After Putin received the cash He stopped the attack in Kharkiv immediately

 

Putin's visit to allied countries has secured promises of continued assistance, leading to a halt in the offensive in Kharkiv. With the funds secured, there is no need to send troops into the enemy's firing line, as they have already prepared their ammunition. The military aid from the USA is not mobilized domestically; in fact, it has been prepared in NATO armories in Europe, with most equipment directly sourced from various European countries. As long as the funding is in place, the USA can provide the support.

Currently, both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war are at a stalemate. Although President Putin has hinted at negotiations recently, it is widely known that neither side is willing to give up their occupied territories, rendering any talks futile.

Ukraine hopes to obtain permission to use Western weapons to attack Russia's mainland, with the main aim of targeting more vital strategic objectives. Ukraine has been successful in using drones to attack Russia's oil facilities and military targets, causing significant damage to their energy infrastructure and air defenses. Historically, most of Ukraine's requests have been met by the West after some maneuvering. With France already representing NATO forces, the use of Western weapons to attack Russia is a logical progression, blurring the lines between domestic and overseas operations. The anticipated involvement of the F-16 fighter jets is eagerly awaited, as having these advanced aircraft in play will negate Russia's precarious air superiority and ground forces advantage, shifting the dynamics of the conflict.

Although the number of F-16 fighter jets is currently limited, more are expected to be deployed over time. In addition to the F-16s gifted by Denmark and the Netherlands, Belgium is also set to provide 30 fighter jets to Ukraine. Future NATO European member countries are planning to supply their active F-16s to Ukraine, as these aircraft are slated for retirement to make way for more advanced F-35s. Despite being older models, these refurbished aircraft will easily counter the Russian Air Force. Furthermore, Sweden is set to provide Ukraine with their JAS-39 Gripen, with follow-up aircraft such as the Typhoon and Rafale joining the effort. This shift will move the Russia-Ukraine conflict from ground-based to aerial combat, potentially reshaping the balance of power in favor of Ukraine.

Objectively, Ukraine has become a testing ground and furnace for Western weapons, with almost all obsolete NATO weapons finding their way into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Both sides are utilizing Cold War-era stockpiles, with Ukraine fielding a diverse array of equipment. Although Ukraine has a strong history in weapon development dating back to the Soviet era, their innovative use of drone tactics in this conflict has proven effective against the robust Russian military. Currently, Ukrainian forces are considered the most combat-ready and well-equipped in Europe. In contrast, Russia has suffered significant losses in military capabilities during the war, with their combat effectiveness being questioned internationally. Many of Russia's flagship weapons systems, heavily promoted for export, have proven ineffective or even unsafe in actual combat scenarios.

Currently, the Russian military is resorting to attrition warfare through ground-based tactics, leveraging their numerical and equipment advantage against Ukraine. However, this strategy will need to adapt once Ukraine gains air superiority. The possibility of Russia resorting to tactical nuclear weapons cannot be dismissed, potentially leading to Western tactical nuclear weapons entering Ukraine. Simultaneously, the West may launch decapitation strikes against Putin, effectively ending the war. With NATO's eastward expansion aided by Putin's efforts, the past concern of strategic missile defense systems threatening Russia's security is no longer relevant. If tactical nuclear weapons are employed, it would spell disaster for Russia. Even in a scenario of a nuclear war, not all of Europe and the USA would be obliterated, with the target being Russia alone, lacking Russia's so-called strategic missile defense system.

Another destabilizing factor is the potential intervention of Trump if he comes to power, as strong involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict would likely lead to a fate similar to the Czech Prime Minister, who faced five bullets prematurely ending his political career. There is also a risk of direct military intervention from Russia's allies such as North Korea, Iran, or others. While Iran's military might is insufficient to counter Israel, North Korea is the most likely candidate to deploy troops, with the West unconcerned. North Korea's military capabilities, while posing a threat to South Korea on the peninsula, would be better utilized in the Ukraine conflict for attrition. The key lies in observing the involvement of a certain country with a history of military intervention, although any deployment would not be advantageous. While participation in the conflict cannot be measured in terms of rationality, sending troops would mean direct opposition to the West, akin to how the West targeted Suleimani in response to Iran's actions.