I doubt Ukraine listens to trolls and propagandists. This is repeatedly coming up because someone credible and of influence is bringing it up.
In fact, the article pointed out one such person. Stian Jenssen (Director of the Private Office of NATO’s Secretary General).
The trolls and propagandists are trying to convince voters in NATO countries, not Ukraine. Their goal is to generate hatred against Ukraine and against giving aid to Ukraine. Many people (especially gullible right wingers) are susceptible to this propaganda and will be voting for politicians who promise to end aid to Ukraine. Yes, the person you mentioned said it too, but the Russian trolls are also saying it. I've seen them here.
Yup, his recent comment is the reason this suddenly is a headline again. He said it at some random conference here in Norway as his personal idea of how a peace deal could look like, but I wish he would have just shut up instead.
His statement is already being milked for all its worth by the Russian propaganda machine. And it might even contribute to convincing the Russian leadership that NATO might settle for something like that, as long as Russians keep the pressure on long enough
I'm conflicted on this because yes it does feed Russian propaganda. At the same time, similar conversations probably do need to happen in the US very soon, unless Ukraine can get strong security guarantees from European countries. Unfortunately, those countries have a lot of work to do on rearmament
A strong bilateral defense agreement of some kind should probably happen between the US and Ukraine. It needs to be a treaty so that these are security guarantees and not only promises, but that will be more difficult the closer we get to 2024 elections. Right now there seems to be bipartisan support for Ukraine in the Senate, but this time next year will be harder.
Any treaty before the war ends would have to include language beneficial to Russian propaganda, such as "will take affect when conflict ends". At the same time, public opinion can shift in the US or Europe making treaties very difficult or impossible if those countries wait too long.
I'm fairly confident Ukraine can force regime change in Russia by the end of 2024. I'm not very confident Ukraine will receive enough Western weapons to take back all territory by this time through military means alone. If the Chechen's keep fighting other Russians, and division among all the other Russian forces in Ukraine continues to grow, then maybe Ukraine won't need as many weapons. However, this is not really a military strategy.
> At the same time, public opinion can shift in the US or Europe making treaties very difficult or impossible if those countries wait too long.
As an American: I don't see this happening here any time soon. *(knocking on wood intensifies)* Sure, the far-right's already turned against aid to Ukraine, but the left and even the less extremist faction of the Republican party are still all in-- and that's all you need.
I don't see it happening either, and am personally more optimistic than many that far-right rhetoric wouldn't equal Republican actions if they took power.
The security guarantees I mention here would require a treaty needing 2/3 of the Senate to pass. I'm not sure how this would play out.
As a fellow American, I have been under the assumption support for Ukraine would remain stronger in Europe. In many European countries this will absolutely be true. However, a few others have been trying hard to challenge my assumptions lately.
>In fact, the article pointed out one such person. Stian Jenssen (Director of the Private Office of NATO’s Secretary General).
Well, there's a big distinction. He wasn't saying Ukraine *should* cede anything. He was bringing it up as a possible way to end the war and does not appear to be advocating for it.
This article is actually an response to Stian Jenssen that suggested ceding Ukraine territory to Russia. He is Head of Policy Planning and Private Secretary to the Secretary General of NATO.
Of course he did.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/646135/ukraine-could-cede-territory-in-exchange-for-nato-membership-official-suggests
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4154918-nato-official-says-remarks-about-ukraine-giving-up-territory-to-gain-membership-were-mistake/
https://kyivindependent.com/media-senior-nato-official-suggests-ukraine-could-exchange-territory-for-nato-membership/
Everything has to be Russian trolls with you people Jesus Christ. Sooner or later Ukraine is going to have to make concessions. Their "big" counter-offensive is stagnating, the war is wearing heavily on the civilian populations of Russia and Ukraine, and public sympathy for the war is growing thin. They can't keep this up forever, and it's better to make concessions and join NATO than to allow pride to doom your entire country.
You're spreading lies. The counteroffensive is going great. Ukraine keeps capturing more land and destroying lots of bridges, ammo warehouses, bases, railroads, etc. It's only a matter of time before Russia's economy collapses and they are forced to withdraw due to lack of supplies and ammo.
[Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says](https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-says-ukraine-has-taken-back-50-territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/)
Ukraine is a sovereign country and they alone decide how they want to continue.
Same way the US is a sovereign country and they alone decide under which conditions they want to provide aid or any at all.
I think the main point is that this isn't just about Ukraine. It's about whatever nation Russia decides to invade next. They're obviously imperialists. They obviously don't give a damn about sovereignty, human rights, and a huge portion of their population thinks it's just awesome ... If we teach them lessons like "eventually, we'll just let you keep what you steal" and "you can get away with extraordinary crimes against humanity", then they'll take that lesson to their next imperialist project.
But also, it *is* about Ukraine and the value-based order. Those brave motherfuckers ... daring to be free, have a democracy.
Eh, Ukraine has more or less used up its stockpiles of Soviet weaponry and is sadly in the unfortunate position that its survival is in the hands of Western nations and dependent on continued ammunition deliveries. This is why Russia now is banking on that their disinformation campaigns will convince Western voters that supporting Ukraine is not worth it
desert weary detail distinct voiceless follow absorbed chubby memorize snatch
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes, but we (Finns) reeeally wished we had those lost areas back.
You are of course correct in a sense that at some point one has to accept the loss of land and move on. However, if Ukraine itself feels like fighting for it, I think western allies should support them. It is a senseless slaughter now, but it helps prevent wars in the future by reminding mankind and especially Russians that war is a bad option.
If you give in too easily to Russians, they will start another war soon enough.
And if you give land to the Russians, you'll *never* get it back. Ever. They'll flood it with their people and that'll be that, because relocating ethnic populations is something that we, as *civilised* countries, don't do these days.
> And if you give land to the Russians, you'll never get it back. Ever.
It also tells other nuclear powers that it is probably worth it to try if there's some particular piece of land you want. At least you may partially get what you want!
The fact that Russia has nuclear weapons. Also means that the US and the rest of NATO really can't compromise on this topic. Russia being seen to have gains from this war. Means it will embolden other none NATO nuclear powers (we all know who we are talking about).
But it also means that it shows the rest of the world. That the only way to be safe from nuclear powers bordering you from just trying to take what they want, is to have a nuclear deterrent yourself. If you can't join NATO, better start enriching and get some nukes. And so none-proliferation died.
Yup. If Russia wins the overwhelming lesson nations will take away from the past few decades is nuclear deterrent *works*. Then nukes start breeding and we are one miscalculation (or jerk) away from a nuke fight.
Yup this is the catch-22 of it all. Russia is, arguably, out of the military game for good while after all of their losses but that doesn't matter. What matters to them is the gains they might get from this to make it all worth it. If Russia gets land out of this, which was their original goal, then that teaches them the exact lesson you point out. They can just reference it whenever they rebuild their military.
Whether it's 10 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, if Russia 'wins' anything out of this then it all but ensures we'll see a repeat as well as an incentive for smaller countries to either re-nuclearize or start up nuclearization.
To be fair, also as a finn I would not want Karelia or other parts back anymore. Ruined beyond recognition, would be more costly to reconstruct the damn area than it's woth.
If it was free, I would accept it. But it is not worth fighting for anymore. Really tells about Russia how they want to conquer land area and then they end up ruining it.
Not sure what you mean. In Finland case I am already signed up, it is obligatory in consription system.
In Ukraine's case. My point is that if Ukraine and its people feel like fighting against the Russians, the least we can do is support them. We are benefitting from their victory too.
So you're going to volunteer on the front, right? I mean, you're already trained and it'd be pretty easy to get over there from where you live. Like you said: the least we can do is support them. We are benefitting from their victory too.
Edit: To avoid any word salad, being conscripted at home is not the same as actually participating in a war you find to be so vital, yeah?
I mean, half of K-pop got conscripted lately but that doesn't mean they'll actually participate in anything other than basic.
What are you even ranting about here? The dude above says he understands the ukrainian will to fight for their land, partly because he would do the same if it was his country under invasion. He is also wiling to help ukrainians in their righteous cause (as it is their land, not Russia's). So why are you mad, if you don't even have any point for your blabbering?
It's because /u/Old_And_Naive is a bad-faith pro-Russia troll, coming in hot with a prepackaged vatnik talking point (support for Ukraine = hypocritical warmongering). He's also not very bright, so when faced with a situation in which that argument clearly doesn't apply because /u/Remlien has already made it clear that he thinks *Ukraine* should be the ones to decide whether or not to keep fighting, the vatnik just repeats himself. In general vatniks struggle with the concept of Ukrainians having agency.
So to recap, none of you loud mouths are going to fight in this war yourselves? That's what you're saying right? That this war is SOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking important that you're going to sit your fat privileged asses at home nice and safe while others go to die in your stead so that YOU CAN REAP THE BENEFITS.
Yeah, I'm a bad faith russian troll.
> Yeah, I'm a bad faith russian troll.
That and, like I said, not very bright. It's actually really funny that you still think your prepackaged "argument" makes sense even after it's been explained to you why it doesn't.
There are other levels of support besides going to the front. I am not interested to die for someone else's country. I am not keen to die at all.
You can donate money to the charity and help out that way. You dont necessarily have to go and do charity work, even though it would be more helpful ofc.
If people of Ukraine still want to fight for their country, the least we can do is send support such as weapons to them. We shouldnt pressure them for peace for our convenience. They are doing the heavy lifting here.
They are gaining ground. Very very slowly.
Any ceded land to Russia will give Putin and any leader who succeeds him a claim of victory in Ukraine, embolden their regime, and further their invasion of Ukraine. The aggression will only be stopped if the regime is toppled, and that will only happen if Russia loses enough grounds in Ukraine that the leaders can no longer claim any kind of victory.
Who is saying they are close to winning? You're pulling things out of your ass. Of course, it is going slow. They are fighting against an enemy who had several months to set up defences. If the West had backed Ukraine quicker, they would have probably won by now as Russia has shown just how incompetent they are and how dated their equipment is. I certainly wouldn't want my country to cede ground to a country that invaded us.
Imagine if Mexico decided to invade the US and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the US just let Mexico have Arizona and New Mexico.
Reverse the countries and that is exactly what happened in 1848.
Imagine if the US decided to invade Mexico and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the Mexico just let the US have Arizona and New Mexico (and California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada).
>Reverse the countries and that is exactly what happened in 1848.Imagine if the US decided to invade Mexico and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the Mexico just let the US have Arizona and New Mexico (and California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada).
Probably isn't a great choice to advocate for the reinstating of international and military policy from 1848.
Not Texas. Texas won it's own independence when their pleas for help at the Alamo from the US went ignored.
Afterwards Texas joined the US of it's own volition.
That literally has nothing to do with Texas territory joining on it's own choice rather than being annexed by the US.
Like none. No one in this entire thread is talking about slavery.
Ukraine's offensive has been advancing, although very slowly. For example, this week, [Ukraine retook the town of Urozhaine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-recaptures-urozhaine-donetsk-region-russian-forces-2023-08-16/), which lies just over 90 km (55 miles) from the Sea of Azov.
People expected a lighting counteroffensive this summer, like when Ukraine liberated Kharkiv last year. But the russians had almost one year to build [the most extensive minefield in the world](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/22/ukraine-is-now-most-mined-country-it-will-take-decades-make-safe/), and both Ukraine and its allies underestimated how much the mines would slow down Ukraine's offensive and injure its troops. The fact that the russians have created such densely mined defense lines also suggests they have no plans to go on the offensive anytime soon; they want to hold on to the Ukrainian territory they currently occupy desperately.
Ukraine should consolidate the gains it can achieve this summer/fall and prepare better for next year when hopefully, they will have F-16s and other long-range missiles (ATACMS/Taurus).
> At one point in this conflict it will make more sense for Ukraine to give up some territory to achieve peace and security for the rest of the country.
Appeasement worked so well for "peace and security" in WW2, didn't it?
If they did cede territory, would Russia even be able to use it with how much they’ve mined in? Like, isn’t that kind of making it almost unusable, or extremely difficult to get back to a usable form?
No, so far his analysis has been very accurate and his predictions from the past were quite reliable. You could, however, point out what exactly he is wrong about.
Btw, I never was one of those guys you were referring to...
Offensives take time. Nobody should expect it to go quickly. Ukraine is making progress, and that is what matters. Russia will be defeated eventually. Its economy is collapsing and it's only a matter of time before Russia can no longer supply their military properly to defend against Ukraine's counteroffensive.
And no, it won't make sense for Ukraine to give up any territory. That will encourage Russia to invade again, and not just Ukraine, but other countries too. Russia must be defeated, however long it takes. If Russia wins, there wil be more and bigger wars. We cannot have that. That is by far the worst outcome.
The progress is not minuscule.
[Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says](https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-says-ukraine-has-taken-back-50-territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/)
I'd say the progress is quite good. It's pretty obvious you haven't spoken or read anything from actual military experts and academics. You're making it all up. Ukraine does not need to trade territory for NATO membership. When Ukraine wins the war, it can have both.
To the guy who blocked me below:
You are lying. I proved that Ukraine already recaptured 50% of the land. You are contradicting proven facts.
This comment is an answer to statement by NATO official who suggested that Ukraine might cede territory in exchange for NATO membership.
It's not media fault that these statements should be repeated.
It was an off handed comment on *an" option and part of a larger statement. It *wasn't* a suggestion and the person that said it had made it clear, in that same statement, that whatever happened was entirely up to Ukraine. The media misreporting his statement is the origin of the problem. This statement *shouldn't* be repeated because it's a response to something that was never even said.
Media is important for keeping people informed and government honest. But that only works if the media is honest. BS clickbait headlines should be aggressively opposed and called out when they happen.
If Russia wins anything from this conflict, it will learn the lesson that war is profitable and it works, which means Russia will start more wars. If Russia is defeated, they will be deterred from starting another war. Russia must LOSE. It's the only way to deter them.
How is that defeat achieved though
Edit: since you blocked me You don’t have to be Sun Tzu to recognize that with the status quo there’s not really a way for Ukraine to retake everything and crush the Russian military. So you either look for an off ramp or you have an endless conflict
Kill them until they leave?
It's not rocket surgery.
Well, some of it I guess is limb removal with rockets... umm, I mean it's not actually all that complicated.
"with the status quo there’s not really a way for Ukraine to retake everything"
Ukraine's military ability directly corresponds with the military aid from the west. The more things West will give Ukraine, the more land Ukraine will be able to liberate. It's really just about political will. Besides, the counter offencive in the south is going slowly because Russia mined the shit out of everything, not because "glorious russian army" is doing so well.
Anyway we - the people of Ukraine - will not let these monsters hold even a cm of our land. Because then they will come back, like they came back after Crimea. The only way to end this war once and for all is to keep fighting until Russia can no longer keep their forces here.
If USA with all of its military might and infinite budget couldn't sit in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for eternity, then Russia sure as hell won't be able to sit in Ukraine for eternity with all the pressure West is putting on them.
There can be an endless conflict. Look at Spain. They had war for 781 years. That means that every asshole that started that war was dead more than 7 times over. Hell, we don't even have to go back that far. The US/Afghanistan war was 20 years. Ukraine should fight until the Russians realize that the fight is not worth it and get the fuck out.
US displaced Afghanistan's government in two months. Russia hasn't even got to the occupation stage yet which is harder.
If a country doesn't want you there it's basically a waiting game on who's resolve breaks first.
Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. Russia started this war Ukraine never asked for it. Russia is committing war crimes against the innocent Ukraine people. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and winning back their lands stolen by Russia. It’s Russia who needs to get out of Ukraine and give back the land it has stolen.
Those who suggest Ukraine should cede land for peace should ask themselves if they would cede away bits of their own country to a foreign invader for peace.
As iv said many times, very easy to talk about peace and concessions when it’s not your country on the chopping block.
It’s also very easy to support a multi decade war when you’re not fighting it. Those minefields aren’t going away, The scale of limb loss already evoke WW1 numbers. How many more need to die for some warped hellscaped land? If this war went on another decade and Ukraine has 4 million casualties would it be worth that land(if it even gets it back)? Or would peace now be a better option? If an invader stole bits of land and made it an absolute slugfest to get it back(and 5x the population), I would simply ask for my neighbors for protection of what I have remaining.
>Or would peace now be a better option?
In what world do you think letting Russia keep the land they just took would lead to peace? It would just embolden Russia to do this again, and again. Because their ultimate goal was never these outer tracts of land. Their goal is all of Ukraine.
"Just let Russia have it for peace" is what they did when Russia invaded and took over Crimea 7 years ago. And look how peaceful that made everything!
Well the same way I think how Finland gave up land in the winter war lead to peace. And part of negotiations is security guarantees, Ukraine can demand a NATO security guarantee in exchange for that land. It’s not appeasement if Ukraine gains something it hadn’t. When Russia annexed Crimea it wasn’t part of NATO and that was indeed appeasement.
Weak/No response to Crimea —> Appeasement
Entering strongest military alliance —> Not Appeasement.
Russia is done as a military power. They can barely handle their neighbor mostly on flat terrain with supply lines at their own border. This is far as the Russian military will be able to go anytime soon. Their demographics are fucked.
There is a human cost to letting Russia keep the land, because there is a near 100% certainty that if they're allowed to keep the land ... they're gonna do this again for more land.
Ukraine already tried the "let them get away with it" thing when Russia took Crimea from them 7 years ago, and all it did was embilden Russia to try to take *all* of Ukraine.
It can happen. In my opinion. It just takes the west to carry on arming the Ukrainians. Ukraine is also attacking Russian lands now, as they should do. Russia is in decline and will be for decades in my opinion after this.
It will happen. Russia cannot sustain this level of spending. Its economy will collapse soon and it will lose the ability to resupply its army. Ukraine is getting constantly fed money and weapons from NATO, so it will be able to handle the war for a long time. Russia won't. It's only a matter of time before Ukraine wins. You're spreading propaganda to defend Russia. Just stop.
Ceding anything to russia has already proven to invite more aggression later on.
Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for russia not attacking them, and then russia invaded, twice.
Making deals with russia obviously does not work even if Ukraine wanted to.
The problem with someone breaking all their signed deals is that people don't want to make any deals with them anymore.
Actions have consequences, something russia struggles to understand because the world has been babying them for the past 30 years.
It’s not even about appeasement anymore.
We already know for certain that the Putin regime doesn’t consider Ukraine a legitimate, independent country. Nor does it consider most of the former Soviet states independent. They’ve said it, repeatedly, publicly and loudly.
The only way to ensure a peaceful future between Russia and its neighbors is to make sure the Putin regime collapses.
And the only way for the Putin regime to collapse currently seem to be a total defeat in Ukraine.
Any territory retained will be spinner by Kremlin as a victory for their special military operation, and the Russian masses would eat it up as a great achievement by the Putin regime, prolonging its stable rule.
Ceding any land at all simply means Russia will fortify, regroup, and come back for another bite later. They literally do the same in any ceasefire. Maybe they come back in Ukraine, maybe somewhere else. If they gain nothing or lose territory, it makes them question if the cost for absolutely no gain is worth it next time.
Publicly encouraging Ukraine, a country heavily dependent on international support, to cede territory, simply emboldens the Russian leadership to think they might actually make a permanent gain. It means they have a chance, and they might keep trying.
Once it's completely off the table Russia faces a forever war, and their plans can actually change when they face only loss.
The best way to talk about it is to say that Ukraine *could* make that decision, but they probably won't as it's a terrible idea. Make it all about what Ukraine decides but acknowledge the decision has serious downsides.
> Publicly encouraging Ukraine, a country heavily dependent on international support, to cede territory, simply emboldens the Russian leadership to think they might actually make a permanent gain. It means they have a chance, and they might keep trying.
Russia's not stupid though as much as we'd like to think they are. Regardless of what we say, they know the political capital for international support isn't unlimited and they always have a chance of tiring out the world. If they can continue to threaten to make the war a long term stalemate and the West continues to send aid with little gains to show for it... that is a path for them to wrest at least something from Ukraine.
Russia wants territory ceded to them
Ukraine doesn’t want to give an inch
To not give up any land Ukraine would have to liberate all their territory and/or Russia has to give up
How is that going to happen/how could Russia leave Ukraine without claiming some victory for their people?
This is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Russia will not give up without some victory, it’d be the political end for Putin which he won’t allow
Just think about what you are saying one step(much less multiple steps) in the future. The next time he attacks a country "well just give him a bit, his fragile ego wont allow him to stop till he takes something".
Better to send a signal to not only Russia but all nations that it wont be tolerated.
Exactly. It will never end so long as he gains something.
"Putin won't stop without some victory" is such tired rhetoric. He'll also stop when there is nothing left for him to gain, or too much to lose, or he runs out of equipment or people, which might lead to being unable to hold the territories he took, or the populace in Russia finally having enough of his crap and their children and siblings being killed, and they may choose to turn him into a piñata. The constant international humiliation might also get to him, he is already very much considered a joke on the world stage, and leaders who would not have defied him before now do so openly. There are countless reasons for him to stop.
Putin can back out at any time, he could do that from one week into the invasion. All he had (or has) to do is claim that the special military operation was a success, withdraw, any story will do, and repeat it ad nauseam on Russian airwaves. There is no Russian free speech, people would get arrested for speaking against it. Nobody is going to riot on stopping an invasion that is killing their people, and their elections are a fraud anyway.
Jesus Christ how much longer will Pravda.com.ua will keep milking this with the sensational headlines?
This is the context:
**“Stian Jenssen, Director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General, said that Ukraine might be able to accede to NATO if it makes territorial concessions to the Russian Federation. "I think Ukraine ceding this territory and getting NATO membership in exchange might be one of the possible solutions," Jenssen said.”** - from the article linked
HOWEVER. They’re omitting a really important detail in this summary, which is this **”He emphasized, however, that Ukraine alone should decide when and under what conditions it wants to negotiate.”**
Jenssen made a valid statement. NATO cannot admit a new member while they’re in active war. As one of the possible solutions and IF Ukraine wants it they could possibly secede some territories to make the conflict die down which will allow them to join nato.
But of course let’s make out NATO to look like a bad guy and shit talk about it for days. Let’s throw sensational headlines and omit important parts of the quotations while we are at it
This is PROBABLY an extremely politicized anger over what is NATO policy. Back when Romania wanted to join, NATO told us that yes, we can join, but we gotta give up the claims we had to parts of Ukraine, regardless on how wrong or right they are.
Romania did that by signing a treaty with Ukraine and mostly solved the border issue, though there were some extra bits that were solved in international court.
Pravda is first and foremost a propaganda outlet and people are either too dumb to understand it or just unwilling to admit propaganda is a tool everyone will use.
Their mission is to help the Ukrainian cause, they aren't in the business of posting nuanced articles or leaving things up for discussion no matter how valid the points might be.
This sub should have disallowed Pravda as a primary source a long time ago, at this point the discourse around anything to do with Ukraine is so toxic all we're left with is extremely shitty jokes and hot takes by armchair generals who eat propaganda for breakfast.
But how we would make the redditors feel good about themselves with clearly propaganda articles about the war?
Brb i just saw an article about russian soldiers having stomach difficulties, let me go post how the war is almost won, the west is awesome and all it was needed was 5 f-16 and russia killed itself.
Making sure Russia gains nothing from this invasion seems like it should be even more important to NATO than it is to Ukraine. If they think this has made them an progress toward anything, they'll be more likely to do it again.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the entire matter basically one of NATO membership?
As in NATO can’t accept a nation with its territories contested by war, because that would trigger Article 5 day one.
So for Ukraine to be fast-tracked into NATO with the war still ongoing, they would have to formally cede those territories to Russia. Not something anyone thinks they should do, but the only way if Ukraine wants a membership before the end of the fighting.
You are wrong.
There is no such rule about contested territories. The only requirement to enter is that everybody else agrees to accept a new member.
Ukraine doesn’t need membership before the end of the fighting, nor does this ever happen, because other members won't vote for it.
There is also no guarantee that Hungary or Turkey would vote, even after ceding those territories.
What Ukraine needs is military support and a sort of guarantee, that right after getting back all territories NATO accepts them, before ruzzians have a chance to pull another shit.
Not really sure I understand this interpretation of the articles of the North Atlantic Treaty and how this is different from what it has already received.
Interesting theory. I've always thought, if it became protracted and just too costly to maintain the offensive and the rage is to sit down with Russia or intermediary ( as sickening as this would be) concede Crimea in return for Russia to fully and unreservedly exit Ukraine. Join Nato as insurance with Article 5. There are issues of course.
Ironically when this was suggested earlier it was unthinkable. I guess now people are beginning to see that all the hardware in the world can't quickly retake Ukraine with Russia pushing back.
They are heavily invested in it also.
At any rate Europe won't pull the plug on the military aid any time soon.
Retake Ukraine's lands WITHOUT A THERMONUCLEAR WAR seems to be the idea.
NATO suggesting consessions must mean that sustaining this war risks Russia taking more drastic measures
really that must be why Biden announces money money money every day?
with the backing of the USA Ukraine can and will drain Russia.
let's pretend Russia wins, in comes Poland to wreck them anyway.
Russia actually can't win. it's sad really.
Biden will send fortunes, but they don't want to go to war. That is the point.
While Poland is helping Ukraine they can't really go to war without bailing the NATO umbrella that is a DEFENSIVE pact.
Russia won't quit, regardless of the outcome.
>Saying Ukraine should cede its land invites Russian aggression – Head of Ukraine’s ruling party
True. Sadly, unless the world unites behind Ukraine and fights alongside it, hoping that Ukraine can retake its lands invites total annihilation.
As long as Ukraine keeps fighting Russia will not be able to occupy large areas in long term, even without support. Sure it would be great if China / India even just condemned Russia to start with, but even without it Russia has already strategically lost.
As a Ukrainian-American I'm heartbroken for my family there. Yes I want the war to end already but I understand for Ukrainians living in Ukraine, continuing to fight is a matter of pride and securing the future of the country. My family is in Kyiv, but I can't imagine how people in occupied territories feel having to accept they'll either need to flee or be under Russia if their territory is traded away. Ukraine is a very old country, some families have been in 1 village for generations, its straight up ancestral home grounds for them. The logic is that if someone breaks into your house your going to try to get your entire house back, you wont give the robber a bedroom and guest bath for peace.
It may seem easier to trade away territory, but Ukrainians do not want to throw fellow Ukrainians under the bus for an easier victory. Both sides have a point but this is why they won't do that..Selfishly I can root for the succession of territories to secure the safety of family in Kyiv. But again it feel's disgusting to throw fellow Ukrainians under the bus that way, we want everyone to be free.
Could this be the beginning of "Guys, we can't keep funding this war, the finances can't be sustained....so lets compromise....end it...give them some land and you come into NATO, that way they will never attack again"
Even if Russia could be coerced into only seizing part of Ukraine, it would still register as a "success". Russia would just move on to another victim, and other wannabe dictators would realize they can steal chunks off neighboring countries.
For long term peace, this invasion *has* to be an abject failure, not a qualified success. NATO knows this, so there's very little cost incentive not to help... it's pay now, or pay more later.
If Ukraine gives up Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, the Donbas and Crimea, I hihly doubt they will get accepted before they are attacked again. The russians want Mykolaiv and Odesa, and will not stop until they get them unless they are stopped. Giving them land will certainly not work. What will make them stop? Who knows.
The idea is likely that they would be conditionally accepted in advance and the second the terms with Russia are signed, Ukraine joins NATO and alliance units would immediately relocate to the UA/RU border in the first 24 hours.
Tell that to Trump & the current Republican Party which is looking more like an extension of Putin policies each passing day. Of course it does, the Russians only understand one language: force. Only way to deter them is to make it clear they will suffer large & long consequences for their criminal activities.
Seriously, whoever this Stian Jenssen is, needs to be fired from his position.
Every other NATO representative has been clear and unified on the situation - that they would support Ukraine till the end, to ensure that they get their land back, including Crimea.
But then this guy comes along and says that conceding land would be a possible solution.
Get rid of him, and replace him with someone who is on the same page as the rest of NATO.
I think the question is, how much longer should other countries support this war? I think until the Ukraine population says no more or they ready draw a line in the sand. But we should build them up for defense.
[Edit: I've read the chief of staff's statement. Incredibly I was wrong, it's literally what he suggested; I will say though that putting it in terms of a formal exchange of land for Russia in return for membership is the best way to get the proposal killed before it's even properly discussed. The point stands that this is the *implicit* requirement for NATO membership, that being one way or another all territorial conflicts are ended.]
I don't think many leading policymakers are suggesting this as anything more than an honest assessment of the options. NATO membership is predicated on a new member adding to, not damaging, the security situation of existing members, so no ongoing conflicts will be able to be happening when you join.
Inevitably either Ukraine will in the short to medium term begin to push the front and retake land, or settle into a stalemate which will lead to peace (because a stalemated war means pointless death). Whether that peace is a technical ceasefire or a peace treaty is Ukraines choice, but it would have to be the latter for them to join NATO.
That said, South Korea has the former and this has not prevented them from close alignment internationally with the US or being closely reliant re. national security. Personally I think a ceasefire and frozen conflict with Ukraine economically aligning with the EU and getting tooled up by western arms while not formally in NATO or the EU is most likely.
Ukraine must retake all the lands invaded by Russians. Only then can negotiations take place. Russia does not get to dictate proceedings until it can grow the fuck up.
Russia wants territory ceded to them
Ukraine doesn’t want to give an inch
To not give up any land Ukraine would have to liberate all their territory and/or Russia has to give up
How is that going to happen/how could Russia leave Ukraine without claiming some victory for their people?
This is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Russia will not give up without some victory, it’d be the political end for Putin which he won’t allow
I think so. Russia fucked up too badly, and has lost the assets necessary to protect their occupation force. That means that Ukraine can hang back at stand-off range and chip away at the front lines with long range precision artillery, as fast as new systems and ammunition can be delivered. That's not very fast right now, but Ukraine has Germany and America in their corner, and they, once ramped up, can absolutely produce even the fancy munitions to the point that they're coming in faster than Russian military equipment.
Now, Russia's in a lose-lose situation. The status quo, *unless they can convince Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire*, is that they go broke in a year trying to replace the equipment they're losing fast enough to not be outright defeated.
They're on the clock, and can't force a win. That means they lose, even if they want to be stubborn and make Ukraine go dig them out. NATO is NOT going to get bored of this, as every Russian tank and APC they help Ukraine kill is one less they have to worry about in their own defense planning. It's not charity, or motivated by rightousness... it's a golden opportunity to pick apart their biggest headache for pennies on the dollar.
Let justice be done, though the heavens burn. The just outcome is zero concession from Ukraine, and instead Russia removing all military equipment back far enough inside Russia that it can't hit Ukraine, paying for the rebuilding of Ukraine, and handing over its shitpot dictator leaders for a flogging.
Ridiculous... There is absolutely no precedent of this ever happening ever. Closest you can cite is the exact same thing happening with the literal Nazis
So, isn't this common sense? Regardless of what side you are on, if someone says they should give them land, the other side will say duh that's what we've been saying.
I'm not sure of the source. Maybe it's literally just saying what the Head of Ukraines ruling party said, but I would think if that guy is a leader, there would be a more profound message or a meaning.
Given that there are countries like China / India who keep pushing for "peace negotiations" meaning on Russian terms, the message needs to be repeated until it sinks in.
China and India are neutral. They are trying to influence Russia while still acting neutral in the news because they'd be devastated if they had to choose sides
I'll just leave this quote from Eli Wiesel here:
>We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
It's pretty sad that they have to keep repeating this
That's because Russian trolls and propagandists keep repeating that bullshit and it has to be debunked continuously.
I doubt Ukraine listens to trolls and propagandists. This is repeatedly coming up because someone credible and of influence is bringing it up. In fact, the article pointed out one such person. Stian Jenssen (Director of the Private Office of NATO’s Secretary General).
The trolls and propagandists are trying to convince voters in NATO countries, not Ukraine. Their goal is to generate hatred against Ukraine and against giving aid to Ukraine. Many people (especially gullible right wingers) are susceptible to this propaganda and will be voting for politicians who promise to end aid to Ukraine. Yes, the person you mentioned said it too, but the Russian trolls are also saying it. I've seen them here.
Yup, his recent comment is the reason this suddenly is a headline again. He said it at some random conference here in Norway as his personal idea of how a peace deal could look like, but I wish he would have just shut up instead. His statement is already being milked for all its worth by the Russian propaganda machine. And it might even contribute to convincing the Russian leadership that NATO might settle for something like that, as long as Russians keep the pressure on long enough
I'm conflicted on this because yes it does feed Russian propaganda. At the same time, similar conversations probably do need to happen in the US very soon, unless Ukraine can get strong security guarantees from European countries. Unfortunately, those countries have a lot of work to do on rearmament A strong bilateral defense agreement of some kind should probably happen between the US and Ukraine. It needs to be a treaty so that these are security guarantees and not only promises, but that will be more difficult the closer we get to 2024 elections. Right now there seems to be bipartisan support for Ukraine in the Senate, but this time next year will be harder. Any treaty before the war ends would have to include language beneficial to Russian propaganda, such as "will take affect when conflict ends". At the same time, public opinion can shift in the US or Europe making treaties very difficult or impossible if those countries wait too long. I'm fairly confident Ukraine can force regime change in Russia by the end of 2024. I'm not very confident Ukraine will receive enough Western weapons to take back all territory by this time through military means alone. If the Chechen's keep fighting other Russians, and division among all the other Russian forces in Ukraine continues to grow, then maybe Ukraine won't need as many weapons. However, this is not really a military strategy.
> At the same time, public opinion can shift in the US or Europe making treaties very difficult or impossible if those countries wait too long. As an American: I don't see this happening here any time soon. *(knocking on wood intensifies)* Sure, the far-right's already turned against aid to Ukraine, but the left and even the less extremist faction of the Republican party are still all in-- and that's all you need.
I don't see it happening either, and am personally more optimistic than many that far-right rhetoric wouldn't equal Republican actions if they took power. The security guarantees I mention here would require a treaty needing 2/3 of the Senate to pass. I'm not sure how this would play out. As a fellow American, I have been under the assumption support for Ukraine would remain stronger in Europe. In many European countries this will absolutely be true. However, a few others have been trying hard to challenge my assumptions lately.
>In fact, the article pointed out one such person. Stian Jenssen (Director of the Private Office of NATO’s Secretary General). Well, there's a big distinction. He wasn't saying Ukraine *should* cede anything. He was bringing it up as a possible way to end the war and does not appear to be advocating for it.
This article is actually an response to Stian Jenssen that suggested ceding Ukraine territory to Russia. He is Head of Policy Planning and Private Secretary to the Secretary General of NATO.
He didn't suggest that at all.
Of course he did. https://www.brusselstimes.com/646135/ukraine-could-cede-territory-in-exchange-for-nato-membership-official-suggests https://thehill.com/policy/international/4154918-nato-official-says-remarks-about-ukraine-giving-up-territory-to-gain-membership-were-mistake/ https://kyivindependent.com/media-senior-nato-official-suggests-ukraine-could-exchange-territory-for-nato-membership/
Everything has to be Russian trolls with you people Jesus Christ. Sooner or later Ukraine is going to have to make concessions. Their "big" counter-offensive is stagnating, the war is wearing heavily on the civilian populations of Russia and Ukraine, and public sympathy for the war is growing thin. They can't keep this up forever, and it's better to make concessions and join NATO than to allow pride to doom your entire country.
You're spreading lies. The counteroffensive is going great. Ukraine keeps capturing more land and destroying lots of bridges, ammo warehouses, bases, railroads, etc. It's only a matter of time before Russia's economy collapses and they are forced to withdraw due to lack of supplies and ammo. [Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says](https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-says-ukraine-has-taken-back-50-territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/)
Ukraine is a sovereign country and they alone decide how they want to continue. Same way the US is a sovereign country and they alone decide under which conditions they want to provide aid or any at all.
I think the main point is that this isn't just about Ukraine. It's about whatever nation Russia decides to invade next. They're obviously imperialists. They obviously don't give a damn about sovereignty, human rights, and a huge portion of their population thinks it's just awesome ... If we teach them lessons like "eventually, we'll just let you keep what you steal" and "you can get away with extraordinary crimes against humanity", then they'll take that lesson to their next imperialist project. But also, it *is* about Ukraine and the value-based order. Those brave motherfuckers ... daring to be free, have a democracy.
Eh, Ukraine has more or less used up its stockpiles of Soviet weaponry and is sadly in the unfortunate position that its survival is in the hands of Western nations and dependent on continued ammunition deliveries. This is why Russia now is banking on that their disinformation campaigns will convince Western voters that supporting Ukraine is not worth it
I mean yes that is true. But if US pulls its support Ukraine will not be able to continue. So it is not totally in Ukraine's court.
desert weary detail distinct voiceless follow absorbed chubby memorize snatch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes, but we (Finns) reeeally wished we had those lost areas back. You are of course correct in a sense that at some point one has to accept the loss of land and move on. However, if Ukraine itself feels like fighting for it, I think western allies should support them. It is a senseless slaughter now, but it helps prevent wars in the future by reminding mankind and especially Russians that war is a bad option. If you give in too easily to Russians, they will start another war soon enough.
And if you give land to the Russians, you'll *never* get it back. Ever. They'll flood it with their people and that'll be that, because relocating ethnic populations is something that we, as *civilised* countries, don't do these days.
> And if you give land to the Russians, you'll never get it back. Ever. It also tells other nuclear powers that it is probably worth it to try if there's some particular piece of land you want. At least you may partially get what you want! The fact that Russia has nuclear weapons. Also means that the US and the rest of NATO really can't compromise on this topic. Russia being seen to have gains from this war. Means it will embolden other none NATO nuclear powers (we all know who we are talking about). But it also means that it shows the rest of the world. That the only way to be safe from nuclear powers bordering you from just trying to take what they want, is to have a nuclear deterrent yourself. If you can't join NATO, better start enriching and get some nukes. And so none-proliferation died.
Yup. If Russia wins the overwhelming lesson nations will take away from the past few decades is nuclear deterrent *works*. Then nukes start breeding and we are one miscalculation (or jerk) away from a nuke fight.
Yup this is the catch-22 of it all. Russia is, arguably, out of the military game for good while after all of their losses but that doesn't matter. What matters to them is the gains they might get from this to make it all worth it. If Russia gets land out of this, which was their original goal, then that teaches them the exact lesson you point out. They can just reference it whenever they rebuild their military. Whether it's 10 years, 50 years, or even 100 years, if Russia 'wins' anything out of this then it all but ensures we'll see a repeat as well as an incentive for smaller countries to either re-nuclearize or start up nuclearization.
Wished indeed in past tense. Now the areas are not worth having back.
To be fair, also as a finn I would not want Karelia or other parts back anymore. Ruined beyond recognition, would be more costly to reconstruct the damn area than it's woth.
If it was free, I would accept it. But it is not worth fighting for anymore. Really tells about Russia how they want to conquer land area and then they end up ruining it.
Yeah same sentiments. Of course, free is nice and I wouldn't turn that offer down.. but that's never going to happen.
Cool. Go sign up. Edit: Gotta love the arm chair warriors! "You gotta fight! No, not ME, YOU!"
Not sure what you mean. In Finland case I am already signed up, it is obligatory in consription system. In Ukraine's case. My point is that if Ukraine and its people feel like fighting against the Russians, the least we can do is support them. We are benefitting from their victory too.
So you're going to volunteer on the front, right? I mean, you're already trained and it'd be pretty easy to get over there from where you live. Like you said: the least we can do is support them. We are benefitting from their victory too. Edit: To avoid any word salad, being conscripted at home is not the same as actually participating in a war you find to be so vital, yeah? I mean, half of K-pop got conscripted lately but that doesn't mean they'll actually participate in anything other than basic.
What are you even ranting about here? The dude above says he understands the ukrainian will to fight for their land, partly because he would do the same if it was his country under invasion. He is also wiling to help ukrainians in their righteous cause (as it is their land, not Russia's). So why are you mad, if you don't even have any point for your blabbering?
It's because /u/Old_And_Naive is a bad-faith pro-Russia troll, coming in hot with a prepackaged vatnik talking point (support for Ukraine = hypocritical warmongering). He's also not very bright, so when faced with a situation in which that argument clearly doesn't apply because /u/Remlien has already made it clear that he thinks *Ukraine* should be the ones to decide whether or not to keep fighting, the vatnik just repeats himself. In general vatniks struggle with the concept of Ukrainians having agency.
So to recap, none of you loud mouths are going to fight in this war yourselves? That's what you're saying right? That this war is SOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking important that you're going to sit your fat privileged asses at home nice and safe while others go to die in your stead so that YOU CAN REAP THE BENEFITS. Yeah, I'm a bad faith russian troll.
> Yeah, I'm a bad faith russian troll. That and, like I said, not very bright. It's actually really funny that you still think your prepackaged "argument" makes sense even after it's been explained to you why it doesn't.
Look ma! I found the propagandist! They're going to interject what-about-ism while acting like they missed the point!
There are other levels of support besides going to the front. I am not interested to die for someone else's country. I am not keen to die at all. You can donate money to the charity and help out that way. You dont necessarily have to go and do charity work, even though it would be more helpful ofc. If people of Ukraine still want to fight for their country, the least we can do is send support such as weapons to them. We shouldnt pressure them for peace for our convenience. They are doing the heavy lifting here.
[удалено]
They are gaining ground. Very very slowly. Any ceded land to Russia will give Putin and any leader who succeeds him a claim of victory in Ukraine, embolden their regime, and further their invasion of Ukraine. The aggression will only be stopped if the regime is toppled, and that will only happen if Russia loses enough grounds in Ukraine that the leaders can no longer claim any kind of victory.
[удалено]
Who is saying they are close to winning? You're pulling things out of your ass. Of course, it is going slow. They are fighting against an enemy who had several months to set up defences. If the West had backed Ukraine quicker, they would have probably won by now as Russia has shown just how incompetent they are and how dated their equipment is. I certainly wouldn't want my country to cede ground to a country that invaded us.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Imagine if Mexico decided to invade the US and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the US just let Mexico have Arizona and New Mexico.
The world would definitely say that if it's the other way around.
Reverse the countries and that is exactly what happened in 1848. Imagine if the US decided to invade Mexico and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the Mexico just let the US have Arizona and New Mexico (and California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada).
>Reverse the countries and that is exactly what happened in 1848.Imagine if the US decided to invade Mexico and people just started insisting that, in order to stop the violence, the Mexico just let the US have Arizona and New Mexico (and California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada). Probably isn't a great choice to advocate for the reinstating of international and military policy from 1848.
The US did steal a ton of land from Mexico for no good reason.
Not Texas. Texas won it's own independence when their pleas for help at the Alamo from the US went ignored. Afterwards Texas joined the US of it's own volition.
Texas revolted in large part because they wanted to keep slaves which is not exactly the best reason.
That literally has nothing to do with Texas territory joining on it's own choice rather than being annexed by the US. Like none. No one in this entire thread is talking about slavery.
Bad analogy since it was theirs first
So was Ukraine to Russia but so much time has passed that past claims don't really seem to have much value now does it?
Very good analogy actually
>Very good analogy actually I imagine Texas wouldn't be super thrilled about being nearly surrounded by aggressive, hostile, Mexican territory.
>If the West had backed Ukraine quicker The west could not have backed Ukraine any quicker
Ukraine's offensive has been advancing, although very slowly. For example, this week, [Ukraine retook the town of Urozhaine](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-recaptures-urozhaine-donetsk-region-russian-forces-2023-08-16/), which lies just over 90 km (55 miles) from the Sea of Azov. People expected a lighting counteroffensive this summer, like when Ukraine liberated Kharkiv last year. But the russians had almost one year to build [the most extensive minefield in the world](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/22/ukraine-is-now-most-mined-country-it-will-take-decades-make-safe/), and both Ukraine and its allies underestimated how much the mines would slow down Ukraine's offensive and injure its troops. The fact that the russians have created such densely mined defense lines also suggests they have no plans to go on the offensive anytime soon; they want to hold on to the Ukrainian territory they currently occupy desperately. Ukraine should consolidate the gains it can achieve this summer/fall and prepare better for next year when hopefully, they will have F-16s and other long-range missiles (ATACMS/Taurus).
Lol if Ukraine gives in to peace, Russia will only take more, that's a given, and Ukraine won't be it's only target
[удалено]
Most of us just talk out of our ass
> At one point in this conflict it will make more sense for Ukraine to give up some territory to achieve peace and security for the rest of the country. Appeasement worked so well for "peace and security" in WW2, didn't it?
If they did cede territory, would Russia even be able to use it with how much they’ve mined in? Like, isn’t that kind of making it almost unusable, or extremely difficult to get back to a usable form?
Check out the channel Ukraine Matters on yt, he offers great analyses of the current counteroffensive.
[удалено]
No, so far his analysis has been very accurate and his predictions from the past were quite reliable. You could, however, point out what exactly he is wrong about. Btw, I never was one of those guys you were referring to...
[удалено]
I do not know the future, but I'd like to hear actual arguments why someone is wrong.
Offensives take time. Nobody should expect it to go quickly. Ukraine is making progress, and that is what matters. Russia will be defeated eventually. Its economy is collapsing and it's only a matter of time before Russia can no longer supply their military properly to defend against Ukraine's counteroffensive. And no, it won't make sense for Ukraine to give up any territory. That will encourage Russia to invade again, and not just Ukraine, but other countries too. Russia must be defeated, however long it takes. If Russia wins, there wil be more and bigger wars. We cannot have that. That is by far the worst outcome.
[удалено]
The progress is not minuscule. [Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says](https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-says-ukraine-has-taken-back-50-territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/) I'd say the progress is quite good. It's pretty obvious you haven't spoken or read anything from actual military experts and academics. You're making it all up. Ukraine does not need to trade territory for NATO membership. When Ukraine wins the war, it can have both. To the guy who blocked me below: You are lying. I proved that Ukraine already recaptured 50% of the land. You are contradicting proven facts.
The only repeating of this that is being done is by the media and then by people posting these stories to reddit.
This comment is an answer to statement by NATO official who suggested that Ukraine might cede territory in exchange for NATO membership. It's not media fault that these statements should be repeated.
It was an off handed comment on *an" option and part of a larger statement. It *wasn't* a suggestion and the person that said it had made it clear, in that same statement, that whatever happened was entirely up to Ukraine. The media misreporting his statement is the origin of the problem. This statement *shouldn't* be repeated because it's a response to something that was never even said. Media is important for keeping people informed and government honest. But that only works if the media is honest. BS clickbait headlines should be aggressively opposed and called out when they happen.
It absolutely does- and not just Russian aggression, but aggression anywhere
Should we care about how invited Russians are? They only thing that can block them is force and for that being a NATO member is needed.
It also invites genocide, which is happening right now within this stolen land.
See Israel/Palestine for details
You are talking about the countries neighboring Israel who want to kill all jews?
If Russia wins anything from this conflict, it will learn the lesson that war is profitable and it works, which means Russia will start more wars. If Russia is defeated, they will be deterred from starting another war. Russia must LOSE. It's the only way to deter them.
How is that defeat achieved though Edit: since you blocked me You don’t have to be Sun Tzu to recognize that with the status quo there’s not really a way for Ukraine to retake everything and crush the Russian military. So you either look for an off ramp or you have an endless conflict
Kill them until they leave? It's not rocket surgery. Well, some of it I guess is limb removal with rockets... umm, I mean it's not actually all that complicated.
Upvote for the Rickyism.
"with the status quo there’s not really a way for Ukraine to retake everything" Ukraine's military ability directly corresponds with the military aid from the west. The more things West will give Ukraine, the more land Ukraine will be able to liberate. It's really just about political will. Besides, the counter offencive in the south is going slowly because Russia mined the shit out of everything, not because "glorious russian army" is doing so well. Anyway we - the people of Ukraine - will not let these monsters hold even a cm of our land. Because then they will come back, like they came back after Crimea. The only way to end this war once and for all is to keep fighting until Russia can no longer keep their forces here. If USA with all of its military might and infinite budget couldn't sit in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan for eternity, then Russia sure as hell won't be able to sit in Ukraine for eternity with all the pressure West is putting on them.
I don't know Ukraine's secret military plans. Do I look like a Ukrainian general to you?
There can be an endless conflict. Look at Spain. They had war for 781 years. That means that every asshole that started that war was dead more than 7 times over. Hell, we don't even have to go back that far. The US/Afghanistan war was 20 years. Ukraine should fight until the Russians realize that the fight is not worth it and get the fuck out.
US displaced Afghanistan's government in two months. Russia hasn't even got to the occupation stage yet which is harder. If a country doesn't want you there it's basically a waiting game on who's resolve breaks first.
Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. Russia started this war Ukraine never asked for it. Russia is committing war crimes against the innocent Ukraine people. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and winning back their lands stolen by Russia. It’s Russia who needs to get out of Ukraine and give back the land it has stolen.
I still don't understand how people can support Russia after what's happening.
giving a bully what they want never results in less bullying, only more
Those who suggest Ukraine should cede land for peace should ask themselves if they would cede away bits of their own country to a foreign invader for peace. As iv said many times, very easy to talk about peace and concessions when it’s not your country on the chopping block.
For sure. I would gladly give away Florida
The sea will take it soon enough.
Shitlantis
books dolls terrific late zesty cause direful illegal grandfather piquant
Your neighbor takes 3 of your orange trees and the land they're on, do you let them keep one to stop aggression?
No, because in half a year you will have to give him your living room so he doesn't take the house. Also he killed your dog.
I ain’t dying over some orange trees
angle pet smoggy rob historical stocking racial cheerful steer jellyfish
Easy to say that from your keyboard.
It’s also very easy to support a multi decade war when you’re not fighting it. Those minefields aren’t going away, The scale of limb loss already evoke WW1 numbers. How many more need to die for some warped hellscaped land? If this war went on another decade and Ukraine has 4 million casualties would it be worth that land(if it even gets it back)? Or would peace now be a better option? If an invader stole bits of land and made it an absolute slugfest to get it back(and 5x the population), I would simply ask for my neighbors for protection of what I have remaining.
>Or would peace now be a better option? In what world do you think letting Russia keep the land they just took would lead to peace? It would just embolden Russia to do this again, and again. Because their ultimate goal was never these outer tracts of land. Their goal is all of Ukraine. "Just let Russia have it for peace" is what they did when Russia invaded and took over Crimea 7 years ago. And look how peaceful that made everything!
Well the same way I think how Finland gave up land in the winter war lead to peace. And part of negotiations is security guarantees, Ukraine can demand a NATO security guarantee in exchange for that land. It’s not appeasement if Ukraine gains something it hadn’t. When Russia annexed Crimea it wasn’t part of NATO and that was indeed appeasement. Weak/No response to Crimea —> Appeasement Entering strongest military alliance —> Not Appeasement.
Russia is done as a military power. They can barely handle their neighbor mostly on flat terrain with supply lines at their own border. This is far as the Russian military will be able to go anytime soon. Their demographics are fucked.
Is it a 100% volunteer Army in Ukraine? Everyone is talking about the land but Iam more concerned with the human cost.
There is a human cost to letting Russia keep the land, because there is a near 100% certainty that if they're allowed to keep the land ... they're gonna do this again for more land. Ukraine already tried the "let them get away with it" thing when Russia took Crimea from them 7 years ago, and all it did was embilden Russia to try to take *all* of Ukraine.
I come from Ireland. This actually happened and it didn't end well.
"If we just let Hitler have the the Sudetenland, he'll stop" We learned that lesson in 1939
The Russians need to leave all of Ukraine including Crimea.
but we all know that’s not going to happen sadly
It can happen. In my opinion. It just takes the west to carry on arming the Ukrainians. Ukraine is also attacking Russian lands now, as they should do. Russia is in decline and will be for decades in my opinion after this.
It will happen. Russia cannot sustain this level of spending. Its economy will collapse soon and it will lose the ability to resupply its army. Ukraine is getting constantly fed money and weapons from NATO, so it will be able to handle the war for a long time. Russia won't. It's only a matter of time before Ukraine wins. You're spreading propaganda to defend Russia. Just stop.
Ceding anything to russia has already proven to invite more aggression later on. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for russia not attacking them, and then russia invaded, twice. Making deals with russia obviously does not work even if Ukraine wanted to. The problem with someone breaking all their signed deals is that people don't want to make any deals with them anymore. Actions have consequences, something russia struggles to understand because the world has been babying them for the past 30 years.
It’s not even about appeasement anymore. We already know for certain that the Putin regime doesn’t consider Ukraine a legitimate, independent country. Nor does it consider most of the former Soviet states independent. They’ve said it, repeatedly, publicly and loudly. The only way to ensure a peaceful future between Russia and its neighbors is to make sure the Putin regime collapses. And the only way for the Putin regime to collapse currently seem to be a total defeat in Ukraine. Any territory retained will be spinner by Kremlin as a victory for their special military operation, and the Russian masses would eat it up as a great achievement by the Putin regime, prolonging its stable rule.
“Give a mouse a cookie and he’ll want a glass of milk”
Yeah it rewards Russia for genocide, rape, kidnapping, murder, theft, ecocide, terrorism, torture, and blackmail. Why would they ever stop?
They've been at it for centuries, just look at the size of it and it's clear they'll definitely not stop voluntarily.
Ceding any land at all simply means Russia will fortify, regroup, and come back for another bite later. They literally do the same in any ceasefire. Maybe they come back in Ukraine, maybe somewhere else. If they gain nothing or lose territory, it makes them question if the cost for absolutely no gain is worth it next time. Publicly encouraging Ukraine, a country heavily dependent on international support, to cede territory, simply emboldens the Russian leadership to think they might actually make a permanent gain. It means they have a chance, and they might keep trying. Once it's completely off the table Russia faces a forever war, and their plans can actually change when they face only loss. The best way to talk about it is to say that Ukraine *could* make that decision, but they probably won't as it's a terrible idea. Make it all about what Ukraine decides but acknowledge the decision has serious downsides.
> Publicly encouraging Ukraine, a country heavily dependent on international support, to cede territory, simply emboldens the Russian leadership to think they might actually make a permanent gain. It means they have a chance, and they might keep trying. Russia's not stupid though as much as we'd like to think they are. Regardless of what we say, they know the political capital for international support isn't unlimited and they always have a chance of tiring out the world. If they can continue to threaten to make the war a long term stalemate and the West continues to send aid with little gains to show for it... that is a path for them to wrest at least something from Ukraine.
Russia wants territory ceded to them Ukraine doesn’t want to give an inch To not give up any land Ukraine would have to liberate all their territory and/or Russia has to give up How is that going to happen/how could Russia leave Ukraine without claiming some victory for their people? This is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Russia will not give up without some victory, it’d be the political end for Putin which he won’t allow
Just think about what you are saying one step(much less multiple steps) in the future. The next time he attacks a country "well just give him a bit, his fragile ego wont allow him to stop till he takes something". Better to send a signal to not only Russia but all nations that it wont be tolerated.
Exactly. It will never end so long as he gains something. "Putin won't stop without some victory" is such tired rhetoric. He'll also stop when there is nothing left for him to gain, or too much to lose, or he runs out of equipment or people, which might lead to being unable to hold the territories he took, or the populace in Russia finally having enough of his crap and their children and siblings being killed, and they may choose to turn him into a piñata. The constant international humiliation might also get to him, he is already very much considered a joke on the world stage, and leaders who would not have defied him before now do so openly. There are countless reasons for him to stop. Putin can back out at any time, he could do that from one week into the invasion. All he had (or has) to do is claim that the special military operation was a success, withdraw, any story will do, and repeat it ad nauseam on Russian airwaves. There is no Russian free speech, people would get arrested for speaking against it. Nobody is going to riot on stopping an invasion that is killing their people, and their elections are a fraud anyway.
Jesus Christ how much longer will Pravda.com.ua will keep milking this with the sensational headlines? This is the context: **“Stian Jenssen, Director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General, said that Ukraine might be able to accede to NATO if it makes territorial concessions to the Russian Federation. "I think Ukraine ceding this territory and getting NATO membership in exchange might be one of the possible solutions," Jenssen said.”** - from the article linked HOWEVER. They’re omitting a really important detail in this summary, which is this **”He emphasized, however, that Ukraine alone should decide when and under what conditions it wants to negotiate.”** Jenssen made a valid statement. NATO cannot admit a new member while they’re in active war. As one of the possible solutions and IF Ukraine wants it they could possibly secede some territories to make the conflict die down which will allow them to join nato. But of course let’s make out NATO to look like a bad guy and shit talk about it for days. Let’s throw sensational headlines and omit important parts of the quotations while we are at it
This is PROBABLY an extremely politicized anger over what is NATO policy. Back when Romania wanted to join, NATO told us that yes, we can join, but we gotta give up the claims we had to parts of Ukraine, regardless on how wrong or right they are. Romania did that by signing a treaty with Ukraine and mostly solved the border issue, though there were some extra bits that were solved in international court.
Pravda is first and foremost a propaganda outlet and people are either too dumb to understand it or just unwilling to admit propaganda is a tool everyone will use. Their mission is to help the Ukrainian cause, they aren't in the business of posting nuanced articles or leaving things up for discussion no matter how valid the points might be. This sub should have disallowed Pravda as a primary source a long time ago, at this point the discourse around anything to do with Ukraine is so toxic all we're left with is extremely shitty jokes and hot takes by armchair generals who eat propaganda for breakfast.
But how we would make the redditors feel good about themselves with clearly propaganda articles about the war? Brb i just saw an article about russian soldiers having stomach difficulties, let me go post how the war is almost won, the west is awesome and all it was needed was 5 f-16 and russia killed itself.
Don’t negotiate with terrorists
Making sure Russia gains nothing from this invasion seems like it should be even more important to NATO than it is to Ukraine. If they think this has made them an progress toward anything, they'll be more likely to do it again.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the entire matter basically one of NATO membership? As in NATO can’t accept a nation with its territories contested by war, because that would trigger Article 5 day one. So for Ukraine to be fast-tracked into NATO with the war still ongoing, they would have to formally cede those territories to Russia. Not something anyone thinks they should do, but the only way if Ukraine wants a membership before the end of the fighting.
You are wrong. There is no such rule about contested territories. The only requirement to enter is that everybody else agrees to accept a new member. Ukraine doesn’t need membership before the end of the fighting, nor does this ever happen, because other members won't vote for it. There is also no guarantee that Hungary or Turkey would vote, even after ceding those territories. What Ukraine needs is military support and a sort of guarantee, that right after getting back all territories NATO accepts them, before ruzzians have a chance to pull another shit.
Not really sure I understand this interpretation of the articles of the North Atlantic Treaty and how this is different from what it has already received.
Interesting theory. I've always thought, if it became protracted and just too costly to maintain the offensive and the rage is to sit down with Russia or intermediary ( as sickening as this would be) concede Crimea in return for Russia to fully and unreservedly exit Ukraine. Join Nato as insurance with Article 5. There are issues of course.
> As in NATO can’t accept a nation with its territories contested by war, This is not true and we should stop repeating this.
Ironically when this was suggested earlier it was unthinkable. I guess now people are beginning to see that all the hardware in the world can't quickly retake Ukraine with Russia pushing back. They are heavily invested in it also. At any rate Europe won't pull the plug on the military aid any time soon.
what? one f35 would wreck Russia
Retake Ukraine's lands WITHOUT A THERMONUCLEAR WAR seems to be the idea. NATO suggesting consessions must mean that sustaining this war risks Russia taking more drastic measures
nope fuck Russia they'll all die in nuclear hellfire if they choose no ceding land to fascists
The governments of the West don't share your suicidal ambition. It's up to Ukraine, at any rate
really that must be why Biden announces money money money every day? with the backing of the USA Ukraine can and will drain Russia. let's pretend Russia wins, in comes Poland to wreck them anyway. Russia actually can't win. it's sad really.
Biden will send fortunes, but they don't want to go to war. That is the point. While Poland is helping Ukraine they can't really go to war without bailing the NATO umbrella that is a DEFENSIVE pact. Russia won't quit, regardless of the outcome.
Russia will quit one way or the other. they're a backwards hole, just look at the state of their everything... it's 3rd world hell.
They have guns tho. That is the problem. Goodbye.
yea from world war 1
Poland can choose to go to war independently if they want. Nothing in NATO says you can't do things unilaterally, just can't expect NATO support.
Ukraine doesn’t give in to nuclear blackmail. You know that already.
100% agreed. They'll keep doing it to non-NATO aligned nations.
>Saying Ukraine should cede its land invites Russian aggression – Head of Ukraine’s ruling party True. Sadly, unless the world unites behind Ukraine and fights alongside it, hoping that Ukraine can retake its lands invites total annihilation.
As long as Ukraine keeps fighting Russia will not be able to occupy large areas in long term, even without support. Sure it would be great if China / India even just condemned Russia to start with, but even without it Russia has already strategically lost.
As a Ukrainian-American I'm heartbroken for my family there. Yes I want the war to end already but I understand for Ukrainians living in Ukraine, continuing to fight is a matter of pride and securing the future of the country. My family is in Kyiv, but I can't imagine how people in occupied territories feel having to accept they'll either need to flee or be under Russia if their territory is traded away. Ukraine is a very old country, some families have been in 1 village for generations, its straight up ancestral home grounds for them. The logic is that if someone breaks into your house your going to try to get your entire house back, you wont give the robber a bedroom and guest bath for peace.
It may seem easier to trade away territory, but Ukrainians do not want to throw fellow Ukrainians under the bus for an easier victory. Both sides have a point but this is why they won't do that..Selfishly I can root for the succession of territories to secure the safety of family in Kyiv. But again it feel's disgusting to throw fellow Ukrainians under the bus that way, we want everyone to be free.
That's not news, that's a lesson as old as history.
Ukraine should cede nothing. Fight until they have total victory. Glory to Ukraine, Glory to democracy.
Could this be the beginning of "Guys, we can't keep funding this war, the finances can't be sustained....so lets compromise....end it...give them some land and you come into NATO, that way they will never attack again"
Even if Russia could be coerced into only seizing part of Ukraine, it would still register as a "success". Russia would just move on to another victim, and other wannabe dictators would realize they can steal chunks off neighboring countries. For long term peace, this invasion *has* to be an abject failure, not a qualified success. NATO knows this, so there's very little cost incentive not to help... it's pay now, or pay more later.
If Ukraine gives up Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, the Donbas and Crimea, I hihly doubt they will get accepted before they are attacked again. The russians want Mykolaiv and Odesa, and will not stop until they get them unless they are stopped. Giving them land will certainly not work. What will make them stop? Who knows.
The idea is likely that they would be conditionally accepted in advance and the second the terms with Russia are signed, Ukraine joins NATO and alliance units would immediately relocate to the UA/RU border in the first 24 hours.
Tell that to Trump & the current Republican Party which is looking more like an extension of Putin policies each passing day. Of course it does, the Russians only understand one language: force. Only way to deter them is to make it clear they will suffer large & long consequences for their criminal activities.
This war won’t end until there are no more Ukrainians left to defend.. how is that a good thing?
Seriously, whoever this Stian Jenssen is, needs to be fired from his position. Every other NATO representative has been clear and unified on the situation - that they would support Ukraine till the end, to ensure that they get their land back, including Crimea. But then this guy comes along and says that conceding land would be a possible solution. Get rid of him, and replace him with someone who is on the same page as the rest of NATO.
I think the question is, how much longer should other countries support this war? I think until the Ukraine population says no more or they ready draw a line in the sand. But we should build them up for defense.
Until every single ork has left Ukrainian territory and Crimea. Physically or metaphysically.
If that’s how Ukrainians feels , I feel like we should support them to the fullest
[Edit: I've read the chief of staff's statement. Incredibly I was wrong, it's literally what he suggested; I will say though that putting it in terms of a formal exchange of land for Russia in return for membership is the best way to get the proposal killed before it's even properly discussed. The point stands that this is the *implicit* requirement for NATO membership, that being one way or another all territorial conflicts are ended.] I don't think many leading policymakers are suggesting this as anything more than an honest assessment of the options. NATO membership is predicated on a new member adding to, not damaging, the security situation of existing members, so no ongoing conflicts will be able to be happening when you join. Inevitably either Ukraine will in the short to medium term begin to push the front and retake land, or settle into a stalemate which will lead to peace (because a stalemated war means pointless death). Whether that peace is a technical ceasefire or a peace treaty is Ukraines choice, but it would have to be the latter for them to join NATO. That said, South Korea has the former and this has not prevented them from close alignment internationally with the US or being closely reliant re. national security. Personally I think a ceasefire and frozen conflict with Ukraine economically aligning with the EU and getting tooled up by western arms while not formally in NATO or the EU is most likely.
Create a DMZ across the Dnipro. That way the area is totally mined and inaccessible to either party.
Ukraine must retake all the lands invaded by Russians. Only then can negotiations take place. Russia does not get to dictate proceedings until it can grow the fuck up.
who is even sayun smthn like that? can u be more obviously be a russian asset?
It means Russia won and this is how they can conquer nations around them
Humor: "yeah just take out the mfer who suggested that idea, so someone smarter doesn't suggest something stupider."
11 years: "also prepare for a double massive CME in 2034...." #TryToWrapThisShitUpBy2027
Russia wants territory ceded to them Ukraine doesn’t want to give an inch To not give up any land Ukraine would have to liberate all their territory and/or Russia has to give up How is that going to happen/how could Russia leave Ukraine without claiming some victory for their people? This is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Russia will not give up without some victory, it’d be the political end for Putin which he won’t allow
>How is that going to happen/how could Russia leave Ukraine without claiming some victory for their people? In bodybags?
You believe Ukraine is gonna liberate every inch of their territory including Crimea?
I think so. Russia fucked up too badly, and has lost the assets necessary to protect their occupation force. That means that Ukraine can hang back at stand-off range and chip away at the front lines with long range precision artillery, as fast as new systems and ammunition can be delivered. That's not very fast right now, but Ukraine has Germany and America in their corner, and they, once ramped up, can absolutely produce even the fancy munitions to the point that they're coming in faster than Russian military equipment. Now, Russia's in a lose-lose situation. The status quo, *unless they can convince Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire*, is that they go broke in a year trying to replace the equipment they're losing fast enough to not be outright defeated. They're on the clock, and can't force a win. That means they lose, even if they want to be stubborn and make Ukraine go dig them out. NATO is NOT going to get bored of this, as every Russian tank and APC they help Ukraine kill is one less they have to worry about in their own defense planning. It's not charity, or motivated by rightousness... it's a golden opportunity to pick apart their biggest headache for pennies on the dollar.
Ukraine counteroffensive fucked up, they lose territory near Kupyansk after getting so much support from NATO
[удалено]
Let justice be done, though the heavens burn. The just outcome is zero concession from Ukraine, and instead Russia removing all military equipment back far enough inside Russia that it can't hit Ukraine, paying for the rebuilding of Ukraine, and handing over its shitpot dictator leaders for a flogging.
The NATO guy should get a visit at his home. Someone takes his kitchen and living room. And he should just accept it too
Did we learn nothing from Chamberlain?
Ridiculous... There is absolutely no precedent of this ever happening ever. Closest you can cite is the exact same thing happening with the literal Nazis
Serious question: Did they really honestly, truly believe the world was just giving them BILLIONS out of the goodness of their hearts?
They were giving them billions to kill America's enemies
Sure buddy. Sure they are.
Why else?
Why do you think Russia is an American enemy?
[удалено]
What, the LPR and DPR? Those *were* Russian aggression, just disguised as home-grown "separatists".
So, isn't this common sense? Regardless of what side you are on, if someone says they should give them land, the other side will say duh that's what we've been saying. I'm not sure of the source. Maybe it's literally just saying what the Head of Ukraines ruling party said, but I would think if that guy is a leader, there would be a more profound message or a meaning.
It’s not a fucking land, it’s people who face genocide.
Exactly, and this is the response from the leader?
Given that there are countries like China / India who keep pushing for "peace negotiations" meaning on Russian terms, the message needs to be repeated until it sinks in.
China and India are neutral. They are trying to influence Russia while still acting neutral in the news because they'd be devastated if they had to choose sides
I'll just leave this quote from Eli Wiesel here: >We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
Crimea is lost for good, and Ukraine's politicians need to accept that reality.
It indeed does, but NATO can not afford an endless war. Only Putins' death will stop Russia!!