I think your friend is right, NATO cannot get directly involved and that, unfortunately, Russia will win the present conflict. If you accept that and, accepting that it would be bitter pill to swallow, is there not a case for Ukraine to surrender, thereby saving possibly thousands of their citizens lives and possibly negotiating a relatively better platform for their nation.If anybody retains interest in hearing what my friend has been saying - it's not new really, but does at least provide some very learned context. It's restating a lot what was being said at the outset, which is being borne out to be true.
He thinks that the Russian "victory" in terms of taking over Ukraine is inevitable, as Putin knows NATO can't pick this fight, and the sheer rules of war and the fact that ultimately mass will always win means that they will, eventually, get there.
BUT
Then he has to garrison it, and that will take all, if not more, troops that he's put in so far. And they'll be facing continued insurgency/guerilla tactics etc.
The other point is that Putin has shown up his military. They've failed massively on logistics, but also conscripts will only work longer term and passably if they believe in what they are doing, or because they're defending something.
So they may win the battle, but the war is going to be a long, drawn out nightmare for them.
Please don't think I'm an apologist for Putin but , as brave as the Ukrainians are, I think that a pragmatic resolution at this stage may be better than engaging in a war that cannot be won but one which may cause too many Ukrainians to die and wreck their country's infrastructure.
