Ukraine ought to seek an early end to the conflict due to the stalled situation on the frontline, rather than advocating more weapons and the spilling of more blood, according to Harrison Kass, a defence and national security expert, in an article for the National Interest.
“Instead of advocating for more weapons, the spending of more riches and the spilling of more blood, Ukraine should advocate for an end to the conflict,” Kass says.
Washington has supplied Ukraine’s military with more than 300 Bradley fighting vehicles, which has significantly contributed to Ukraine’s defence efforts. Critics argue that Western weapons should have been supplied in larger quantities to maximise impact and reduce tactical failures, but Kass argues that such rhetoric has no place.
In contrast, critics gloss over the many billions in arms, aid and money already gifted to Ukraine and the many thousands of soldiers already killed in the conflict that has long since hardened along fixed lines. Continued reliance on foreign support without a clear path to victory raises questions about long-term sustainability. Kass notes that “advocating for peace, rather than more arms, could offer a more feasible path forward.”
Well, my two cents would be that if you’re not in a position to supply your own means of defense, and you are not properly equipped to defend yourself, or able to develop long-term strategies, despite receiving billions and billions of dollars-worth of aid, then you may want to aggressively pursue peace, according to Kass.
Therefore, speculation that Ukraine is one weapons delivery away from a breakthrough, regaining some territory, or improving their position to better petition for peace seems to be a hollow dream, as the last two years have shown that nothing indicates that Ukraine is going to significantly improve its position.
