[flagged]
That would require the Ukrainians to truly and deeply internalize "sunk cost fallacy" because it means 2.5 years of total war was for nothing.
Coincidently, most soldiers who fight in long wars, tend to think that, no matter the background.
But on the geopolitical map, Ukraine could have lost everything, and not just some more territory in the east. The initial surprise attack was aimed at Kiev.
That doesn't mean there can't be a frozen conflict, i.e. cease-fire with no change in positions of forces, or essentially symbolic concessions (like a pledge not to join NATO). That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. If Russia's regime want to hobble along in an alternate universe, in which it pretends those territories are actually theirs, and that sanctions don't really matter, until Putin croaks and its likely disintegration begins in earnest -- that's one thing, and the Ukrainians can decide that matter for themselves as well.
But recognized sovereignty on the claimed territories, or a lifting of sanctions absent conditions (2) and (3) being met -- no fucking way.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
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.
The US gave Ukraine that guarantee last time in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
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.
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.)
Absolutely no one here is saying that.
Like all the other colonial powers.
In the same time you are arguing Ukrainians to save lives and give up land.
Strange logic.
And again, it's a matter for Ukrainians to decide. To a first order approximation, I think we can trust that as a society, they know what they're fighting for, and why.
If you disagree, and you think you know better than they do in this regard -- then my heartfelt recommendation (and closing words on this particular subtopic) for you is/are: go ahead, talk with them (directly, as live human beings) -- and "let them speak".
The other aspect is we have to decide if we in the west should keep supporting the self suicide strategy and tonight we find out who decides.
you realize this is literally just a russian excuse, yes?
Such a sweet deal! All Ukraine needs to do is surrender, why did nobody think of that!
Most Ukrainian want to talk peace but the powers in charge want to keep Russia fighting and weak even if it means more Ukraine deaths.
What is best is Russia surrendering, paying for all damages in Ukraine, and Putin getting arrested and tried internationally.
If you believe that stuff, then you definitely start thinking more critically about whatever sources you've been pulling from.
This information was in a variety of sources. Ones you respect and ones that you don't.
Meaning you aren't actually aware of any.
You're in explicit violation of site guidelines. Recommend you stop:
"What leads you to believe that that's actually the case (that NATO was about to, or was likely at some point down the road to do that)?"
Given that in the 30 years since the fall of the USSR, NATO still hasn't stationed nukes in any of the newer member countries, nor would there be any strategic benefit for them to do so.