Ukraine is a lost cause at this point and EU doesn't want the war to continue as it is and Russia wants an exit as well. Neither side has anything to gain by prolonging the war.

I'm happy to hear your case for why Kiev currently have no effective air defence and facing dwindling man power. If EU truly cared about Ukraine they wouldn't be in this current position. Doesn't make sense why they would withhold resources that Ukraine desperately needs at the moment if they are just beginning to ramp up production now.

By the time the current build up is done which will take years, Ukraine will not be a sovereign nation at its current rate. For Russia's perspective, a regime change is their ultimate goal, not territory. Once the corridor is secure they are likely to turn to Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

The bigger conflict seems to point to baltic states that would draw in NATO and thats the one that EU seems to be preparing for, not Ukraine.

> By the time the current build up is done which will take years, Ukraine will not be a sovereign nation at its current rate. For Russia's perspective, a regime change is their ultimate goal, not territory. Once the corridor is secure they are likely to turn to Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

All the more reason for the EU to continue supplying Ukraine.

Assuming your thesis is correct: the war in ukraine is a dead end and the EU should let russia finish what it started (parahpraasing, I apologise if I miss the nuance)

Surely that would mean _another_ russian friendly Satellite state that can be used as an invasion point by a resurgent russia?

Surely its in the best interest of the EU (and US, because trading partner and sphere of influence) to make sure ukraine wins? keeping russia in its box and stop it expanding westwards?