Everyone seems to be assuming that Putin intends to annex Ukraine in the short term. But as events have unfolded, this will likely be impossible without incurring huge costs on Russia. However that doesn't mean that Putin can't settle for lesser concessions by Ukraine, like a complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO, combined with the loss of the two small republics. That would still be a huge win for Putin without the catastrophic cost of an occupation. Ukraine "wins" by not being reduced to rubble and have half of its population displaced in the "protracted war" that every armchair geopolitician is advocating for, undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that their armchairs are not located in Ukraine. It seems that every other generation needs to learn again how hard war sucks. This is not Game of Thrones.
Ukrainians themself are passionate about not surrendering and the message has been the same from their government, too. This war of attrition cannot possibly benefit Ukraine. I hope the diplomats from both sides of the table reach a comprise, soon, at least before Kyiv turns into Baghdad.
One million Ukrainians have already fled the country. They are now in a foreign country, they know nobody and everything they own is in one backpack. If this war goes on the odds are that they will never see their home again. Does their vote on the war count too?
> complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO
These are equivalent to "annexation in a few months" and Ukraine knows it. If they accept those terms, they know they lost and are accepting annexation, but keeping face publically.
Will it be a lasting peace, though? Doesn't demilitarization mean that if another "people's republic" appears, let's say near Transnistria, Ukraine will be unable to do anything about it?
If they go for demilitarization and not joining the EU, the rest of Ukraine will just get annexed a few years later when Russia has regrouped. But perhaps that's all they can hope for.
“A complete demilitarization and a commitment not to join EU/NATO“
For the common man and woman in Ukraine this is the best scenario for a quick exit from this senseless war. Too bad politicians (and armchair geopoliticians) do not see it.
Demilitarization and not being a NATO member means that the next time Russia gets imperialistic cravings, Ukraine will be utterly helpless and defenseless, with zero bargaining power. And judging by Russia's current behavior, that's a "when", not an "if".
Not seventy years ago Russia was almost destroyed by the West, with the lost of forty million lives. For Russia the danger comes from the West and the fact that we the West think ourselves to be all enlightened doesn't change that. I don't want to justify Russia's behavior in any way, but imagine if you will, for one second, that Russia starts arming one of the sides in the Mexican Drug War with high-tech weaponry and tries to convince the Mexican government to join some Warsaw pact alliance. The USA would not tolerate this for one day. Russia has tolerated this for over a decade. Since 2004 the West has been doing whatever the fuck they want in Eastern Europe and expected Russia to just take it on the chin. Now Russia has reacted and there was much astonishment. The West have been wiping their feet on a basic tenet of geopolitics, namely that the regional superpower calls the shots within their sphere of influence. Now the results are in and guess what? The West is STILL not taking this seriously, further escalating the conflict by arming Ukraine to the teeth. President Biden laughing at the idea of nuclear war like Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons. Clown world is truly here.
> Not seventy years ago Russia was almost destroyed by the West, with the lost of forty million lives.
No Western country wants to invade Russia, and hasn't wanted to for 30 years at the least. There's nothing to gain, it would be much too costly in terms of money, resources, and human lives. Russia is much more useful as a trading partner – Germany alone, for example, imports more than 50% of its natural gas from Russia.
Ironically, Russia is doing its best to destroy this mutually beneficial partnership, in favor of building protection against a completely imaginary threat.
> Since 2004 the West has been doing whatever the fuck they want in Eastern Europe and expected Russia to just take it on the chin. Now Russia has reacted and there was much astonishment. The West have been wiping their feet on a basic tenet of geopolitics, namely that the regional superpower calls the shots within their sphere of influence.
That describes imperialist behavior down to a T. "Their sphere of influence"?! Come on. Ukraine is a sovereign country. If they want to join NATO (a purely defense alliance, by the way), then that's their business.
> It's a purely defensive alliance that, somehow, keeps expanding to the East.
It keeps expanding, because countries further east wants protection from Russia aggression too. There is nothing contra intuitive or shocking about it. Presence of large aggressor in the region makes other countries want to enter the aliance. Duh.
Russia's neighbours wanted to join NATO because they were afraid of being invaded by Russia (again) --- and Putin's invasion of Ukraine shows they were exactly right to be thus afraid.
Russia's neighbors can ask all they want, it's up to NATO to decide whether this expansion is desirable and will increase stability. It will not. NATO expanding right to Russia's border is not going to be experienced as some neutral act by Russia.
It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR. The West, insofar as that means anything, was fighting on the other side - alone for 2 years, while the USSR had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
The rest of your analogy is also weak. We haven’t armed one side in a drug war (eh?) NATO membership has not even been realistically on the table. As for the West “doing whatever they want”, can you give some examples? My impression was that eastern European countries were keen to join the EU, not that this was imposed on them. And once in, they have very much forged their own path, often to the great discomfort of Western Europeans (eg in Hungary, Poland).
> It was Nazi Germany, not “the West”, that invaded the USSR.
Ok and if you look at the last 30 years, which "side" has been to most aggressive in attacking and subjugating foreign nations? "Oh but when we do it, it's for good reasons." Then the West is genuinely surprised that other blocs like South America or the Mid East are not jumping on the great anti-Russia train by default. What is wrong with those people?
Of course we all condemn Russia's aggression. I condemn Russia's aggression. Condemning costs nothing. But those other countries are not resorting to extremely harsh economic measures against Russia, nor are they sending weapons to Ukraine.
Where do you see genuine surprise? Like, you made that up.
However, I see a lot of ingenuine surprise over, like, right-next country accepting refugees from country just across the border. The very same people who would cry hypocrisy of the refugees were not accepted (you demand surrounding countries in other conflicts to accept refugees).
I see a lot of blaming America for Russian actions, in Ukraine and of Russian actions in Syria too.
