5 ms·

Everyone seems to be assuming that Putin intends to annex Ukraine in the short term. But as events have unfolded, this will likely be impossible without incurri

Everyone seems to be assuming that Putin intends to annex Ukraine in the short term. But as events have unfolded, this will likely be impossible without incurring huge costs on Russia. However that doesn't mean that Putin can't settle for lesser concessions by Ukraine, like a complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO, combined with the loss of the two small republics. That would still be a huge win for Putin without the catastrophic cost of an occupation. Ukraine "wins" by not being reduced to rubble and have half of its population displaced in the "protracted war" that every armchair geopolitician is advocating for, undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that their armchairs are not located in Ukraine. It seems that every other generation needs to learn again how hard war sucks. This is not Game of Thrones.

nnx 5y ago
“A complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO“ For the common man and woman in Ukraine this is the best scenario for a quick exit from this senseless war. Too bad politicians (and armchair geopoliticians) do not see it.
- adwn 5y ago
  Demilitarization and not being a NATO member means that the next time Russia gets imperialistic cravings, Ukraine will be utterly helpless and defenseless, with zero bargaining power. And judging by Russia's current behavior, that's a "when", not an "if".
  - random_upvoter 5y ago
    Imperialist cravings? Not seventy years ago Russia was almost destroyed by the West, with the lost of forty million lives. For Russia the danger comes from the West and the fact that we the West think ourselves to be all enlightened doesn't change that. I don't want to justify Russia's behavior in any way, but imagine if you will, for one second, that Russia starts arming one of the sides in the Mexican Drug War with high-tech weaponry and tries to convince the Mexican government to join some Warsaw pact alliance. The USA would not tolerate this for one day. Russia has tolerated this for over a decade. Since 2004 the West has been doing whatever the fuck they want in Eastern Europe and expected Russia to just take it on the chin. Now Russia has reacted and there was much astonishment. The West have been wiping their feet on a basic tenet of geopolitics, namely that the regional superpower calls the shots within their sphere of influence. Now the results are in and guess what? The West is STILL not taking this seriously, further escalating the conflict by arming Ukraine to the teeth. President Biden laughing at the idea of nuclear war like Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons. Clown world is truly here.
    - dash2 5y ago
      It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR. The West, insofar as that means anything, was fighting on the other side - alone for 2 years, while the USSR had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The rest of your analogy is also weak. We haven’t armed one side in a drug war (eh?) NATO membership has not even been realistically on the table. As for the West “doing whatever they want”, can you give some examples? My impression was that eastern European countries were keen to join the EU, not that this was imposed on them. And once in, they have very much forged their own path, often to the great discomfort of Western Europeans (eg in Hungary, Poland).
      - random_upvoter 5y ago
        > It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR. Ok and if you look at the last 30 years, which "side" has been to most aggressive in attacking and subjugating foreign nations? "Oh but when we do it, it's for good reasons." Then the West is genuinely surprised that other blocs like South America or the Mid East are not jumping on the great anti-Russia train by default. What is wrong with those people?
        watwut 5y ago
        Where do you see genuine surprise? Like, you made that up. However, I see a lot of ingenuine surprise over, like, right-next country accepting refugees from country just across the border. The very same people who would cry hypocrisy of the refugees were not accepted (you demand surrounding countries in other conflicts to accept refugees). I see a lot of blaming America for Russian actions, in Ukraine and of Russian actions in Syria too.
        dash2 5y ago
        About those examples i asked for…
        tkot 5y ago
        It does seem like almost entire world (including most of South America and Middle East) condemns this particular invasion, though: > The vote on the “Aggression against Ukraine” resolution was 141-5, with 35 abstentions. > Only Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea joined Russia in opposing the measure, (...) https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-united-nations-general-assembly-business-north-korea-80c6e848c8d904ef981b5df50bd024d1 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-uni...
- pawelmurias 5y ago
  What would stop a follow up invasion once they get fully demilitarized?
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  So basically they should just become a Russian vassal?
ignoramous 5y ago
Ukrainians themself are passionate about not surrendering and the message has been the same from their government, too. This war of attrition cannot possibly benefit Ukraine. I hope the diplomats from both sides of the table reach a comprise, soon, at least before Kyiv turns into Baghdad.
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  One million Ukrainians have already fled the country. They are now in a foreign country, they know nobody and everything they own is in one backpack. If this war goes on the odds are that they will never see their home again. Does their vote on the war count too?
  - watwut 5y ago
    You don't know how they vote on war tho.
watwut 5y ago
> complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO These are equivalent to "annexation in a few months" and Ukraine knows it. If they accept those terms, they know they lost and are accepting annexation, but keeping face publically.
tkot 5y ago
Will it be a lasting peace, though? Doesn't demilitarization mean that if another "people's republic" appears, let's say near Transnistria, Ukraine will be unable to do anything about it?
Sol- 5y ago
If they go for demilitarization and not joining the EU, the rest of Ukraine will just get annexed a few years later when Russia has regrouped. But perhaps that's all they can hope for.

nnx 5y ago

“A complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO“ For the common man and woman in Ukraine this is the best scenario for a quick exit from this senseless war. Too bad politicians (and armchair geopoliticians) do not see it.

adwn 5y ago
Demilitarization and not being a NATO member means that the next time Russia gets imperialistic cravings, Ukraine will be utterly helpless and defenseless, with zero bargaining power. And judging by Russia's current behavior, that's a "when", not an "if".
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  Imperialist cravings? Not seventy years ago Russia was almost destroyed by the West, with the lost of forty million lives. For Russia the danger comes from the West and the fact that we the West think ourselves to be all enlightened doesn't change that. I don't want to justify Russia's behavior in any way, but imagine if you will, for one second, that Russia starts arming one of the sides in the Mexican Drug War with high-tech weaponry and tries to convince the Mexican government to join some Warsaw pact alliance. The USA would not tolerate this for one day. Russia has tolerated this for over a decade. Since 2004 the West has been doing whatever the fuck they want in Eastern Europe and expected Russia to just take it on the chin. Now Russia has reacted and there was much astonishment. The West have been wiping their feet on a basic tenet of geopolitics, namely that the regional superpower calls the shots within their sphere of influence. Now the results are in and guess what? The West is STILL not taking this seriously, further escalating the conflict by arming Ukraine to the teeth. President Biden laughing at the idea of nuclear war like Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons. Clown world is truly here.
  - dash2 5y ago
    It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR. The West, insofar as that means anything, was fighting on the other side - alone for 2 years, while the USSR had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The rest of your analogy is also weak. We haven’t armed one side in a drug war (eh?) NATO membership has not even been realistically on the table. As for the West “doing whatever they want”, can you give some examples? My impression was that eastern European countries were keen to join the EU, not that this was imposed on them. And once in, they have very much forged their own path, often to the great discomfort of Western Europeans (eg in Hungary, Poland).
    - random_upvoter 5y ago
      > It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR. Ok and if you look at the last 30 years, which "side" has been to most aggressive in attacking and subjugating foreign nations? "Oh but when we do it, it's for good reasons." Then the West is genuinely surprised that other blocs like South America or the Mid East are not jumping on the great anti-Russia train by default. What is wrong with those people?
      - watwut 5y ago
        Where do you see genuine surprise? Like, you made that up. However, I see a lot of ingenuine surprise over, like, right-next country accepting refugees from country just across the border. The very same people who would cry hypocrisy of the refugees were not accepted (you demand surrounding countries in other conflicts to accept refugees). I see a lot of blaming America for Russian actions, in Ukraine and of Russian actions in Syria too.
      - dash2 5y ago
        About those examples i asked for…
      - tkot 5y ago
        It does seem like almost entire world (including most of South America and Middle East) condemns this particular invasion, though: > The vote on the “Aggression against Ukraine” resolution was 141-5, with 35 abstentions. > Only Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea joined Russia in opposing the measure, (...) https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-united-nations-general-assembly-business-north-korea-80c6e848c8d904ef981b5df50bd024d1 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-uni...
pawelmurias 5y ago
What would stop a follow up invasion once they get fully demilitarized?
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
So basically they should just become a Russian vassal?

ignoramous 5y ago

Ukrainians themself are passionate about not surrendering and the message has been the same from their government, too. This war of attrition cannot possibly benefit Ukraine. I hope the diplomats from both sides of the table reach a comprise, soon, at least before Kyiv turns into Baghdad.

random_upvoter 5y ago
One million Ukrainians have already fled the country. They are now in a foreign country, they know nobody and everything they own is in one backpack. If this war goes on the odds are that they will never see their home again. Does their vote on the war count too?
- watwut 5y ago
  You don't know how they vote on war tho.

watwut 5y ago

> complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO These are equivalent to "annexation in a few months" and Ukraine knows it. If they accept those terms, they know they lost and are accepting annexation, but keeping face publically.

tkot 5y ago

Will it be a lasting peace, though? Doesn't demilitarization mean that if another "people's republic" appears, let's say near Transnistria, Ukraine will be unable to do anything about it?

Sol- 5y ago

If they go for demilitarization and not joining the EU, the rest of Ukraine will just get annexed a few years later when Russia has regrouped. But perhaps that's all they can hope for.