“Assertion not supported by evidence.”
So how do the Neocons win - nuking Moscow first? Nope, they still don’t win, because they have no way of stopping incoming ICBMs - so both sides lose.
Anything movement towards Neocon momentum in Ukraine will be stopped by nukes*, if not other options for Russia exists. At that point, it’s either capitulate for the Neocons, or it’s World War 3 (see above to find out how that ends).
*because that’s what the term “Existential Threat” means, and if Putin doesn’t push the button, others in Moscow will do it for him.
That sounds to me to be the definition of CHECKMATE - the Neocons lose either way, as Russia is not walking away from Ukraine without winning (see the term “Existential Threat”, above, for the reason). The only question now is whether Russia will win, or no one will win. That is a decision for the Neocons to make, and God help us if they get it wrong.
It is *not* an "existental threat".
Again, an assertion not backed up by more than hopeful thinking.
Why would Russia risk annihilation over a few hectares of disputed territory?
It is not as if the territory has not switched hands many times in the preceding couple of centuries.