Is that not a massive oversimplification? And is it bad/wrong that a country's leadership can be persuaded by its allies?
If they were to enter peace talks based on the premise of ceding territory, would that not strengthen Russia; sending the message that this sort of robbery works and is rewarded? And would that not pose a danger to other neighbours of Russia?
I can see why it's in both Ukraine's interest, and its allies, for it to not cede territory.
Having said all of this: I am not a military strategist or diplomat, and I don't really know what I'm talking about.
> “We have to fight, but fight for life. You can’t fight for dust when there is nothing and no people. That’s why it is important to stop this war,” Zelenskyy said.
> [..]
> Zelenskyy said he is confident Ukrainians would accept peace despite the horrors they have witnessed in the more than six-week-long war.
> [..]
> U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson also made an unannounced visit to meet Zelenskyy, with his office saying they discussed Britain’s “long-term support.”
> Johnson’s visit came a day after the U.K. pledged an additional 100 million pounds ($130 million) in high-grade military equipment to Ukraine.
On top of that, Ukraine joining NATO guarantees Russia not backing down. It's at least part of the reason Ukraine wasn't a member in the first place: Russia doesn't want NATO advancing to their border. Ukraine joining NATO is the opposite of that.
> And is it bad/wrong that a country's leadership can be persuaded by its allies?
Ask Ukrainian men who are forbidden to leave the country and risk getting drafted every day.
It's only their health, their limbs and their very lives that would be sacrificed so that Ukraine's "allies" can get a better footing in their next confrontations with Russia.
> It'll be the health, limbs and lives of future Ukrainians and other Europeans too, if invaders are appeased.
What exactly are you imaging?
IMO, given the current direction, the chances of a much more massive conflict in 10-20 years are only increasing, all while currently there is realistically NO actual threat to Europeans.
> I think this mindset betrays a lack of understand at how power-hungry bullies work. They aren't reasonable. It's not a case of "negotiate with them THIS time, and all will be fine" (as if they have a single, specific grievance).
I think we really shouldn't anthropomorphise geopolitical processes as it substitutes the actual nature of what is going on and what is at stake. It's not some bruises, bloody nose and a bit of pride. This is serious. This people securing their futures and livelihoods.
And yes, there should always be a negotiation when it comes to fates of so many people getting crushed between leviathans. This whole blood bath could have been avoided with proper negotiations, but instead people of Ukraine and Russia were pushed into a conflict they both hardly need. Remember how Minsk agreements were a thing? Good times.
> Choosing to defer pain now invites much, much more later.
This is a horrifyingly cozy outlook on condemning someone else to die. What is even a definition of win here? Currently all participants of the conflict: Ukraine, Russia, Europe/GB/US seem to be enchanted with ritualistic slaughter, afraid to take a wider look and realise what they've done.
If they were to enter peace talks based on the premise of ceding territory, would that not strengthen Russia; sending the message that this sort of robbery works and is rewarded? And would that not pose a danger to other neighbours of Russia?
I can see why it's in both Ukraine's interest, and its allies, for it to not cede territory.
Having said all of this: I am not a military strategist or diplomat, and I don't really know what I'm talking about.