Why not negotiate a lasting deal now to prevent further deaths in Ukraine and further escalation that has the potential for a nuclear exchange

[oneworld2]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

 

[MamboDervish]

Why not negotiate a lasting deal now to prevent further deaths in Ukraine and further escalation that has the potential for a nuclear exchange?​

It depends entirely on the details of the deal.

"There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?"

Yes there is, and there's no reason this has to lead to a full scale war between Russia and NATO, even if the war in Ukraine lasts 4 or 5 years. Everyone knows where the borders are, so both sides know where the lines are drawn.

 

[Quag]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

The war can end the minute Russia stops attacking
No country should ever be able to tell another country what their foreign policy can be.
There is no way Russia would ever allow anything other than a pretense of free and fair voting in Donbas. heck they dont even have free and fair election in Russia
The idea is absurd and incredibly naïve

 

[oneworld2]

Why not negotiate a lasting deal now to prevent further deaths in Ukraine and further escalation that has the potential for a nuclear exchange?​

It depends entirely on the details of the deal.

I agree but if the alternative is continuing war that could escalate to a truly global scale with a potential for a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

The Minsk 2 agreement was supported by the UNSC, OSCE, the US itself, Russia, Ukraine, European powers etc etc why can't that be the framework to build on and , hopefully, bring about a lasting solution whereby Ukrainains can decide for themselves who they wish to be part of and legitimate Russian security concerns can be addressed ?

It's got to be better than the alternatives being bandied around , most of which are advocating more arms and more chance of escalations

 

[oneworld2]

The war can end the minute Russia stops attacking

I agree but the underlying reasons that caused it also need to be resolved

No country should ever be able to tell another country what their foreign policy can be.

I agree but that's not how it works in the real world

There is no way Russia would ever allow anything other than a pretense of free and fair voting in Donbas. heck they dont even have free and fair election in Russia

You don't know that for sure. There could be a commitment from both sides to demilitarize and have UN peacekeepers and neutral officials oversee any elections

The idea is absurd and incredibly naïve

Most of this has already been agreed in the Minsk2 agreement mentioned above. It wasn't " absurd " or " Naive" when the UNSC voted for it, or the OSCE, so is it just those things when someone else you disagree with mentions it?

 

[Crovax]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

There is no lasting deal to be made. Putin wants the Ukraine back as a part of Russia. Period. If you think anything else is the case the Russian propaganda has worked.

 

[Quag]

I agree but the underlying reasons that caused it also need to be resolved

The underlying reasons are that Putin is trying to expand that is the ONLY reason. The BS the propogandists spew is just that BS lots of former soviet block countries joined NATO without Putin having a meltdown. The reason those countries joined NATO is that like Ukraine they feared Russia and with good reason.

I agree but that's not how it works in the real world

Thats not how Russia wants it to work but the USA doesn't dictate foreign policy to Britain, Canada, France. Sure there is back and forth discussion but no dictating.

You don't know that for sure. There could be a commitment from both sides to demilitarize and have UN peacekeepers and neutral officials oversee any elections

Russia is very well known for this. You need to be very very naïve to think otherwise.

Most of this has already been agreed in the Minsk2 agreement mentioned above. It wasn't " absurd " or " Naive" when the UNSC voted for it, or the OSCE, so is it just those things when someone else you disagree with mentions it?

I have no problem if Ukraine agrees to those conditions, its their country but dont for a second think they will have any lasting impact on peace. Russia is expanding that is what it is about. If Putin could install a puppet govt he would be happy but it is clear now that any puppet govt would not last which of course would give Putin an excuse to re-enter the country for "peac keeping"

Being naïve wont make the world a better place it will just encourage dictators like Putin to continue creating crises then demand concessions to end them

 

[Mach]

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

Why is Ukraine worried about NATO? They are under siege/war already. You appear to want Ukraine to buckle for the sake of NATO, it makes little sense.
It's up to Ukraine if they want to try and retain their independence/freedom or not.

 

[joluoto]

Putin's problem is not really NATO, but that Ukraine was developing towards a functioning democracy, and he can never accept that.

 

[Cordelier]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

If Putin wanted a deal short of making Ukraine into a puppet state, at the most - the absolute most - he would have made this war a purely aerial campaign, similar to the NATO effort in Kosovo.

Limited objectives only require limited means. We can judge Russian intentions by Russian actions. Any peace deal wouldn't be worth the paper it is printed on.

The only way to avoid a wider war at this point is to make Russia pay such a price for it's present aggression that it won't even be able to contemplate any such action in the future. If that takes supporting a 50-year insurgency in the Ukraine, then that's what it takes. If we roll over now, though, I can guarantee Putin will keep pushing until we are forced to fight him directly.

 

[Bullseye]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

I suspect negotiations are in the minds of Ukraine, the problem is what each side wants and what they're willing to give up.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

because i want a nuclear war, and that means doing everything to antagonize putin until he presses the button! Isolate him! make him **** up the entire world and notably democrat cities!

 

[Rexedgar]

because i want a nuclear war, and that means doing everything to antagonize putin until he presses the button! Isolate him! make him **** up the entire world and notably democrat cities!

Nostrovia!

 

[phoenix2020]

Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.

I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.

Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping

The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.

There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?

I agree. You should tell Russia to de-escalate the conflict and stop murdering Ukrainians. Let us know when you've successfully averted the full scale war.

 

[oneworld2]

There is no lasting deal to be made. Putin wants the Ukraine back as a part of Russia. Period. If you think anything else is the case the Russian propaganda has worked.

You would only know that for sure by engaging in the negotiations started under a Minsk 2. If he was dead set on embracing all of Ukraine he could have recognized the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples Rebublics 8 years ago but he didn't. He recognized them as seperate entities only in the last couple of weeks.

We are all subject to propaganda and we are all taken in by it to greater or lesser degrees. I prefer to dump the MSM and listen to the outlier experts from both left and right of the political spectrum. I find the fact filled discussions/presentations invaluable to understanding the situation and find the MSM coverage wholly woeful by comparison, so I don't think your charge has much in the way of merit.

 

[oneworld2]

I suspect negotiations are in the minds of Ukraine, the problem is what each side wants and what they're willing to give up.

Thanks for not being wholly predictable and actually trying to discuss the topic

I think, in the light of the reaction to the war itself, that both Ukraine and Russia have it within them to make the necessary compromises. Ukraine is a divided country no matter how much the MSM try to down play it and the wishes of the people there, along with the legitimate security concerns of Russia wrt NATO, can be thrashed out as a better alternative to an escalating war.

In the current climate we haven't seen much in the way of support for a negotiated settlement because, imo, too many outside actors are pushing their own interests off the back of war in Ukraine

 

[oneworld2]

I agree. You should tell Russia to de-escalate the conflict and stop murdering Ukrainians. Let us know when you've successfully averted the full scale war.

I wish Russia would de-escalate and hope the ongoing behind the scenes talks can bring that about. That is the immediate concern, to stop the war and not be pushing for it to escalate into a Russia/NATo conflict

At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia

It's not up to me and if it bothers you that someone decided to put up a thread based on the pros and cons, likelihood or not of a negotiated settlement that's a you issue imo

 

[Cordelier]

I wish Russia would de-escalate and hope the ongoing behind the scenes talks can bring that about. That is the immediate concern, to stop the war and not be pushing for it to escalate into a Russia/NATo conflict

At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia

It's not up to me and if it bothers you that someone decided to put up a thread based on the pros and cons, likelihood or not of a negotiated settlement that's a you issue imo

You don't de-escalate a ground war...... you either advance, retreat, or attrit. They're your three options.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia

I think Putin’s letters to the leaders of Finland and Sweden show that he’s not going to care what ordinary people think or want - as long as he can demand others bend to Russia’s terms.

 

[oneworld2]

Why is Ukraine worried about NATO? They are under siege/war already. You appear to want Ukraine to buckle for the sake of NATO, it makes little sense.
It's up to Ukraine if they want to try and retain their independence/freedom or not.

If you have been following this there is little doubt that both Ukrainian and Georgian invitations to become NATO member states has been pushed by the US only and that Germany and France have been dead against it because maybe they are not crazy enough to write off Russian security concerns or the threat to Europe wrt the ongoing eastward expansion of NATO towards Russian borders.

All member states have to grant newcomers acceptance into the military alliance and that appeared something of a dead letter regarding Ukraine and Georgia. That doesn't mean the US promise couldn't force European hands at some future point and full membership be given. That is Russias issue from what I can see.

I am not asking Ukrainians to " buckle" for NATO at all. I am hoping that they have the wit to realize that NATO and the US in particular has been leading them down the garden path to destruction by using them as a proxy to poke Russia knowing full well that they were never going to actually support them with feet on the ground and planes in the sky. Had they have realized this they might not have been so unwilling to have Minsk 2 pushed through and wouldn't be getting the shit kicked out of them and their country.

I agree that it is up to Kiev/Western Ukraine to decide for themselves whether or not to negotiate a settlement with their own and Russia. I just think they would be better equiped to do it free from false promises that will impair their decision making

.

 

[CaughtInThe]

All that is peachy until a country puts a mob boss in charge.

 

[lwf]

I wish Russia would de-escalate and hope the ongoing behind the scenes talks can bring that about. That is the immediate concern, to stop the war and not be pushing for it to escalate into a Russia/NATo conflict

At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia

It's not up to me and if it bothers you that someone decided to put up a thread based on the pros and cons, likelihood or not of a negotiated settlement that's a you issue imo

That Russia's national security concerns are legitimate is debatable. What threat would NATO pose to Russian sovereignty if it shared a border? When was the last time a NATO country invaded a sovereign nation with the intention of adding it's territory to its borders?

I'm all for negotiation with Russia, including signing a binding declaration that no NATO country will ever cross current Russian borders with its military and invade Russian soil for the purposes of conquest. But refusing to allow sovereign nations who qualify for NATO membership from joining NATO just because Russia doesn't like it should be off the table. There is no legitimate security concern with Russia and NATO sharing a border. Other countries can do it. So can Russia.

 

[Bullseye]

Thanks for not being wholly predictable and actually trying to discuss the topic

I think, in the light of the reaction to the war itself, that both Ukraine and Russia have it within them to make the necessary compromises. Ukraine is a divided country no matter how much the MSM try to down play it and the wishes of the people there, along with the legitimate security concerns of Russia wrt NATO, can be thrashed out as a better alternative to an escalating war.

In the current climate we haven't seen much in the way of support for a negotiated settlement because, imo, too many outside actors are pushing their own interests off the back of war in Ukraine

Your wiseassery aside, the key is to find the solution that each side can accept. I would guess Ukraine is going to what some for of reparations for the death and destruction Russian inflicted at least; Russia is going to want some real estate, I think.

 

[Mach]

There is no legitimate security concern with Russia and NATO sharing a border. Other countries can do it. So can Russia.

Russia already shares border with NATO countries, has for some time now. (Latvia, Estonia)

 

[oneworld2]

I think Putin’s letters to the leaders of Finland and Sweden show that he’s not going to care what ordinary people think or want - as long as he can demand others bend to Russia’s terms.

He let them know that he feels that a Swedish and Finnish NATO membership would further threaten Russias national security and asked them to desist from joining the military alliance under threat of political and military consequences should they decide to join. It's a threat, no doubt about it but to ignore his concerns or to disregard Russias right to act on threats to its national security is just as stupid as thinking the decisions made by those two countries somehow don't impact on the relationship between those nations.

They have their choices and Russia has its choices.

The eastward expansion of NATO was inevitably going to lead to this day and instead of seeing de-escalations we are seeing the lining up of states akin to the situations in both world wars. If people are happy to pour petrol as a means to put out the fire that's but to put all of this on Russian toes is ridiculous even if it is a convenient ruse for people to believe.