Would the Russian troops, had to leave Ukrainian borders, that were internationally recognized before 2014 ?
Russia & Ukraine
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Let's see Putin's position on this which he has regularly stated...
Putin ‘will never give up the land’ his soldiers seized in Ukraine
https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/01/krem...ever-give-up-seized-land-in-ukraine-18364602/
I don't know. Let the dialogue start and see where it goes. If option A is perceived better than option B by the parties, an agreement may be reached.
I am reminded of the Britney Griner prisoner exchange. Biden was willing to be "out negotiated" for political points with his base at the expense of geopolitical security. Perhaps if Biden framed the negotiation as an long term economic decision for Russia where Western tourism would be delayed for an extended period after the war if Brittany continued to be detained, Biden could have received a better deal. Tourism has a high economic multiplier effect. If Putin realized holding Britney would cost tens of billions of Rubles per year for the Russian economy, perhaps he would choose the more productive option, for example.
I am reminded of the Britney Griner prisoner exchange. Biden was willing to be "out negotiated" for political points with his base at the expense of geopolitical security. Perhaps if Biden framed the negotiation as an long term economic decision for Russia where Western tourism would be delayed for an extended period after the war if Brittany continued to be detained, Biden could have received a better deal. Tourism has a high economic multiplier effect. If Putin realized holding Britney would cost tens of billions of Rubles per year for the Russian economy, perhaps he would choose the more productive option, for example.
Last edited:
Imagine Ukraine uses new tanks to make a massive blitzkrieg into least defended Russian or Belarusian territory.
Taking away Russian attention from Crimea and then another priority attack inside UA, while leaving the Russian land as quick as they came.
Although orc intelligence would make it obvious (i guess) of a massive western tank concentration near a weak border region, tho, maybe their dellusional thinking and confidence, would neglect such a possibility and no defensive action would be taken.
That's the thing. There is no need for dialogue. Russians knows what Ukraine wants. They want their lands back and it once it is done the ceasefire could be announced.
Last edited:
At what point do we decide to take a stop loss on the war? 100,000 dead? 1,000,000 dead? 10,000,000 dead? Would the negotiation sticking points be any different regardless of the cost when negotiations finally begin in earnest? In other words, can we avoid wasting mores lives that ultimately will not change the negotiating position of the parties?
If the US objective is to destroy Russia, the US will lose moral authority and eventually the support of her allies over time. Besides, it seems delusional to expect Russia to stand idly by if an existential threat is perceived. Further, Russia may be willing to go all in to court CHina's participation, maybe even at risk of her long term sovereignty rather than fall to the West. China may be receptive as they will probably feel more vulnerable in a post Russia world.
Believing in a post Russia world is, of course, a fantasy by old cronies whose fortunes lay with defense contractors.
US exceptionalism is coming to an end. The world is moving towards major nations and their economic blocs as peers. Just like the CIA forecast decades ago.
So instead of US leaders perpetuating a fantasy by being part of the problem, the US should move on and try to be part of the solution. If the US is really attempting to "milk" the war to increase geopolitical influence, the blood of Ukrainians, Russians, and any other nationality is on their hands, not just Putin's.
Peace is progress. War is the opposite.
If the US objective is to destroy Russia, the US will lose moral authority and eventually the support of her allies over time. Besides, it seems delusional to expect Russia to stand idly by if an existential threat is perceived. Further, Russia may be willing to go all in to court CHina's participation, maybe even at risk of her long term sovereignty rather than fall to the West. China may be receptive as they will probably feel more vulnerable in a post Russia world.
Believing in a post Russia world is, of course, a fantasy by old cronies whose fortunes lay with defense contractors.
US exceptionalism is coming to an end. The world is moving towards major nations and their economic blocs as peers. Just like the CIA forecast decades ago.
So instead of US leaders perpetuating a fantasy by being part of the problem, the US should move on and try to be part of the solution. If the US is really attempting to "milk" the war to increase geopolitical influence, the blood of Ukrainians, Russians, and any other nationality is on their hands, not just Putin's.
Peace is progress. War is the opposite.
Someone should remind this to Russians, the next time they decide to invade another country and start a genocide.
the "dialogue" has long been established by Zelensky. "Leave Ukrainian land, then we'll talk"
The US just lost the SW to Mexico, how many dead before dialogue where Mexico gets to keep the land?
Do you believe there is a practical way of ensuring justice will be served? Is there a way of convincing Russia's leaders of turning themselves in for punishment? That would seem a bit naive. Remember, no laws between nations. Even if there were a way of ultimately achieving justice, of what value would it be if there are hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths if a live let live philosophy was employed?
Putin may privately regret invading Ukraine at this point, but how to exit without overwhelming costs? The excessive burden placed on Germany in WWI lead to WWII, right? Negotiations will be tough, but how about the alternative? Ultimately, to beat a point to death, the participants will need to go to the peace table eventually, anyway.
As far as the idea of Putin remaining a future threat even if peace is achieved in the short term, it is a potent one deserving an answer. Earnest peace talks may give clarity on that point. Understand if the conclusion is Putin will remain a long term threat, the logical course of action would be to escalate in every way possible and commit to taking the initiative, including invasion of Russia and destruction of her military and economic targets. What do you think happens then? What happens to the support of Western political leaders by voters when the war hits their home countries?
It seems neither the hardest or softest options are optimal. An earnest effort as discussing the issues at the peace table will hopefully lay the foundation for la sustainable long term agreement.