Do you think the Ukrainians have the capacity to do that? They tried to get peace on those terms, and failed. The gamble behind that is you risk obtaining peace 100% on your enemy's terms. The sad reality is Ukraine already played it's hand and lost. This is the problem with saying "we'll play our hand for X now." You've already played it. There isn't a hand to play.
If only the world worked on higher principles, like ones that the US used to believe in. That the people select the sovereignty over them. This is a good thing we should want without bemoaning. If Ukraine had conceded to that principle and recognized elections every party would be better off including themselves.
But I know some will say, "But then Ukraine would have lost land." Ukraine isn't a person. It doesn't have rights. It's utility function doesn't have moral value. Neither does Russia's. But we personify these things that aren't people and act like there are wrongs when these fictional entities don't get their way. What would be right for people, whose concerns do have actual moral weight, is that people get to live under the sovereignty they choose to recognize as accurately as we can pull off. Of course there would be some in those regions who would prefer to live under Ukraine. And when they don't get their way it is a wrong. And it's a wrong when the people who would prefer to live under Russia don't get their way. All we can do is minimize wrong. We can't get to zero.
But when we fail to recognize the more important principles we multiply wrongs. Now a lot of people are dead.
There is also value in aligning with truth rather than what we want for more reasons that just Ukraine and Russia. If the west conceded this even when it isn't convenient then it helps set the standard. We could free Tibet, get Taiwan recognized, and have a little more clarity of who owns what in the Palestinian region. On that last one not without significant ambiguity. Enough ambiguity that conflict would still be inevitable. But it would help clamp in the extreme views on both sides by a millimeter.
I agree with all of that, though would include a bit more about Ukraine's allies. Putin refered to NATO allies today, noting that 'we're ready' to deal with them. He likes to talk like that and I have no doubt he's emboldened by China, Iran, N. Korea, India, USA and other supporters of his approaches to make those threatening comments. But this also shows that Putin is mainly concerned with the support of NATO allies for Ukraine, without which Ukraine (government of) would have to give up Dnipro and Danbas (and potentially much more). So there is a geopolitical problem that has to be resolved before Russians leave or remain. Traditionally economic sanctions by the US have been very helpful, but the US is doing what Russia wants at the moment. I think the question for the end of the war is about how log each side want to invest in it.
Log in
Yes, or Kushner and Trump are mainly passing on Putin's orders. Putin today and as always defines peace as Russia's ownership of most of Ukraine's mineral wealth, which is located in Dnipro and Donbas. Ukraine holds deposits of 22 out of 34 minerals the EU classifies as critical. Many are in parts controlled by Russia.. Peace is the retreat of Russians from occupied territories. News media are not correcting Putin's definition of peace.
Do you think the Ukrainians have the capacity to do that? They tried to get peace on those terms, and failed. The gamble behind that is you risk obtaining peace 100% on your enemy's terms. The sad reality is Ukraine already played it's hand and lost. This is the problem with saying "we'll play our hand for X now." You've already played it. There isn't a hand to play.
If only the world worked on higher principles, like ones that the US used to believe in. That the people select the sovereignty over them. This is a good thing we should want without bemoaning. If Ukraine had conceded to that principle and recognized elections every party would be better off including themselves.
But I know some will say, "But then Ukraine would have lost land." Ukraine isn't a person. It doesn't have rights. It's utility function doesn't have moral value. Neither does Russia's. But we personify these things that aren't people and act like there are wrongs when these fictional entities don't get their way. What would be right for people, whose concerns do have actual moral weight, is that people get to live under the sovereignty they choose to recognize as accurately as we can pull off. Of course there would be some in those regions who would prefer to live under Ukraine. And when they don't get their way it is a wrong. And it's a wrong when the people who would prefer to live under Russia don't get their way. All we can do is minimize wrong. We can't get to zero.
But when we fail to recognize the more important principles we multiply wrongs. Now a lot of people are dead.
There is also value in aligning with truth rather than what we want for more reasons that just Ukraine and Russia. If the west conceded this even when it isn't convenient then it helps set the standard. We could free Tibet, get Taiwan recognized, and have a little more clarity of who owns what in the Palestinian region. On that last one not without significant ambiguity. Enough ambiguity that conflict would still be inevitable. But it would help clamp in the extreme views on both sides by a millimeter.
I agree with all of that, though would include a bit more about Ukraine's allies. Putin refered to NATO allies today, noting that 'we're ready' to deal with them. He likes to talk like that and I have no doubt he's emboldened by China, Iran, N. Korea, India, USA and other supporters of his approaches to make those threatening comments. But this also shows that Putin is mainly concerned with the support of NATO allies for Ukraine, without which Ukraine (government of) would have to give up Dnipro and Danbas (and potentially much more). So there is a geopolitical problem that has to be resolved before Russians leave or remain. Traditionally economic sanctions by the US have been very helpful, but the US is doing what Russia wants at the moment. I think the question for the end of the war is about how log each side want to invest in it.