Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

Here's an alternative peace plan:  Russia withdraws from Ukraine, agrees to pay full reparations for the damage caused by their illegal aggression, and in return the other countries of the world end sanctions on Russia and Ukraine agrees to stop destroying Russian infrastructure.

[Josquius]

The idea that the only endings to this are "complete defeat of Ukraine", "complete defeat of Russia", or conceding things to Russia, which is the core of your premise, is false.

Ukraine completely surrenders, Russia completely surrenders, or there's an agreement.
I fail to see what other possibility could possibly exist even in theory. The 3rd one is broad enough to cover practically every eventuality under the sun.

Further, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide if they want to concede things to Russia.

Yes

You are also presenting the false premise that both the rest of us here and the West broadly aren't aware of some of the negatives of the war continuing, which is stupid and wrong. You are also presenting the false premise that we think we have to hold out until Russia collapses, which also literally no one in this thread has expressed that idea nor have I seen any serious Western policymaker express that idea.

[/quote]
That really is what many are suggesting here.

What we are against is your stupid suggestion that we advocate and support--which is the same thing as pressure, Ukraine, in public, to make concessions to Russia.

Stop lying.

All that does is weaken Ukraine's position, and is an inherently Putinist stance.

LOL!

[Grey Fox]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

[Josquius]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

[DGuller]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

How do you think you're doing with that?

[Josquius]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

How do you think you're doing with that?

Its enlightening and depressing to see how little many people actually care about Ukraine and how deeply rooted the nationalist world view is.

[Sheilbh]

Its enlightening and depressing to see how little many people actually care about Ukraine and how deeply rooted the nationalist world view is.

This is a war of national liberation though - the big reason Ukrainians are fighting so hard is because they want to exist as a nation. Ukraine is asserting its right to exist within its internationally recognised borders and determine its own future.

[Grey Fox]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

Here? No. Here, you are playing right into the Russian fascist hand that anything oppose to and by Americans is the right stance. It's not.

Also, Berk, Otto & Yi are definitely not lefty people. They hold no tankie positions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ukraine completely surrenders, Russia completely surrenders, or there's an agreement.

Note that you're actually not responding accurately to what I said. I said this:

The idea that the only endings to this are "complete defeat of Ukraine", "complete defeat of Russia", or conceding things to Russia, which is the core of your premise, is false.

You are not arguing that the third option is "an agreement", the position you are taking is that the third option is concessions made to Russia. This ignores an important possible outcome: Russia simply withdraws and ends the war. No concessions made. As was mentioned upthread, North Vietnam made no concessions to us, in any meaningful strategic sense, to end our involvement in the Vietnam War. In fact the war continued after our involvement ended with the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam. The Taliban made no meaningful concessions to us in our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was essentially unilateral.

You aren't arguing that the three possibilities are complete victory for Ukraine, complete defeat, or "an agreement", you're presenting the third option as "concessions to Russia", not as "an agreement." This ignores that Russia can simply agree it gets nothing and leaves. It also ignores other more complex possibilities--for example the Korean War did not really end with much of an agreement at all. Active large-scale hostilities largely ceased around 1953, the war is considered to have "ended" in November of 1954. However, the way in which it is interesting is worth looking at. The UN Command and the DPRK and China came to an agreement to sign an armistice. This armistice was signed between those parties. The President of South Korea refused to sign the armistice, and in fact this meant that not only was there no peace treaty between North and South, there was never actually even an armistice or ceasefire, there is an armistice between North Korea and the United States and UN Command, not between North Korea and South Korea. Despite this, there has largely not been "hot" fighting in the war since 1954.

While this is a long period for such a condition to be maintained, it is not without precedent. We can find a comparison in early American history, much of the fighting of the Revolutionary War ended in 1781, but no peace was agreed to until late in 1783. What largely happened between that interim was fighting essentially died off. Why is that? Because there was one party--the British, who were committed to waging offensive campaigns to try and subdue the rebellion, after Yorktown they decided they were no longer willing to wage offensives, and the Americans felt no reason to throw men into the meat grinder because the British not going after them was massively to their benefit--it let them rearm, refortify, and build more internal support and power for the new Confederation government without ongoing risk of British conquest.

You would largely see very similar happen if Russia ceased military operations, withdrew to its pre-Febraury 2022 lines, and did nothing else. Ukraine would not in any likelihood attempt to wage an offensive into Crimea or the pre-February 2022 borders if Russia stopped fighting. Such a situation could then freeze at that point with no agreement ever being reached.

The endings of wars don't always match EU4 outcomes where you have to have a formal peace agreement.

[HVC]

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

How do you think you're doing with that?

He's going through a Classic " there are none so blind as those who will not see" moment.

[Josquius]

Note that you're actually not responding accurately to what I said. I said this: You are not arguing that the third option is "an agreement", the position you are taking is that the third option is concessions made to Russia.

I responded entirely accurately.
The problem is you don't seem to be able to read what I've actually wrote.
One side is completely defeated and surrendered or there is a negotiated agreement. A negotiated agreement will ALWAYS involve some 'concessions' to one side.

This ignores an important possible outcome: Russia simply withdraws and ends the war.

And wouldn't that be lovely.
Do you think thats at all likely?
What do you think happens next? Ukraine and Russia just...pretend the war never happened?
What about all the stuff Russia stole from Ukraine? Kidnapped Ukrainian kids?

No concessions made. As was mentioned upthread, North Vietnam made no concessions to us, in any meaningful strategic sense,

I see what you did there.
Note the 'concessions' I am suggesting are offered to Russia amount to the same.

to end our involvement in the Vietnam War. In fact the war continued after our involvement ended with the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam. The Taliban made no meaningful concessions to us in our withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was essentially unilateral.

I can tell you thats untrue without even doing any research to refresh my memory. I explicitly remember there was an agreement in place, that the Taliban kept, not to harass the Americans as they withdrew.

You aren't arguing that the three possibilities are complete victory for Ukraine, complete defeat, or "an agreement", you're presenting the third option as "concessions to Russia", not as "an agreement."

Nope.
Interesting that I keep saying this yet others seemingly know what I think better than I do.
As said, fascinating that people can't seem to see any discussion on the topic as anything but pro Ukraine vs. pro Russia.

This ignores that Russia can simply agree it gets nothing and leaves. It also ignores other more complex possibilities--for example the Korean War did not really end with much of an agreement at all. Active large-scale hostilities largely ceased around 1953, the war is considered to have "ended" in November of 1954. However, the way in which it is interesting is worth looking at. The UN Command and the DPRK and China came to an agreement to sign an armistice.  [This armistice was signed between those parties. The President of South Korea refused to sign the armistice, and in fact this meant that not only was there no peace treaty between North and South, there was never actually even an armistice or ceasefire, there is an armistice between North Korea and the United States and UN Command, not between North Korea and South Korea. Despite this, there has largely not been "hot" fighting in the war since 1954.

Thats not really an 'end' though is it?
And not a situation we should be aiming to mimic anywhere let alone with such a large border and a nuclear armed lunatic to deal with.

Jos, stop being a tankie.

Have you lost your mind?
I'm arguing against tankiesque views here.

Here? No. Here, you are playing right into the Russian fascist hand that anything oppose to and by Americans is the right stance. It's not.

Wut?
Where have I said anything remotely close to this?

Also, Berk, Otto & Yi are definitely not lefty people. They hold no tankie positions.

I said tankiesque.
Basically the same thing as America is bad and anything that hurts America is good and trumps all other considerations, except swap out America for Russia.
The war is good because it hurts Russia and prolonging it should be the priority to hurt Russia more. Saving Ukrainian lives isn't even an after thought.

Its enlightening and depressing to see how little many people actually care about Ukraine and how deeply rooted the nationalist world view is.

This is a war of national liberation though - the big reason Ukrainians are fighting so hard is because they want to exist as a nation. Ukraine is asserting its right to exist within its internationally recognised borders and determine its own future.

A way it is being framed in Ukraine certainly and it is certainly helpful for getting people on side. We've seen similar time and again in wars involving other countries in the past.
But I don't see this as the fundamental issue here. Its a necessary evil at best. I inherently don't give a crap about the legal entity named Ukraine (or any other government), what I care about is the Ukrainian people and their right to control their own destiny and not be the victim of a vile fascist dictator.
That this manifests in wanting to be united as a country named Ukraine is their choice. This is what gives the country legitimacy. Democratic nations should only have the rights that their people grant them- self determination is the key.

[Zoupa]

I think the folks saying "we're not selling out Ukrainians!!!!" should ask Ukrainians what they think of their super smart proposals.

Let us know how that goes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Josq you're just wrong about history bud, nothing more to say on it. There have been many wars--including some involving Russia, where an aggressor just gives up and leaves without any concessions by the victim. Since you appear to be suggesting that is a historical and logical impossibility, and that is in contravention to plain reality, I don't see much point in continuing to engage with you. I don't know why you seem to want to reward Putin and help him prepare for the next invasion of Ukraine, but that is on you.

[crazy canuck]

Josq, I think you need to take a step back a bit and read a bit more carefully what others are saying and, perhaps more importantly, consider the unstated assumptions upon which your thesis rests.  You may find that the circumstances in which a fair referendum you propose do not actually exist.

It would be great if those circumstances did exist. But if they did, there would probably be no war in Ukraine.

[PDH]

The narrative, framed by Russia and passed on, is that Russia cannot admit defeat, will not admit defeat, and will fight on until they "win" or at worst destroy everything.

This is, as many things Russians say, a lie.  Others have pointed out that Russia has not fought to win every time (especially when involved in wars that were not invasions of the motherland), Russia has given up, the Russian military has voted with their feet, etc.

To return to the basic points:
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia is losing tactically (often times), operationally, and strategically. 
Russia is isolated from countries that supported it economically through prior energy sales.
Russia had to rush 100k conscripts with no training to the front lines just to avoid collapse.

The two players are Russia and Ukraine, it seems very 1938 for the West (no matter how they are supporting Ukraine) to demand they give up territory they do not concede. Ukraine is a player in this, the main anti-Russian player, and they should be the only one with a final decision.

Ukraine seems at this point to be ready fight against the Russian evil.