> As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russi

> As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russia already occupied about 20% of Ukraine before February. A negotiated settlement is not predicated on Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. Why shouldn't Russia cede territory to Ukraine over this war instead?. > "pretty much exactly what Russia wanted" as of February was to conquer Kiev rapidly, kill Zelensky and decapitate the Ukrainian government, and quickly end the war with it either absorbing all of Ukraine or much of it with a puppet regime in power ruling the remainder. That failed. Now the best it can likely hope for is some sort of negotiated deal as per above. That does not mean that the complete opposite of Russia's February goal—Russia forced out of all of eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea—is the likely outcome for Ukraine, either. Russias goals have likely, and continue to change, but it's clear that they want at least some of Ukraine. > I repeat: Musk is a citizen of a country which is not actually a combatant in the war. The US has not declared war on Russia, there are no American troops fighting within Ukraine's borders, and the US embassy in Moscow remains open (and vice versa). Insta-denouncing any remark that isn't "Anything short of 100% victory for Ukraine = Putler wins!!!111!!1!!!" as wrongthink is just fatuous. Anything short of a Ukrainian victory really just shows Russia they can send in their troops and meet at least some of their goals by concessions. This is detrimental to the entire world, which would be best off is Russia losses decisively and gets nothing of what it wants.