Gurgen The question is whether you try to negotiate from strength or make concessions to the aggressor, who by the way has refused to negotiate unless most of its demands are met before sitting down. If you want real peace negotiations you must first either defeat or weaken the aggressor sufficiently.

The Ukrainians who supported this war in 2022 didn't rally to cries of improving Ukraine's margins in some future peace negotiations. But then Ukraine has not even improved those margins since 2022.

Justifying the war in terms of weakening Russia's long term position would reflect the agenda of the former Biden administration more than the democratic will of Ukrainians. It doesn't match up with reality. It is empty.

Today Ukraine is asking to sign on to pay the United States hundreds of billions in tribute over decades.

200,000–500,000 or more people are dead on both sides since 2022, depending who you ask.

Putin's position in any peace negotiations has become stronger since 2014. Putin's grip on power in Russia is also now stronger.

Ukraine will not be protected by NATO Article 5 or any similar European treaty in the foreseeable future.

Your reasoning about the state of affairs is completely discredited but it's still everyone else who's easily deceived, spineless or secretly totalitarian.

Gurgen Basically we’re seeing now what would happen if the people who wanted to “negotiate” with Hitler in 1941-42 got their way. And we will have more war, deeper in Europe, as our reward.

Take a seat and get one single thing right about this war before you start banging on about what the next one will be.

        awooga83 More on DOGE in a fun youtube video:

        Basically the pattern is, a bunch of far right morons don't know what they're looking and report their 'findings', Musk spins a bullshit yarn to suit the political agenda on twitter, the lackeys Trump has appointed to head various agencies lick his boots and do whatever their told, and then Trump spins an even bigger load of bullshit while looking like a senile pensioner (to anyone not in the maga nuthouse, I guess). Then repeat. Repeatedly.

        Meanwhile sometimes the legal system stops them from breaking the law, if it can keep up.

            Burnwinter since you’re such a political genius and I’m so stupid, can you give me one historical example where a brutal dictator was given land “for peace” and this deterred him from future aggression?

                Gurgen Putin once described the dissolution of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." He said this about 20 years ago. He has since annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine and put military pressure on Georgia and other states. Trust the man's words and actions. There is no evidence that he will rebuild the USSR in its entirety, but he certainly has a revanchist streak.

                  So you agree with me that rewarding his aggression will not deter him from further aggression?

                    Gurgen the only way to stop him is with a world war. and he is aware. so yeah

                      Gurgen

                      I'm not a genius and I'm not playing these weird head games. This isn't WWII and the Allied campaign to stop the Third Reich would never have happened if Hitler had 4,000 nukes.

                      We already know what would have reduced Putin's ambitions in Ukraine at any point, and would reduce them now. Three important points:

                      1. Concession of Crimea and the Donbas
                      2. A guarantee Ukraine never joins NATO
                      3. Strong security guarantees

                      I'm sure you would call the first two of these "appeasement". Years before this war, these were the main points on the table. And after this war, they'll still be the main points on the table.

                      The war hasn't deterred anything.

                      If a peace should be negotiated, nothing will stop Putin funding contras and sorties into the rest of Ukraine, nor Ukrainian reprisals in Russia-occupied territory. Nothing except strong security guarantees. That's it.

                          Burnwinter
                          1 he wants more then that
                          2 they were never close to joining NATO, and as you can see by what happened in Kaliningard, and with Sweden & Finland. They never really gave a shit about NATO. Then you have the puppets states that would have voted against, and Turkey who would have done the same. There was never at any point, even 1% chance of Ukraine joining NATO. Hell the last treaty signed by Ukraine itself said they abandon any desire to join NATO.
                          3 what lol

                              HomeSteak so the ring of fire around Russia's borders is imaginary, people are just being paranoid when they're concerned about ballistic missile defences at every border to a nuclear superpower? Deveselu is just a place where NATO soldiers do burpees to stay fit?

                              You don't have to like Putin to see that this ridiculous abridgment of the narrative and complete absolving of US meddling in the region can't be a serious account of what happened. It's just Russia, they want to conquer the world, they don't care how many of their soldiers die, they will go for more - Western military, spooks and arms producers have nothing to do with any of it I swear. Give me a fucking break

                                  jones feel like you’re skipping the part where ex-Warsaw Pact countries actively wanted to be a part of NATO and why even strategically neutral Finland decided to take the plunge recently. Any understanding of the situation starts from there.

                                  Previously you’ve been keen to stress that the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union as a militarised force but that judgement is still out. For most Eastern European countries, it doesn’t matter if it’s the Russian Empire, the USSR or modern day Russia, they know that their land is seen to be of “permanent strategic interest” to their much larger neighbour. The lesson learned if you’re a small to mid regional power today is that you either need to be part of a military alliance with cast iron guarantees or have your own nuclear weapon program. Otherwise your destiny is in the hands of the great powers.

                                  Frankly, you don’t have to even discuss Russia/Ukraine - it’s a normal outcome when you have a belligerent neighbour- Canada, for example, has started making noises about allying more closely with the UK and France to house nukes and they’ve only been under pressure for about 30 days. Imagine what several centuries can do to a national psyche instead.

                                  After that, yes, it’s pretty obvious that the US, while drunk on their unipolar superiority, overplayed their hands and promises by backing Russia into a corner without regard for their “permanent strategic interest” in the region.

                                      Burnwinter I'm sorry but if you think this is what Putin wants you understand nothing about Russia or the Russian mindset. Russians don't believe that any of the countries they once "owned" are actually real countries. And when they have the capabilities to act on those beliefs, they do.

                                      Also you say that the "war hasn't deterred anything". It's actually the other way around - he wasn't deterred in any of his previous invasions, that's why we have war now.

                                        jones There is a ring of fire around Russia because if you don't have a ring of fire, Russia invades you when you stop being a vassal. You are confusing cause and effect here. Eastern European countries beg(ged) to join NATO and the EU because it's the only way to prosperity and democracy. The examples are very obvious.

                                          Mirth you're skipping the part where those ex members have been guided and pressured into opposition to Russia or the USSR by the US even during the time of the Warsaw pact.

                                          I don't think you understand my point if you point to me "stressing" that Russia is not CCCP or the Zar Empire, I know well that countries living in the shadow of a hegemon like that will always face issues - there are more than enough examples of Russia doing just that and I didn't deny that once. I would strongly disagree with Finland being neutral though but that's not important.

                                          What you Gurgen or Steak all fail to grasp is how profound and comparably subtle Western influence is globally. Whether it's bombs dropping or drone strikes (reserved for brown and black people), extortionate backdoor diplomacy, funding of opposition be they moderate free market oriented reformers or jihadi rebels, organisational support and schooling of said opposition through the School of the Americas or the NED, covert activity from any of the letter agencies etc - you can't overstate how it's totally impossible for anything resembling normal governance in the countries affected to be achieved. That goes for both Russia and it's small neighbours.

                                          You say Russia is always going to be this monstrous entity out to consume everything but the reality is its economy been in shambles for most of this century, its military as we see in Ukraine isn't worth half of its poor rep and unlike the countries of interest to the actual remaining superpower there are deep cultural ties with most of the countries it considers in its sphere of interest.

                                          Doesn't mean that Putin isn't an ice cold calculating ruthless politician but he's precisely exactly that - not a lunatic that's invading anything in reach. Understanding the situation would be better served with less focus on the alleged insanity of his and more with what you euphemistically called "overplaying their hands" of a country whose GDP is 15x larger and whose involvement in political affairs in literally every country on earth is well documented.

                                              Every country in the entire history of the world has tried to exercise influence on other countries. This isn't anything new or necessary nefarious or a Western invention. The Western actions you describe are often also quite incompetent and not always profound. Steve Coll's work is very illustrative in that regard. More importantly, Western influence has been overwhelmingly positive for Central and Eastern Europe, while Russian influence has been overwhelmingly bad. There is no point in equating the two, as anyone who lived in both systems can tell you.

                                              Russia, within its current borders, already is a monstrous entity that has consumed everything. Russia is the last 19th-century empire left on the planet. The ethnic group that rules this enormous land mass comes from a tiny sliver of that land mass.

                                              Putin is not a lunatic in the sense that he exemplifies what many Russians believe to be true - that they own the world around them. But I don't know how anyone who has watched his speeches in the last few years can claim that he is a rational actor.

                                              jones What you Gurgen or Steak all fail to grasp is how profound and comparably subtle Western influence is globally. Whether it's bombs dropping or drone strikes (reserved for brown and black people), extortionate backdoor diplomacy, funding of opposition be they moderate free market oriented reformers or jihadi rebels, organisational support and schooling of said opposition through the School of the Americas or the NED, covert activity from any of the letter agencies etc - you can't overstate how it's totally impossible for anything resembling normal governance in the countries affected to be achieved. That goes for both Russia and it's small neighbours.

                                              How do you square this with the fact that Eastern Europe are the most vociferous proponents of NATO and the likes of Poland/Baltic states have generally been pressuring Western Europe to step up since 2014? It’s worth pausing for thought that countries that supposedly share “deep cultural ties” and were behind an iron curtain for the most part of the previously century have come to this conclusion. They’re not being led, they’re leading from the front.

                                              You don’t have to tell me that the US led Western order has decimated entire regions to further their objectives but there’s been regions (definitely a smaller list by my count) where those interventions have been brought through by the wishes of the people living there because it gives themselves leverage against regional rivals - this is true of Eastern Europe, for example.

                                              I agree that Russia is weaker than the scare stories make them out to be and certainly hysteria to justify further escalations needs to be neatly separated from the facts. However, in isolation - Russia would have no issues in a 1 v 1 battle against Ukraine or most of Eastern Europe which is what drove most of those countries into NATO in the 90s/early 00s. Also, there’s plenty of historical precedent which even Putin has cited as to why those buffer states should remain in the Russian sphere of influence.

                                              I haven’t called Putin insane/lunatic - he wants to maintain his control of his region. The NATO ex-Warsaw Pact countries don’t want this and will probably repel Russia for the foreseeable future justifying their decision. Ukraine were caught in two minds and will likely be split in two as a result.

                                                  Well said @Mirth

                                                  I would add that while Ukraine was caught in two minds, Russia’s interest in it, and need, is much greater than most of the other surrounding nations.

                                                  Russia views Ukraine with great interest more so due to geographic value than due to NATO. I think NATO expansion has been a great excuse for Russia, when really the main issue at hand is the warm weather port, Moldovan/Ukranian flats (bread basket and attack vector), and oil pipeline routes.

                                                  It’s easier for Russia to hide behind an offensive attack due to concerns around NATO than it is for them to justify a land grab, even if there’s similar demographics in the region.

                                                  There is not a single Russian demand about Ukraine from 2014 that will not be the same or more now in 2025. So what has the war deterred?

                                                  The war has led to Putin's domestic popularity soaring.

                                                  There's 80 years of NATO tradition of having zero appetite for a direct confrontation with Russia. It's just not happening and I hope we all agree it must not happen.

                                                  To back the way things have played out for western strategy in Ukraine we have to agree there was absolutely no way to dodge Putin's invasion.

                                                  Do people really believe that? This invasion was locked in and certain in 2013? 2015? I never have.

                                                  Mirth How do you square this with the fact that Eastern Europe are the most vociferous proponents of NATO and the likes of Poland/Baltic states have generally been pressuring Western Europe to step up since 2014?

                                                  If we're doing a "Putin is Hitler" analogy, then Soviet conduct during the Warsaw uprising against the Nazis would be the equally slippery analogy for what NATO has been doing to Ukraine here. "You guys fight them, we'll be right over the river backing you up".

                                                  You talk to Polish people today, that treachery is why they have a sustained hate for Russia. The Katyn massacre and not just the food shortages, repression and propaganda, and confiscated passports up to the late 1980s.

                                                  This is the kind of conduct Ukraine is experiencing from Trump's United States now. Ukraine is about to go back to negotiation on 2014 lines, but this time with a weaker position and a huge minerals mortgage from Trump.