Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Ukraine has accomplished nothing. Ukraine was already neutral. russia invaded in 2014, annexed crimea, occupied donbas. Now russia invaded again with objective of additional occupation. They planned to occupy whole Ukraine and install russia friendly regime - look at belarus for how it looks like. This did not work. Now they are trying to occupy additional lands in south east of Ukraine to have land access to crimea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Ukraine accomplished unifying the west, attracting tons of FDI post war, and accelerated links to eu

Ukraine gave up: land

Ukraine won this trade. In the 21st century, fdi and people matter more than land.

Ukraine will attract a quasi Marshall plan from the west that would’ve never come if the war didn’t happen.

On a utilitarian perspective it’s an overall win to give up land for a massive windfall in dollars and human capital enhancing programs

Who will pay for the Marshall plan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

What Russia did in the eastern part of Ukraine was to remove the people there, send them east into Russia (never to be seen again), and replace them with Russians. The same would have happened to the rest of Ukraine if Putin had succeeded in taking the country. I suppose by that measure, the new inhabitants would be happy.

Do you have proof of this massive transfer of one ethnic group and especially replacement with the other? When did this take place? It appears that a lot of Ukrainian population in the eastern Ukraine was already Russian speaking prior to this war and even prior to the unrests of 2014. I bet you could never tell the difference between the languages or who is ethnic Ukrainian or ethnic Russian

Anonymous wrote:

Biden has never said, throughout this conflict, that the US goal is to help Ukraine WIN this war. I really don't think that is the Biden administration's goal.

Because none of the experts expected Ukraine to hold out this long. That’s not malice on Biden’s part.

He STILL has not said it. It has been well over a month and Ukraine has shown they are in it to win it.
I don't think Ukraine winning is his goal.

Biden has never said, throughout this conflict, that the US goal is to help Ukraine WIN this war. I really don't think that is the Biden administration's goal.

Because none of the experts expected Ukraine to hold out this long. That’s not malice on Biden’s part.

Some of you are attempting to apply reasoning skills to Putin.

He doesn't think like you. He knows one thing.... Power. He has wanted the Soviet Union reconstituted for years. It gives him more power.
That is what this is all about. It doesn't matter what Ukraine does. Didn't matter what Crimea did.

Putin has a goal. That is what this is about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Ukraine accomplished unifying the west, attracting tons of FDI post war, and accelerated links to eu

Ukraine gave up: land

Ukraine won this trade. In the 21st century, fdi and people matter more than land.

Ukraine will attract a quasi Marshall plan from the west that would’ve never come if the war didn’t happen.

On a utilitarian perspective it’s an overall win to give up land for a massive windfall in dollars and human capital enhancing programs

Not true—Ukraine lost millions of people as refugees. There’s no guarantee they will return.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

Am I correct that the annexation of Crimea was precipitated, in part, by Ukraine's intention to break the long-standing lease signed with the Russians that allowed them to station military forces in Sevastpol?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

That was the agreement prior to 2014. Then Russia stopped the lease payments and just took it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Putin was going to invade regardless of what Ukraine did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Ukraine accomplished unifying the west, attracting tons of FDI post war, and accelerated links to eu

Ukraine gave up: land

Ukraine won this trade. In the 21st century, fdi and people matter more than land.

Ukraine will attract a quasi Marshall plan from the west that would’ve never come if the war didn’t happen.

On a utilitarian perspective it’s an overall win to give up land for a massive windfall in dollars and human capital enhancing programs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He better not be sending troops.

Or what?

On state-controlled Russian media they are calling for all-out Russian invasion of Poland, the Baltics and essentially all of what was once under Soviet control. The millisecond Putin crosses the line we should be responding - with troops, missiles, air superiority. Unleash hell on Russia.

Better not what?

And, reportedly, they are using Biden's speech to the troops yesterday to justify that move.
Good job, Biden!

Yes. Because Putin only decided what to do based on Biden saying that. Sure. /s

Just pointing out that Biden's words are being used as Russian propaganda.

Do you have a link?

I do know other people gladly supply Russian tv with propaganda, but as of yet I hadn't heard Biden's words broadcast.

Different poster, but I do NOT want to share it. I don't want to be nuked over senior moment word salad that was clearly accidental. We are NOT sending troops to Ukraine. He misspoke. God help us

You must be very glad trump and all his crazies has been removed from office.

You're joking, right?
Trump was very non-interventionalist.

And, we have Biden, calling for regime change, but not really. The WH immediately had to walk back his "gaffe."
Guess we know who is actually in charge of foreign policy in our country. It ain't Biden.

Two steps forward, one step back. It's a strategy to keep Putin scared and continue making mistakes. Putin has made a ton of unforced errors over the past month. The mixed messaging is very effective, the Russians keep screwing up and their military command structure is decimated.

And LOL at any of you who believe "we are not sending forces to fight Russia." It's kinda cute that you think we don't have people on the ground in Ukraine right now

Biden is fighting dirty and you don't even realize it.

I heard a 4-star General analyze Biden's strategy with this invasion. And, I agree with him.

The Biden administration has had really only 1 strategy - Don't provoke Putin. Everything the US has done, or not done, is in an effort to not provoke Putin. From the very start, sanctions were threatened but not implemented because the US did not want to provoke Putin. Well, we see how that went. The US shipped the arms to Ukraine way too late.... so as not to provoke Putin. Now, we are playing catch up at the expense of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the decimation of cities in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy has asked for surface to air missiles and migs to help protect their skies. Biden has refused to help with the migs because ..... he doesn't want to provoke Putin. While we don't need US boots on the ground, we could provide Zelenskyy the tools he needs to actually WIN this war.

It is almost as if this administration does not want Russia to lose because they are afraid he will be provoked into taking more destructive measures.
Biden has never said, throughout this conflict, that the US goal is to help Ukraine WIN this war. I really don't think that is the Biden administration's goal.
Because, they fear Putin.

Time to stop fearing Putin and start helping Ukraine win the war. Because, they can. They should not agree to any concessions - no land to Putin. Nothing.