So the ethical answer is to what, roll over and let the Russians win? Wars are awful things. But to paraphrase Trotsky, you get to choose whether or not you're interested in war. But you don't get to choose whether or not war is interested in you.
Or negotiate for peace. It is known there was a solid negotiation process in place and the Ukrainians were interested in it. NATO was not and worked to destroy it.
> Wars are awful things.
...and _Forbes_ acting as a cheerleader of them is disgusting.
> But to paraphrase Trotsky
Trotsky was spreading propaganda. In the actual study of war, they rarely break out as described, and they often have months if not years of time where they could have been avoided entirely.
It usually turns out there is someone with vested financial interests in war and they always find themselves near the people who generate the conflict. Go figure.
If I hypothetically put a gun to your head and told you to give me your wallet and the credentials to your bank accounts, no amount of "negotiation" would make your property legally mine or what I did any less than armed robbery. Same here.
In the case of Ukraine, Russian state media have often claimed their goal is to exterminate Ukrainians and their culture so that distinction would not exist.
And lo and behold, within literal seconds of putting forth this perfectly straightforward observation -- which granted might sound slightly, vaguely controversial, but really isn't to anyone following the basic event chronology of this conflict (and the various false narratives that people keep mindlessly repeating about it) -- someone had to flag it.
Are the Ukrainians aware of this? Because massive forced conscription and closed borders for leaving are strongly pointing out against it.
>no amount of "negotiation" would make your property legally mine
Negotiations are needed not for legality, but for example, to stop mass forced conscription of people who doesn't want to die for political ambitions of Zelensky, corrupt Ukranian government or for something else, that they think doesn't worth dying for.
They will also decide -- for themselves -- whether the losses they are taking are sustainable, or "worth" the just end to this war that they seek.
Your idea of what they "need", what is worth dying for or otherwise valuable to them, or your general view of their government -- just doesn't factor into it.
Does not seem like it. They are not asked. They are banned from leaving the country. They are captured right on the streets and forcefully, under threat of death, sent to fight in war.
> They will also decide -- for themselves -- whether the losses they are taking are sustainable, or "worth" the just end to this war that they seek.
No, it's already decided for them - and decided otherwise. That's the reason borders are closed and Ukrainians are sent to frontlines against their will
> Your idea of what they "need", what is worth dying for That's not my idea, that's their idea - otherwise there would be no need for closed borders and forced conscription.
Just like the Allies did in World War II.
The "under threat of death" part is pure BS of course.
You'll definitely need to provide reliable sources for the specific assertion you're making here.