Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

[CFordUNC]

This isn't some novel idea by any means but the way I see the current war is that there are three options:

1. Escalate the war by involving troops from other countries with more advanced military equipment. Of course, this risks escalation to the point of nuclear exchange. It's possible that Putin would stand down before getting to that level of escalation, but it's clearly a massive risk and not one that should be taken lightly (duh). I don't see any way for Russia to win or maintain Ukrainian territory without using nuclear weapons.

2. Stalemate, which is what was happening as of the end of the Biden presidency where neither side can really be dislodged from their positions but neither side can make further territorial advances. Would Russia eventually give up as they did with Afghanistan after nearly a decade of stalemate there? Would Ukraine be able to survive in any meaningful way? Would Putin die along the way and hypothetically free Russia to withdraw and blame it all on him?

3. Deescalation or negotiation of a ceasefire and hope that it becomes a long-term or permanent peaceful resolution. This would inevitably involve ceding territory to Russia- which is obviously not at all ideal and certainly gives them future notion that they can acquire sovereign territory by force and keep it.

Any of these solutions, IMO, depend on Russia's motivations absent Putin. If the war is Putin's personal objective- which it very well may be- rather than Russia's, then Putin's death would change everything. He is old and getting older by the day, and there have been rampant rumors that he is facing health crises.

I personally believe that the best- or the least bad- option is to essentially freeze the war in place, in terms of current territorial acquisitions. Ukraine is throwing everything at Russia and cannot move forward. They cannot take their lands back. They cannot outright win the war. Eventually they're going to run out of lives to throw at Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is really able to advance further themselves, but they do have plenty of lives, specifically North Korean lives, that they are willing and able to throw at Ukraine. In a war of attrition, Ukraine cannot win but their saving grace is that the longer the war lasts, the more and more the war is unpopular in Russia and the more desperate Putin becomes for an exit ramp. Putin can't really win this war, either, short of literally all of Western Europe abandoning Ukraine as the U.S. appears poised to do, or is at least threatening to do. If a ceasefire can be brokered in which the war essentially gets frozen in place, with Europe primarily enforcing the terms of the deal with escalation as a consequence, Russia should be effectively neutered for the short to medium term. Even absent the United States, Russia isn't in a position where they can risk escalation with Europe.

This is all what I think should/could realistically happen. What I WANT to happen is this: for the United States- and for Europe, especially Europe- to essentially give Ukraine a blank check in terms of weaponry and equipment, and enable them to permanently cripple the Russian army for what amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. We have America's and Europe's greatest historical geopolitical enemy on their knees, in a headlock, down on the mat, ready to tap out. We need to finish them.

 

[superrific]

1. I'm not refusing to acknowledge "that sometimes folding is better than throwing good money after bad." I'm arguing that folding in this particular situation is not a better result. I firmly believe that "folding" to Russia in this circumstance is a bad long-term strategic decision that will ultimately increase the chances of, and/or hasten, the larger war we are trying to avoid. Folding to Russia will not bring peace. It will not end Russia's territorial ambitions. It will simply guarantee that we are doing this same thing all over again in the future, whether in 2, 5, or 10 years, whether in Western Ukraine, or the Baltics, or wherever. And, as I have said, I think it will also make it more likely that China does the same thing in 2, 5. or 10 years, starting with Taiwan.

That is my argument. That folding in this situation is a long-term mistake akin to the one made by Great Britain and France in 1the 1930s.

2. I'm confused by this statement because it seems to be agreeing with what I'm saying: "We should continue to support Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants to fight." Ukraine still wants to fight, right now. Ukraine is not throwing in the towel. They are not yet willing to cede their territory to Russia; at least as far as I am aware, that remains their position. I am not suggesting that if Ukraine wants to give up, we should force them to stay in the war. What we seem to agree that we should not be doing is pressuring Ukraine into a peace it does not want, or at least on terms that it does not want.

1. These two points are in tension. If you think that folding to Russia is a bad long-term strategic decision, then you should be encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting. You should be telling them, "if you don't make peace, then Russia will be emboldened in the future."

2. There are other ways to curtail Russia's territorial ambitions. For one thing, putting Western soldiers in Ukraine as peacekeepers. For another thing, continue the economic isolation. Third, change foreign and defense policy to focus more heavily on deterrence now that Putin has shown himself to be some who will literally destroy his country for territorial ambition. Those are all sensible measures.

3. If and when China attacks Taiwan, I do not think the US will intervene militarily and, if we do, it won't make much difference. We should absolutely keep up appearances that we will, and leave open the option to do so; make China think clearly about the potential risks to its aggression. But the deterrence factor, in my view, is less military than economic. China won't invade Taiwan because that would destroy its economy. It would undo all the territorial influence it's been seeking.

4. One of Obama's big mistakes was to draw a red line in Syria that he was actually unwilling to enforce. If we say, "no territory for aggressors" but are not really prepared to fight, our bluff could well be called and then we will actually look weak.

 

[dukeman92]

Never thought I'd see the day when liberals were pro-war. I swear, you guys are starting to sound like warmongers. No Europe does not clearly agree. The Brits are talking about sending in peacekeepers. That doesn't sound like a war without end philosophy.

Surely there has to be a middle ground between complete Trump-like capitulation and an unrealistic insistence that there can be no peace until Russia leaves. Ironically, your approach would let Russia determine when the fighting ends, which means that if Putin wants to throw men into a meat grinder because he doesn't give a shit about human life, we would have to follow suit. Play defense. No more gains for Putin. Security guarantees. Etc. Insisting on unrealism is just loco.

I am not pro war nor do I speak for all liberals. I'm pro freedom. Pro democracy. At what point would you concede a portion of the United States to Russia just to end a stalemate?

Europe clearly agrees. There have been NUMEROUS world leaders speak out in support of Ukraine since the planned mugging in the White House, that support has included all manner of promises, including "putting boots on the ground". I didn't hear a single respected world leader come out and say that Ukraine should just give up their land and end the war... other than Trump.

 

[dukeman92]

This is all what I think should/could realistically happen. What I WANT to happen is this: for the United States- and for Europe, especially Europe- to essentially give Ukraine a blank check in terms of weaponry and equipment, and enable them to permanently cripple the Russian army for what amounts to mere pennies on the dollar. We have America's and Europe's greatest historical geopolitical enemy on their knees, in a headlock, down on the mat, ready to tap out. We need to finish them.

 

[superrific]

Would Russia eventually give up as they did with Afghanistan after nearly a decade of stalemate there? Would Ukraine be able to survive in any meaningful way?

The Soviet debacle in Afghanistan is sometimes cited as a primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. It would have had that effect even if Afghanistan had been conquered. The war was far too costly for them, and the Soviet Union (as an institution) paid the ultimate price.

The playbook should be the one we've used in the past. Cease fire for peace talks, with the option of firing the war machine up again if Russia balks. That is, press for a cease fire in order to buy us time to continue to help Ukraine build up its forces. I don't know how amenable Putin would be to that. If he won't cease fire, then so be it. War it is. But we should still be trying to mediate a peace (not cram anything down anyone's throat) and the parameters of that peace deal are just not going to include a rollback of all Russia's gains, as I understand the situation.

Personally, I blanche at your comment about how it's great for America to get the Ukrainians to fight Russia at pennies on the dollar for us. They are our proxy state now? That consideration is useful when pointing out that we're not actually losing our wealth by sending weapons their way. It's not useful, at least not to me, in suggesting that continuation of the war is good foreign policy for us just because we can find someone else to do the dying.

 

[rodoheel]

1. These two points are in tension. If you think that folding to Russia is a bad long-term strategic decision, then you should be encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting. You should be telling them, "if you don't make peace, then Russia will be emboldened in the future."

2. There are other ways to curtail Russia's territorial ambitions. For one thing, putting Western soldiers in Ukraine as peacekeepers. For another thing, continue the economic isolation. Third, change foreign and defense policy to focus more heavily on deterrence now that Putin has shown himself to be some who will literally destroy his country for territorial ambition. Those are all sensible measures.

3. If and when China attacks Taiwan, I do not think the US will intervene militarily and, if we do, it won't make much difference. We should absolutely keep up appearances that we will, and leave open the option to do so; make China think clearly about the potential risks to its aggression. But the deterrence factor, in my view, is less military than economic. China won't invade Taiwan because that would destroy its economy. It would undo all the territorial influence it's been seeking.

4. One of Obama's big mistakes was to draw a red line in Syria that he was actually unwilling to enforce. If we say, "no territory for aggressors" but are not really prepared to fight, our bluff could well be called and then we will actually look weak.

1. I agree that there is some tension between my points, but I think it's because they serve different principles. The US's position should be "we will not allow anyone to keep territorial gains and we will back countries who are invaded, militarily if necessary, to enforce that principle." But I also think as a fundamental principle of national sovereignty that a country gets to chart its own course. I do think that ceding anything to Putin is bad and dangerous. But if Ukraine says they're not willing to fight anymore, they want peace, and they're willing to give up territory to get it, that's their choice. Should we advise them that giving into/trusting Putin is a mistake? Yes (though Zelenskyy obviously knows it already). But it's their choice, not ours. That is the difference between the modern world and the old days of imperialism: we can attempt to persuade countries into doing the things we want them to do, but we should not compel them to do things against their will.

2. First of all, putting Western troops in Ukraine (even as peacekeepers) will be seen by Putin as an escalation, not a compromise. Second of all, peacekeepers in Ukraine will do little good if Putin turns to the Baltics or somewhere else next.

 

[rodoheel]

Personally, I blanche at your comment about how it's great for America to get the Ukrainians to fight Russia at pennies on the dollar for us. They are our proxy state now? That consideration is useful when pointing out that we're not actually losing our wealth by sending weapons their way. It's not useful, at least not to me, in suggesting that continuation of the war is good foreign policy for us just because we can find someone else to do the dying.

The Ukrainians aren't dying for us, and we should never attempt to force them to die for us. They are dying for their own country and their own principles. We can't change the fact that they are next door to Russia and we aren't.

 

[superrific]

I didn't hear a single respected world leader come out and say that Ukraine should just give up their land and end the war... other than Trump.

Nor I have I said that. Of course world leaders speak out in favor of Ukraine and they should. So should we. That is, we should not capitulate. Again, there's room between "no peace until the borders are restored" and Trump's giveaways.

I think my position is more in line with Europe's, but that's not really observable to any of us so it's not worth an argument. Suffice it to say, under my preferred approach, Europe would be doing what it is doing, so that doesn't distinguish our positions.

At what point would I agree to concede, say, Alaska if the Russians were fighting us? I would do it when I recognized that it was unlikely we could take it back at any reasonable cost. I wouldn't concede that Russia has the right to the territory; I would just sign a peace treaty to acknowledge Russian control (de facto). I would not rule out a retaliatory invasion later on if Russia lost the will or ability to fight. But I wouldn't throw 50K American lives away either. I write unlikely as a general word, without any specification whether that means 1% or 30% chance of winning. I don't know what probability is right, because I've not really thought about it and I don't know enough to make judgments like that.

 

[finesse]

The Ukrainians aren't dying for us, and we should never attempt to force them to die for us. They are dying for their own country and their own principles. We can't change the fact that they are next door to Russia and we aren't.

Almost exactly this. I don't want our people to die for them or them to die for us unless it's at the behest of NATO involvement, which I hope never happens. I'm fine with providing them materiel and intelligence as long as they want to fight and willing to support them in negotiations. That said, I'm no great admirer of Ukraine or their history. This is purely pragmatic for me. We're better off supporting them and keeping sanctions on Russia.

 

[TarSpiel]

Trump 'planning to revoke legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees' - key Ukraine developments

The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians was reportedly underway before Trump publicly feuded with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week.

uk.news.yahoo.com

Trump 'planning to revoke legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees' - key Ukraine developments​

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

 

[Bobfripp]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

Trump is a sick man.

 

[Callatoroy]

First of all, there was plenty of criticism at the time that the US/international response should have been harsher. But at least the US government at the time universally condemned the action by the Russians. it did not pressure the Ukrainian government to "recognize reality" and formally cede Crimea to Russia. Like the Trump admin is doing now. Rather than using his supposed influence with Putin to pressure Putin to end the war, Trump is pressuring Ukraine to sign away its sovereign territory to Russia. Did any previous US administration do that? That is the appeasement. Trump choosing to strongarm Zelenskyy into peace on terms Ukraine does not want, instead of trying to pressure Putin, tells you all you need to know.

Second of all, what happened in Crimea in 2014 was far different than what happened in 2022. It was largely a bloodless, Russian-backed coup. There was little to no immediate fighting. Ukraine did not send its own military back in to try to take Crimea. If they had chosen to do that, I certainly hope we would have supported them politically and with military aid as we did when Russia invaded in 2022.

Criticism and condemnation means nothing. Russia invaded. The US through its actions appeased russia and russia holds that territory today. We did nothing to deter russia from invading the 2nd time. That is fact. I don't know for sure what trump is proposing but my guess is russia keeps territorial gains and no nato membership for ukraine. However, ukraine would keep 4/5ths of its territory. What if putin refuses to withdraw from ukraine and give up the territory it gained? What is the response given ukraine is running out of manpower?

Trump already knows putin wants to strike a deal. Its Zel who isn't ready for an immediate ceasefire to carry out negotiations so trump is strongarming him as you put it. Its the only way to get Zel to the table immediately.

 

[superrific]

1. I agree that there is some tension between my points, but I think it's because they serve different principles. The US's position should be "we will not allow anyone to keep territorial gains and we will back countries who are invaded, militarily if necessary, to enforce that principle." But I also think as a fundamental principle of national sovereignty that a country gets to chart its own course. I do think that ceding anything to Putin is bad and dangerous. But if Ukraine says they're not willing to fight anymore, they want peace, and they're willing to give up territory to get it, that's their choice. Should we advise them that giving into/trusting Putin is a mistake? Yes (though Zelenskyy obviously knows it already). But it's their choice, not ours. That is the difference between the modern world and the old days of imperialism: we can attempt to persuade countries into doing the things we want them to do, but we should not compel them to do things against their will.

2. First of all, putting Western troops in Ukraine (even as peacekeepers) will be seen by Putin as an escalation, not a compromise. Second of all, peacekeepers in Ukraine will do little good if Putin turns to the Baltics or somewhere else next.

I don't care if Putin sees the peacekeepers as an escalation. Is he going to continue to fight? Is his military in any shape to fight NATO, even without the US? No. He has nukes. That's all.

And if Putin is willing to use his nukes as leverage to take all of Eastern Europe -- well, that's a fucking problem, isn't it, one with no clear answer. MAD was always based on the assumption that no mad person would be at the helm. Is Putin mad? Is he ready to blow up the world (and would his enablers) to achieve his ambitions? I don't know the answer to that.

Here's a test. You tell me what we should do. Putin nukes Seattle and tells us that if we retaliate, he will send the whole arsenal. Should we send our nukes? Should we blow up the world and eliminate the species? If you were president, would you do that? Really? REALLY? We need to keep up appearances that we would, but would we? If you can't acknowledge the problem here, then I don't think you're thinking seriously. It's a problem South Korea has faced, by the way, in dealing with Kim Jong Un. By and large, they have chosen economic sanctions, not a military response.

One way of addressing the issue would be to make a response automatic. I'm in favor of a (completely realistic and thought experiment only) policy by which all nations would give up their nukes and put them under the control of a limited AI system that has only one job: if any country invades another, the AI system will nuke them. Automatically. The system can't be bluffed. I bet that would deter wars, a lot more effectively than what we have now. Obviously this isn't a serious proposal for a number of reasons, but within a set of assumptions that could in theory hold but not in practice, I think it's clearly optimal.

All right -- so automatic response would be good, but infeasible. Back to the Seattle problem. You're president, Putin nukes Seattle, and you are weighing your response. Go.

 

[Callatoroy]

You better hop off my nuts long enough to get your lazy ass to reading back through 83 pages if you want an answer.

no longer want your response. I'd get a more intelligent response from my neighbors hamster

 

[superrific]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

They cannot be deported to Ukraine under US law. It is illegal to refoul any person to their country if that country cannot guarantee their safety (I'm paraphrasing).

They might be deportable, but they can't be deported until the situation improves.

 

[altmin]

Holy crap.

I live in an area with a *huge* Ukranian population...this will almost certainly affect some of my students and their families.

Jeez...they gotta go back to a war zone? Are you effing kidding me?

The cruelty is always the point.

 

[CFordUNC]

no longer want your response. I'd get a more intelligent response from my neighbors hamster

Hey, look everyone! The very weird, very bizarre, very angry insecure little man who is psychotically obsessed with me now no longer wants my response that he was down on his knees begging for not even an hour ago! Coincidentally, it comes right after I decide to charitably humor him and regurgitate much of what I’ve already said on the preceding 83 pages of this thread.

Calla, get some help, boss man! Either psychologically, or at least get some better insults. You are boring. My two-year-old toddler somehow manages to shit talk me better than you when I tell him no to ice cream after dinner!

 

[rodoheel]

They cannot be deported to Ukraine under US law. It is illegal to refoul any person to their country if that country cannot guarantee their safety (I'm paraphrasing).

They might be deportable, but they can't be deported until the situation improves.

Trump doesn't know or care about whatever that law is. Can the courts stop him quickly enough?

 

[superrific]

Trump doesn't know or care about whatever that law is. Can the courts stop him quickly enough?

Yes

 

[Callatoroy]

Ok, I’ll play.

How do you get russia out?

(1) You keep the pressure on them with new weapons and technologies. (2) I don’t know if they’ll ever be forced out of a place like Crimea, but I 100% guarantee they won’t be if Trump ratifies Russia’s control of those areas.

Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine

Ukraine can figure that out. Russia is using freaking North Koreans. After emptying their prisons. It’s not like Russia has piles of storm troopers to keep throwing in the breach.

Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?

It’s been working all along. The question is why would it not work now?

How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?

Until Ukraine wants to quit.

Now a question for you —

Why in the hell would Putin not keep acquiring territory if Trump ratifies what he’s done to Ukraine?

And don’t give me bullshit about attacking US companies. Putin couldn’t give a rat’s ass about US companies in countries he wants to conquer. And Trump won’t do a thing about it when a bunch of American miners get hit by a Russian missile. Assuming the miners were there in the first place, which they won’t be because the whole scheme is batshit crazy.

Thank you for the response.

Sending in weapons has only worked to keep russia somewhat in a stalemate. They were able to achieve some gains. Our weapons haven't resulted in ukraine pushing russia back into its original boundaries. More weapons will slow russia down, but it won't stop them and it certainly won't allow ukraine to push russia backwards.

Ukraine wants to quit now but zel wants something he will NEVER have. He can't see it but trump does. More weapons means ukraine can hold out longer but inevitably will run out of troops and russia will end up taking what it wants. Only way to stop them is boots on the ground and I don't think pubs or dems want that.

The minerals in ukraine are spread out over a large area. The US would have mines throughout ukraine and thousands of people. The US presence would be considerable. Completely disagree that putin wouldn't hesitate to send a missle into a US mine killing hundreds of people. That is an act of war that given his beat up economy and military he can't afford to wage with the US. The pressure on trump to respond would be tremendous and he would have no recourse but to act. The initial threat isn't during trump's term if as you guys claim they are such buddies. Its after he is gone and another perceived weak president is in place. But by that time a well established US presence is in place and ukraine's rebuilding is well under way. By the US providing the technology ukraine will have money to purchase more sophisticated weapons and build a more technologically advanced military. I doubt russia wants to go another round with ukraine anytime soon given the issues it had this time. There is absolutely nothing crazy about mining ukraine's minerals as it makes us less dependent on china. That is a stated goal of the US. The longer this war goes on the less territory ukraine will have. putin has all the leverage. ukraines only hope is to align with the US on the mineral rights deal.