does "surviving" mean to you? The moment the west stops its funds, Ukraine's economy will collapse.
> Russia loses if Ukraine survives
Russia has no problem with Ukraine's existence, as long as it remains a neutral State that doesn't undermine Russian security.
> If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost
And do you really believe that will happen? I don't. There is absolutely no way Russia will sign any treaty allowing a "freeze" or a "ceasefire", especially with EU and / or NATO peacekeepers. (It would lob nukes on Ukraine before it agrees to such a treaty). That Russia isn't advancing at a fast pace in the frontline, to capture Ukrainian territory, doesn't mean it can't. As a former Ukrainian general said, "Its [Russia's] strategy increasingly rests not on rapid advances but on exhausting Ukraine economically, militarily and psychologically. Russia still possesses deeper reserves of manpower and industrial capacity in several critical sectors, including ballistic missile production. Air defence alone cannot fully offset that advantage". While the western media obsesses on the capture of territory in Eastern Ukraine, it isn't the only military goal of Russia. Even as it fights on the frontline, it is also focusing on crippling (or even decimating) Ukraine's economy and military capabilities. Sure, Russians are suffering heavy loss in terms of manpower. But that doesn't matter in the short-term against the Ukrainians as Russia has a bigger population (it will however matter in the future against a stronger foe).
> Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated ...
The grapes are suddenly sour now? Forget Russia, consider what Ukraine has lost ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... ):
> The current occupied territories have a long history as Ukraine’s industrial motor ... Important parts of the former Soviet military-industrial complex are still situated in the southeastern provinces of Ukraine, and the Zaporizhzhia region constitutes an important producer of metals and machinery. Prior to the conflict, the Kherson region played a vital role in the production of vegetable products, vegetable fats, and oils, but with the occupation of the southern regions, Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of its farmlands ... The macroimpact of this occupation is not to be neglected. As illustrated in Figure 1 (visualizing regional contributions to Ukraine’s GDP prior to the conflict), the current Russian occupation of the majorities of the Luhansk (1 percent of prewar GDP), Donetsk (5.2 percent), Kherson (1.6 percent), and Zaporizhzhia (4.2 percent) regions results in a combined loss of 12 percent of Ukrainian GDP. Moreover, these losses need to be added to the economic losses Ukraine already suffered following the 2014 annexation of Crimea (3.05 percent of GDP in 2013) and the occupation of portions of Donetsk (a drop from 10.83 percent of Ukrainian GDP in 2013 to 5.78 percent in 2015) and Luhansk (a drop from 3.62 percent in 2013 to 1.2 percent in 2015) oblasts ... Studying these regions in detail shows that Russia succeeded in occupying key infrastructure of importance to the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for example, accounted for almost half of Ukraine’s nuclear power production prior to the conflict, whereas 40 percent of Ukrainian steel was produced in Mariupol. Furthermore, the Russian offensive in southern Ukraine resulted in the occupation of several of Ukraine’s major maritime ports (most importantly Mariupol and Berdyansk). This further facilitated Russian efforts to impose a maritime blockade. This confronts Ukraine with severe logistical challenges, since 75 percent of its foreign trade took place through sea routes prior to the war.. economic perspective also illustrates the rationale for Russia to have fought so hard, and at such cost, for control of Bakhmut—and for it to continue its war efforts in neighboring eastern regions, like Dnipropetrovsk. This region is almost absent from discussions as a strategic objective, despite its important and longstanding role as a center of metallurgy and military industry. During the Cold War, this region was the world’s biggest producer of nuclear missiles. The economic importance of this region comes to the fore when we look at the 2021 regional GDP contributions. As demonstrated in Figure 1, Dnipropetrovsk accounts for over 10 percent of Ukrainian GDP, serving as an important contributor to the Ukrainian economy.
> What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically.
Yes, that is true because I view it as a conflict of superpower politics. While I don't fault the Ukrainians to strive to be free of foreign influence in their politics, in their political naivety they've overplayed their hands and just traded Russian influence for western ones. The only difference is that the west offers golden political cages ... (As its economy has been devastated due to the war, Ukraine is now 100% dependent on its foreign masters for the next decade at least).