Western leaders are talking more about defeating Russia

Within the Nato alliance there seems to be a growing view that the only way to end the war in Ukraine is for Russia to be defeated. If the world was a simple place where right and wrong were easily distinguishable and everyone played fair, then, yes, it would solve a lot of problems if Russia were defeated, Putin was humiliated, and we could all get back to our nice lives and not to have to continue sending billions of dollars of weapons to Kyiv. But the world is not like that. The world is cruel and power-mad, so if the ultimate goal in the West and in Kyiv is for total defeat of Russia, I fear the consequences. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's not wrong, it's the right thing to do, but it has to be thought through. What would Putin do if he faced overwhelming defeat? Fortunately I don't think we need to spell out whether he will go mad and go nuclear out of revenge. I think what will happen if Ukraine makes huge strides in its imminent territory-grabbing-back counter-offensive is that China will step in big time and bring all the parties together for a peace-deal summit. It's not in Beijing's interest for Russia/Putin to be defeated. Xi Zinping may not have come out in public support of Putin's invasion but he wants a strong and anti-West partner and he won't let Putin be crushed into defeat. And when China steps in, the West, including the US, will be secretly happy, or even openly happy, because the worst scenario is a for-ever war. There has to be a deal at some stage. General Mark Milley, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said so a long time ago and he was right. It's the political leaders, not the military, who talk about victory and defeat. If the Ukrainian counter-offensive achieves big results, Zelensky can come to the table with a strong hand. That's the most realistic scenario.