> The West can push back. Isn't it obvious that the West, particularly the US, as their decisions are most influential, does not want to fully push back? By "f

> The West can push back. Isn't it obvious that the West, particularly the US, as their decisions are most influential, does not want to fully push back? By "fully" I mean desiring Russia's collapse. That’s why, even after two years, they haven't provided jet fighters (yet), nor have they permitted the use of their weapons to target Russia more extensively (only on borders with Kharkiv after 2 years of war). Actions speak louder than words. This behavior is clearly reactive, enough weapons are provided to maintain the status quo, ensuring that Russia does not advance further, but not enough for Ukrainians to alter the current situation on the battlefield. If the US wanted to, they could supply Ukraine with enough weapons to defeat Russia on the battlefield. But that’s not the goal, it’s not about Ukraine winning, but about not losing and preventing Russia from winning. A complete defeat of Russia is contrary to US interests, anarchy and chaos in a nuclear state would be far more dangerous, especially given that regions like Tajikistan have significant potential for terrorism (consider how ISIS started). Such a scenario would likely push Russia closer to becoming a Chinese vassal, which is against US interests. If you believe that a genuine democracy could emerge from that chaos, then you don't understand Russia at all. The deep state there is as entrenched, if not more so, than Putin, and it holds enough power and influence to prevent any truly democratic force from emerging. There is no real opposition left after Navalny's death.