Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
No one on Ricochet is a high official in the State Department, and no one in power is looking to us for advice. But people have opinions, and I'm interested in learning what some of you think. While no one here (that I recall) has come out and expressly declared themselves to be an admirer of Vladimir Putin, there are definitely people who hold President Zelensky (and Ukraine in general) in contempt. These are the people I am curious to hear from.
There are negotiations going on for a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would hopefully set the stage for a more permanent peace agreement. These negotiations may or may not bear fruit in the near future. I would like to know what terms you would find acceptable in either a short-term or long-term agreement. Based on many comments I have read over the last couple of years, I presume you want Ukraine to promise to never apply for membership in NATO and to recognize Russia's claim on Crimea. Perhaps also the other territory that Russia has already taken. What else? Do you think Russia should reject a deal that doesn't put limits on the size of Ukraine's armed forces? What about a prohibition on any foreign troops in Ukraine (excepting Russia's, of course)? If Russia demands changes in Ukraine's government, is that going too far, or do you think that is a legitimate demand?
Discussion (263)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Alright, to be clear: I have a deep and abiding admiration for the Ukrainian nation, and I respect that Zelensky has been playing an incredibly weak as best as he can. Is he a dishonest puppet of the International Globalists? Maybe. Is the Ukrainian state rife with corruption? Probably. (I think the fact that the Bidens were so deeply enmeshed in Ukraine to be proof positive of the level of Ukrainian corruption.) I WANT to see Ukraine win and reclaim every square inch of its sovereign territory. Ukraine's cause is righteous and just, and Russia's invasion is unjust and illegal.
All that being true, it doesn't change a single fact on the ground. Ukraine cannot win a conventional, high-intensity conflict (HIC) against Russia by itself. It does not matter how much military hardware the West provides: Ukraine simply does not have the manpower. Hoping for NATO membership to be a solution to that fact is a non-starter; current NATO members are NOT going to agree to Ukraine joining the alliance under current conditions. Furthermore, NATO's predisposition to plan, program and train to conduct a HIC is (quite frankly) 180-deg. opposite from what Ukraine can sustain. Last year's "counter offensive" demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So why am I jumping into this thread? Because I think a cease-fire is in Ukraine's best interest. If played properly, a cease-fire can lead to the conditions under which Ukraine can achieve its long-term strategic goals in the long run (8-10 years.) Can this be done in the short-term? No. Pretending otherwise only results in more dead Ukrainian soldiers. (It also results in more dead Russians, by a factor of 10x. I'm sorry, but I can't hate the Russians, particularly those who are dying for such a wicked, evil regime as Putin's.)
I think a ceasefire agreement that preserves the conditions on the ground as it currently stands, ends Russian air and missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians, and results in a formalized negotiation procedural regime would be in Ukraine's best interest. As long as Ukraine has the means to participate in "talks" without having to formally agree to renounce it sovereignty, it can win in the long run. This provides "breathing space" for Ukraine to reconstitute domestic industry and agriculture, drag out the negotiations, and use the time to re-orient its armed forces towards low-intensity, unconventional insurrection in the occupied territories. Ukraine can learn how to conduct formal diplomacy (lying shamelessly while providing plausible deniability) as well as building informal diplomatic pathways. (A Ukraine that has makes a secret agreement with China to steadily bleed Russia until Russia is too weak to resist Chinese expansion would be a much stronger Ukraine.)
NATO membership for Ukraine isn't going to happen as long as Russia presents a viable threat to the Baltic states. On its own, Ukraine can't win a conventional HIC to retake its sovereign occupied territory. It's time to quit wishing this weren't true. If Ukraine is going to survive as a nation, it can't keep absorbing the losses of its male, military-age population. It needs husbands and fathers and providers for the families of young Ukrainians who are going to ultimately win this war in the coming decades.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I don't take exception to your comment except for this: (A Ukraine that has makes a secret agreement with China to steadily bleed Russia until Russia is too weak to resist Chinese expansion would be a much stronger Ukraine.)
Why would you want China to take over Russia? I view China as our strongest, most aggressive, and most dangerous adversary. They want to overcome our position as the pre-eminent country on earth. Would you want to live under their control? Not me. I believe we would be better off as allies of Russia to fend off China. I do not have to like Putin to believe that, and I don't. But Russia will be around a lot longer than Putin. I do not understand why Putin is going to such extreme to overcome Ukraine. I hope he realizes this war as a marginal mistake at best and is ready for it to end. Going to war with Russia over Ukraine makes as much sense to me as if Putin were attempting the same disastrous behavior with one of the "stan" countries. I do not see this as our issue. Trying to police the world is exactly what DJT is not interested in doing and is one reason he got elected.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I would propose to make the existing front lines the new borders. Russia keeps everything it has taken, both in 2014 and 2022-25.
Ukraine does not join NATO. I reason that they'd add nothing to NATO, and would be a liability. Ukraine may join the EU.
The DMZ must be actively patrolled and maintained by the EU.
Both sides may deploy any armaments they choose, right up to the DMZ. If either side wishes restrictions, those must be reciprocal. If Russia wants the EU and/or Ukes to provide e.g. 100 klicks of buffer then they have to give that as well, and there must be a verification mechanism. The border with Belorussia must be included.
Ukraine must not become a Russian vassal. No Russian influence in Uk affairs may be allowed.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Neutrality didn’t work out so badly for Austria.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Russia could already have as much "buffer zone" as they wish, within their own borders, and they have no business demanding that it be within anyone else's borders.
You're seeing five of 263 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.