No. of Recommendations: 13
That’s certainly an opinion to have.
Yes. And it's the one most supported by the facts.
The U.S. imposed significant - massive - secondary sanctions on India. It did not have the intended effect. Rather than ceasing imports of Russian oil, India took affirmative measures to demonstrate their alignment with Russia - and China, which is another massive "own goal" given the Administration's ostensible prioritization of China as the preeminent global threat. Russian oil exports to India continue, unabated.
And Russia won't keep doing this forever. If they can't ever conclusively defeat the Ukrainian forces, they will eventually leave. Ukraine, as the country that was invaded, doesn't have that option. Even if they can't ever win, they don't have the choice to leave. Invaders have the choice to give up and go home, the invaded countries do not. Historically, this asymmetry has often resulted in the invading country eventually deciding that their best option is to leave once they conclude they are unable to conclusively defeat the opposing forces. Because even if the other side can't ever defeat them on the battlefield, the invaded country will keep fighting until they lose. And as long as Ukraine is fully supported by NATO, Russia can't ever conclusively defeat them.
So Ukraine can win, but it will take a long time for them to win. And there's nothing that can really speed it up in a material way.
That's deeply unpleasant. It points to a long, protracted conflict that may take many years to play out. But simply because the situation is horrible doesn't mean that there's a magic bullet out there that can change the situation. There's not. If Ukraine is to remain free, we're looking at many years of fighting. It can't be changed by secondary sanctions.^^
^^And again, even if everyone in the EU actually thought secondary sanctions would work, Russia's allies in Hungary would be able to block them.
