3 ms·

If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately

by fatbird 2mo ago

If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world. It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.

thisislife2 2mo ago
> There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/ukrainian-independence-texts/ukrainian-state-sovereignty/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states: > The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons. The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
- fatbird 2mo ago
  So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine? How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy. The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia. Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Talk about idiocy.
  - thisislife2 2mo ago
    > Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions. All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ... > How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ... Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now. Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians. Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting-how-much-territory-does-russia-control-in-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukraine/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-deindustrialization-strikes/ https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-moscow/ https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ). See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?

by fatbird 2mo ago

thisislife2 2mo ago

> There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/ukrainian-independence-texts/ukrainian-state-sovereignty/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states: > The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons. The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?

fatbird 2mo ago
So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine? How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy. The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia. Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Talk about idiocy.
- thisislife2 2mo ago
  > Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions. All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ... > How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ... Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now. Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians. Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting-how-much-territory-does-russia-control-in-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukraine/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-deindustrialization-strikes/ https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-moscow/ https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ). See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?