3 ms·

Ukraine loses some land. People there are tortured, brainwashed, scared into submission and drafted to Russian army. Russia rebuilds its stocks. In 3-5 years Ru

by ajuc 2y ago

Ukraine loses some land. People there are tortured, brainwashed, scared into submission and drafted to Russian army. Russia rebuilds its stocks. In 3-5 years Russia invades again and the situation repeats. This already happened in 2014. If we let Russia sell this war as a victory to its population - they will repeat it again. The problem isn't what happens immediately after "diplomatic solution". The problem is that the end result is war anyway, just easier for Russia. That's why Ukrainians don't want it. Appeasing dictators never works out.

brabel 2y ago
After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. So I think your argument is backwards: if you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. I'm afraid that failing to solve the current situation diplomatically will actually end up with a much larger portion of pre-2014 Ukraine territory never being returned to Ukraine (though IMHO there's very little chance Ukraine will disappear completely, or even lose Kyiv, as Russians have not shown much interest in extending the occupied regions so much in the last few months beyond Donbas and Luhansk - which they seem on a path to completely take over soon). Here's an example that's applicable to the current situation, I believe, where a Peace Deal was achieved and brought permanent peace: - Finland, 13th of March 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War) Very similar situation to today. The peace deal involved ceding quite a lot of land to the USSR, more than USSR initially bargained for (though Finland is still seen as having exited that conflict very positively today). The peace after that has basically lasted to this day and Finland is not at a hugely disadvantaged position because of the losses it suffered by signing that peace deal. There are many example of such deals in history, most wars actually ended up with similar deals. Only very few wars ended up with "complete victory" by one side, like WWII (though people seem to want every war now to end like that, forgetting just how extremely heavy the price was in that occasion, for both sides - or actually all the various sides involved).
- racional 2y ago
  If you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. The invasion started in 2014, not 2022. There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time. It was an outright, unprovoked invasion from the very start. The same invasion that has continued to the present day. Your reading of the Winter War is just as backwards. But if you can't get 2014 even remotely correct there's no reason to dissect the footnotes of 1940.
  - brabel 2y ago
    > There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time You ignorance on the matter could be cured by reading about what caused the 2014 Revolution, if you're actually interested in learning instead of throwing insults. The whole affair was a diplomatic crisis. Ukraine had a EU deal on one side, a Russian deal on the other. The president at the time went with the Russian deal. The population revolted. Another deal was made with the mediation of the EU, so that there would be elections at the end of the year. That made people even more pissed off, there was some violence and finally the elected president was removed. Russia saw Ukraine tearing up the deal which had the support of the EU as a dangerous provocation. The USA openly supported tearing up the EU-supported deal! It was a mess. If you don't understand that this is a diplomatic crisis, you really don't have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss anything after that.
    - racional 2y ago
      I know all about 2014, from people who were there. There was no "crisis" that provided any rational reason for Russia to intervene with force (either at the time, or after Ukraine's failure to "solve" it in subsequent years) is what I obviously meant.
- ajuc 2y ago
  > After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. It literally did. Zelenski was considered the appeasement president and he tried to appease russia at the start of his term by starting the talks on some long-term settlement about which territory belongs to whom. Putin responded by another invasion as soon as pandemic ended. Russia does not want Ukraine to lose some territory and enter EU and NATO. It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. The problem from Russian POV is that Ukraine is considered "Russia but more provincial", and if Ukraine has wealthy, democratic state - Russians will ask "why can't we?". Hence for Putin and the rest of russian elites - Ukraine can't enter EU. The solution isn't to let Russia dictate what other countries can and cannot do. The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. Each next war will be more expansive in lives and money. If you let Russia conquer Ukraine - you will have Russia with 30 million more people, all the soldiers that Ukraine trained, all the weapons that survive - going to Baltic states next. Congratulations. Very "pragmatic" and "realpolitik".

by ajuc 2y ago

brabel 2y ago

After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. So I think your argument is backwards: if you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. I'm afraid that failing to solve the current situation diplomatically will actually end up with a much larger portion of pre-2014 Ukraine territory never being returned to Ukraine (though IMHO there's very little chance Ukraine will disappear completely, or even lose Kyiv, as Russians have not shown much interest in extending the occupied regions so much in the last few months beyond Donbas and Luhansk - which they seem on a path to completely take over soon). Here's an example that's applicable to the current situation, I believe, where a Peace Deal was achieved and brought permanent peace: - Finland, 13th of March 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War) Very similar situation to today. The peace deal involved ceding quite a lot of land to the USSR, more than USSR initially bargained for (though Finland is still seen as having exited that conflict very positively today). The peace after that has basically lasted to this day and Finland is not at a hugely disadvantaged position because of the losses it suffered by signing that peace deal. There are many example of such deals in history, most wars actually ended up with similar deals. Only very few wars ended up with "complete victory" by one side, like WWII (though people seem to want every war now to end like that, forgetting just how extremely heavy the price was in that occasion, for both sides - or actually all the various sides involved).

racional 2y ago
If you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. The invasion started in 2014, not 2022. There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time. It was an outright, unprovoked invasion from the very start. The same invasion that has continued to the present day. Your reading of the Winter War is just as backwards. But if you can't get 2014 even remotely correct there's no reason to dissect the footnotes of 1940.
- brabel 2y ago
  > There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time You ignorance on the matter could be cured by reading about what caused the 2014 Revolution, if you're actually interested in learning instead of throwing insults. The whole affair was a diplomatic crisis. Ukraine had a EU deal on one side, a Russian deal on the other. The president at the time went with the Russian deal. The population revolted. Another deal was made with the mediation of the EU, so that there would be elections at the end of the year. That made people even more pissed off, there was some violence and finally the elected president was removed. Russia saw Ukraine tearing up the deal which had the support of the EU as a dangerous provocation. The USA openly supported tearing up the EU-supported deal! It was a mess. If you don't understand that this is a diplomatic crisis, you really don't have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss anything after that.
  - racional 2y ago
    I know all about 2014, from people who were there. There was no "crisis" that provided any rational reason for Russia to intervene with force (either at the time, or after Ukraine's failure to "solve" it in subsequent years) is what I obviously meant.
ajuc 2y ago
> After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. It literally did. Zelenski was considered the appeasement president and he tried to appease russia at the start of his term by starting the talks on some long-term settlement about which territory belongs to whom. Putin responded by another invasion as soon as pandemic ended. Russia does not want Ukraine to lose some territory and enter EU and NATO. It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. The problem from Russian POV is that Ukraine is considered "Russia but more provincial", and if Ukraine has wealthy, democratic state - Russians will ask "why can't we?". Hence for Putin and the rest of russian elites - Ukraine can't enter EU. The solution isn't to let Russia dictate what other countries can and cannot do. The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. Each next war will be more expansive in lives and money. If you let Russia conquer Ukraine - you will have Russia with 30 million more people, all the soldiers that Ukraine trained, all the weapons that survive - going to Baltic states next. Congratulations. Very "pragmatic" and "realpolitik".