4 ms·

I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? Ukraine wants to defend themselv

I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? Ukraine wants to defend themselves _and_ to retake Crimea, something they cannot do on their own, so they need weapons. Who is winning is not at all clear. When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, so far this has not happened.. at what point is this strategy reconsidered? Is the possibility of reconsideration already at hand, and are articles such as these meant to serve as a bulwark against breaks for peace? It makes me suspicious.

funnymony 4y ago
Assumption is that russia does not want peace. It wants a pause during which it can rebuild its military strength and repeat the war again, until ukraine de facto looses sovereignty (becomes similar to belarus)
detaro 4y ago
> I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Russian behavior in occupied regions makes it quite obvious that those are equivalent, at least for people who dare to not identify as Russian. > Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? To a degree, although you need to consider policies of expelling non-Russians from Crimea and intentionally settling Russians there in how much stock you give that. > When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, There was also fairly widespread surprise how well Ukraine held on.