[TrumpCard]

Some here have fretted that a scenario in which Russia is losing the war will lead Russia to use nuclear weapons.  I am among those people.  Here's a thought experiment for us:  

What difference does it make if Russia is losing to Ukraine because Ukraine got HIMARS from the West or if Russia is losing to Ukraine because Ukraine got ATACMS from the West?  If we're worried that ATACMS would allow Ukraine to win, then shouldn't we have been worried that HIMARS would do the same?  Or did we know that HIMARS was the weapons system needed to just keep Ukraine from being leveled entirely?  If the concern is that the West's help will put Russia against the ropes where Russia has no choice but to swing with some haymakers, then shouldn't the West's goal be to create another "frozen conflict" like the ones Russia has established in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc?  

That would be a very bad outcome for Ukraine, but would it actually be a bad outcome for the West, as long as there's a viable Ukrainian state that still provides a buffer between Russia and NATO?  Is it possible that NATO's apparent bumbling is really just NATO's thoughtful analysis of what's necessary to prevent Russia from marching onto Vienna or Budapest or Warsaw?

[TrumpCard]

Some here have fretted that a scenario in which Russia is losing the war will lead Russia to use nuclear weapons.  I am among those people.  Here's a thought experiment for us:  

What difference does it make if Russia is losing to Ukraine because Ukraine got HIMARS from the West or if Russia is losing to Ukraine because Ukraine got ATACMS from the West?  If we're worried that ATACMS would allow Ukraine to win, then shouldn't we have been worried that HIMARS would do the same?  Or did we know that HIMARS was the weapons system needed to just keep Ukraine from being leveled entirely?  If the concern is that the West's help will put Russia against the ropes where Russia has no choice but to swing with some haymakers, then shouldn't the West's goal be to create another "frozen conflict" like the ones Russia has established in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc?  

That would be a very bad outcome for Ukraine, but would it actually be a bad outcome for the West, as long as there's a viable Ukrainian state that still provides a buffer between Russia and NATO?  Is it possible that NATO's apparent bumbling is really just NATO's thoughtful analysis of what's necessary to prevent Russia from marching onto Vienna or Budapest or Warsaw?