No. of Recommendations: 5
They were not capable any longer of defeating the Americans.
Which is different than saying that the Americans were capable of defeating them, either. At least in the sense of driving them physically out of the country.
Russia's army is not capable of defeating Ukraine's while it is supported by NATO resources. Ukraine can't drive them out of the country physically, either - but Ukraine can keep Russia from defeating them.
It's not even arguable that the French Navy played the vital role in helping starve out Cornwallis.
Which is why I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that even though France's assistance was vital in helping the U.S. army achieve military victories that prevented the British from destroying them, that's not what your argument is based on. After all, Russia hasn't been able to defeat the Ukrainian army, either. Your argument is premised on the fact that the Ukrainian army can't physically drive the Russian army out of their territory. Even though the French Navy helped the American forces immensely, they did not give the American forces sufficient power to drive Britain out of the territory, either. The French assistance only put the American forces into the same position that the Ukrainian forces are today. We're doing the same thing for the Ukrainians - if the Russians end up withdrawing the same way the British did, NATO's decision to provide massive weapons and supplies will also be an action that led to the Russian defeat.
The key point - I'm not arguing the French didn't help. I'm pointing out that the French help allowed the Colonists to demonstrate to the British that the Continental Army would not be beaten on the battlefield - it did not allow the Colonists to drive out the British directly. Which is exactly what NATO is doing for the Ukrainians - giving them the ability to not be beaten on the battlefield and show the Russians that the war doesn't end until Russia withdraws, rather than with the defeat of the Ukrainian army.
