Does Ukraine need to give up some land (Crimea) at the end? Or is there something else for Putin to save face like what (?) they did with Wagner?

  • letsgo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. That’s why Russia needs to be forced out. And the wider picture means that Russia has to be forced out of all Ukraine including Crimea, so that Russia can see their war was a massively expensive waste of time and resources.

    That wider picture is that Putin’s long game is to rebuild the USSR, which means that after he’s taken Ukraine he’s coming for the Baltics and parts of Poland and Romania, bringing him into direct conflict with NATO, but he’s gambling that we won’t have the stomach for WWIII. If we let him keep the bits he’s invaded so far (aka appeasement), that’s exactly the mistake we made with - OK I know about Godwin’s law but this is directly relevant - that German bloke back in the 1930s. It didn’t work then, won’t work now and won’t prevent the coming conflict; only pushing Russia back to the 2014 borders and getting Ukraine into NATO has any chance of doing that. And that means the USA and Europe must be willing to provide Ukraine with weapons not just to die heroically but to succeed in getting Russia completely out.

    If Russia needs to save face then they can declare that they have “successfully deNazified and demilitarised Ukraine” at any time and walk away. Putin might actually be coming round to this way of thinking; he referred a few days ago to most of Ukraine’s weapons as having been spent and they now mostly have NATO stuff. Maybe there is still hope for Russia, but it will involve abandoning their USSR plan.

    I’m broadly in agreement with Macron’s view that we shouldn’t humiliate Russia, but if they insist on pushing into Ukraine at all costs then I don’t see any alternative. Not humiliating them means they have to co-operate to end the war, but there’s no sign of that yet.