Quote Originally Posted by slack_pie View Post
I'm not sure the analogy works. Of course going round to your mate's house to help keep invaders at bay isn't escalation, it's defending your property. But if your mate lent you his pickup truck and drove it round to the attackers' house and smashed their windows, that would be escalation.

So in your mind, the answer to war is more war. I understand, but I don't agree. If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing. But if you have two sides that are actively raising the stakes, where does it end? It has to end somewhere. I can't see Russia backing down - Putin's whole strong-man persona would fall apart both domestically and internationally if he didn't follow through on his threats and retreated in the face of the West. Obviously Russia can't be allowed to win. So it has to be a negotiated end, and that means both sides get less than what they want.
Yes but only one side lose and that's Ukraine. I can't imagine any country that lost land to an invader would be happy. Will Russia give up the Kursk region in any deal?