True then (~1832), true now:
24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
Yes, it's trite and cliche to quote von Clausewitz here. But, I think it's important to state that I believe the international political context of this war should be discussed here. I think that with a little restraint and judicial self-censorship, we can discuss the realpolitik and the diplomatic intrigues that are involved in the Ukraine-Russia-US-EU relationship.
How US decisions are impacting the great alliance of the last 80 years, or what the implications are for Ukraine if the EU has to go it alone to support the war are important topics and pretty fundamental to the wider context of the day-to-day nitty gritty of the conflict itself.
What needs to be avoided (probably through gritted teeth) is any discussion of the ideological or moral politics of the situation - not because doing so is inherently bad, but because A) It's not that sort of forum, and B) Such discussions almost always end up with the most extreme voices also becoming the loudest and driving the discussions into an in-group/out-group dynamic that is neither productive nor healthy [particularly, it seems, when it concerns US domestic politics].
Anyway, just my 0.02c.