Well pasting that into ChatGPT it responds: "That comment seems to be a classic case of projection, given that it's advocating abandoning Ukraine to Russian control after years of brutal conflict. Dismissing opposition to Putin’s expansionism as mere "liberal religion" ignores the fundamental moral and strategic reasons behind supporting Ukraine. It's not just about "Putin not winning"—it's about preventing further authoritarian aggression, standing by international law, and upholding commitments to allies. Ironically, it also assumes that Democrats are the only ones supporting Ukraine, when in reality, many Republicans (especially in defense and foreign policy circles) also back continued aid. The divide isn't purely partisan—it's between those who believe in defending sovereignty and those who see no issue with appeasement." Computer says no.
Putin was allowed to win in Georgia and Crimea and thats why we have the current war. We get it, people like you actually think Putin will stop if allowed to win this current Ukraine invasion.
That doesn't even remotely explain the full scope of circumstances. So, do you think that nuclear war is the only solution? Otherwise, how is Putin stopped?
By letting him take territory after territory without intervention? In which case you'll have to define what exactly you mean by "stopping" him.
Computer says: "Echopulse is setting up a false dichotomy—either let Putin win or risk nuclear war. That’s a defeatist argument that ignores the fact that deterrence, military aid, and strategic containment have worked before and continue to work now. Putin was emboldened by weak responses to Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014), which is exactly why Ukraine must be supported now. The argument that stopping him means nuclear war is based on the assumption that Putin is irrational enough to escalate to that level, despite overwhelming evidence that he carefully calculates risks and responds to strength. The actual strategy is to make the war too costly for Russia to continue, without direct NATO involvement. That’s been working so far—Russia has taken heavy losses, and Ukraine is still holding. Giving up now only guarantees further invasions, not peace."
Okay, give up zero land and take back Crimea. How is Putin stopped? What is the alternative solution?
And what happens if, hypothetically, he should decide to invade YOUR country? Do you allow him to do so under threat of nuclear war?
Guess who? " Echopulse is framing the issue as if the only way to stop Putin is by direct military confrontation, which ignores the effectiveness of prolonged attrition, economic pressure, and strategic deterrence. The answer to “How is Putin stopped?” isn’t a binary choice between surrendering land or total war. The strategy has been to provide Ukraine with the resources to make further Russian advances impossible while degrading Russia’s ability to sustain the war. That’s already working—Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, its economy is straining under sanctions, and Ukraine continues to resist. Retaking Crimea is a longer-term goal that depends on continued international support, but it’s not impossible. If Russia is weakened enough—economically, militarily, and politically—Ukraine could reclaim territory without triggering a full-scale NATO-Russia war. That’s how deterrence works. "