3 ms·
>That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. No, it is not. 90% of all wars end in negotiated settlements. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, unique about the
by TMWNN 2y ago
>That's up for the Ukrainians to decide.
No, it is not.
90% of all wars end in negotiated settlements. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, unique about the Russia-Ukraine War that gives either side a guarantee that it will get to unilaterally decide when and how the war ends. Putin may or may not break any peace treaty in the future, but there is no reason to think that he is more or less likely to do so than any one side in any particular war in the history of mankind.
If Ukraine can so shatter Russian lines that Russia is forced out of the war and has to give up eastern Ukraine, more power to the Ukrainians. But Ukraine is not entitled to unlimited Western support for all time just because Putin is a thug.
I've thought from the start that the likely best case for Ukraine is acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for
* an end to the war
* Austrian-style neutrality
* specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again
This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening). No, it won't be "Russian forces pushed back to Moscow, Zelensky personally executes Putin in Red Square with 100,000 Redditard denizens of /r/worldnews watching". But, again, a) such is how most wars end, and b) it is not up to Ukraine to decide.
- aguaviva 2y agoYou can decide that that's the ending you'd like to have. But I don't see a point in pretending that it would be "best for Ukraine", or rule of law in the international sphere generally. Russian forces pushed back to Moscow That's a straw man of course, and a pretty ridiculous one at that. But if you prefer to live in a world of extreme caricatures, and to reason accordingly, that's your prerogative also.
- TMWNN 2y ago>You can decide that that's the ending you'd like to have. Ah yes, yet another person who prattles "Anything other than `100% Russia gives up everything and Putin shoots himself in shame` = `RUZZIA AND PUTLER WIN!!!1!!!!!` Anyone saying anything else = Vatnik!!1!1!!". Straw man, indeed. >But I don't see a point in pretending that it would be "best for Ukraine", or rule of law in the international sphere generally. Let me repeat: It is not up to Ukraine to decide! It is up to Russia on one side of a negotiating table, and Ukraine and its sponsors on the other. Let us not pretend that for you "best for Ukraine" is, and only is, something not too far from what you claim are my "straw man" of your goals. Or that of the hordes of Redditards who still haven't noticed that after 2.5 years of incessant posts on /r/worldnews and a dozen other subreddits on how Ukraine is beating back vatniks every single day, Russians are somehow still fighting on what is legally Ukrainian territory. (The same goes for Russian propaganda that has claimed for its domestic audience for the past 2.5 years that its anti-fascist forces are daily crushing Ukrainian Nazis left, right, and center.)
- aguaviva 2y agoAh yes, yet another person who says ... Absolutely no one here is saying that.
- Animats 2y ago> Specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again The US gave Ukraine that guarantee last time in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
- aguaviva 2y agoActually there were no guarantees in that agreement, and that was one its major shortcomings.