With what? Nato isn't being decapitated. Nato isn't fighting Russia. Yet?

Russia is fighting Ukraine. Whatever it is, and without funding it is nothing else.

The funding can stop. Nothing would've even happened. It is how unremarkable it is.

Any conflict is specifically about how the conflict resolves, and it has no resolution. So it's a distraction. A stage act. Doing exactly what.

Both suggest they are beating the other, but neither are actually fighting each other. If they do perhaps neither wins.

In the meantime it's a case of who gives up what first. Until then it remains a narrative. Obviously a bit more for anybody involved, they think they're winning something. Hard to say what. Any conflict cannot be resolved without those actually involved losing something.

Topics like this are absurd. You cannot decapitate anything without an actual war between the two you're suggesting. Then they'd both kill each other. Nukes. The Arctic. Instead it's a proxy called Ukraine with big ideas about its actual relevance. It remarkably means little else. Except for some other narrative of assuming something more?

Too most it's boring, go bother somebody else. You have no other consequence, geopolitically. Trade has rerouted. You're a narrative what if you could be more. The country that won something. What? You've already lost far more.

With what? Nato isn't being decapitated. Nato isn't fighting Russia. Yet?

Russia is fighting Ukraine. Whatever it is, and without funding it is nothing else.

The funding can stop. Nothing would've even happened. It is how unremarkable it is.

Any conflict is specifically about how the conflict resolves, and it has no resolution. So it's a distraction. A stage act. Doing exactly what.

Both suggest they are beating the other, but neither are actually fighting each other. If they do perhaps neither wins.

In the meantime it's a case of who gives up what first. Until then it remains a narrative. Obviously a bit more for anybody involved, they think they're winning something. Hard to say what. Any conflict cannot be resolved without those actually involved losing something.

Topics like this are absurd. You cannot decapitate anything without an actual war between the two you're suggesting. Then they'd both kill each other. Nukes. The Arctic. Instead it's a proxy called Ukraine with big ideas about its actual relevance. It remarkably means little else. Except for some other narrative of assuming something more?

Too most it's boring, go bother somebody else. You have no other consequence, geopolitically. Trade has rerouted. You're a narrative what if you could be more. The country that won something. What? You've already lost far more.

With what? Nato isn't being decapitated. Nato isn't fighting Russia. Yet?

Russia is fighting Ukraine. Whatever it is, and without funding it is nothing else.

The funding can stop. Nothing would've even happened. It is how unremarkable it is.

Any conflict is specifically about how the conflict resolves, and it has no resolution. So it's a distraction. A stage act. Doing exactly what.

Both suggest they are beating the other, but neither are actually fighting each other. If they do perhaps neither wins.

In the meantime it's a case of who gives up what first. Until then it remains a narrative. Obviously a bit more for anybody involved, they think they're winning something. Hard to say what. Any conflict cannot be resolved without those actually involved losing something.

With what? Nato isn't being decapitated. Nato isn't fighting Russia. Yet?

Russia is fighting Ukraine. Whatever it is, and without funding it is nothing else.

The funding can stop. Nothing would've even happened. It is how unremarkable it is

Any conflict is specifically about how the conflict resolves, and it has no resolution. So it's a distraction. A stage act. Doing exactly what.

Both suggest they are beating the other, but neither are actually fighting each other. If they do perhaps neither wins.

In the meantime it's a case of who gives up what first. Until then it remains a narrative. Obviously a bit more for anybody involved, they think they're winning something. Hard to say what. Any conflict cannot be resolved without those actually involved losing something.

With what? Nato isn't being decapitated. Nato isn't fighting Russia. Yet?

Russia is fighting Ukraine. Whatever it is, and without funding it is nothing else.

The funding can stop. Nothing would've even happened. It is how unremarkable it is

Any conflict is specifically about how the conflict resolves, and it has no resolution. So it's a distraction. A stage act. Doing exactly what.

Both suggest they are beating the other, but neither are actually fighting each other. If they do perhaps neither wins.

In the meantime it's a case of who gives up what first.