Any compromise that gives Russia even an inch of ukranian soil should be deemed unacceptable. Fucking armchair geopolitical experts trading off a sovereign nation’s territory.
There are cases when cession of territory should be considered as a means of obtaining a lasting peace.
1/6th of the country to an aggressor state trying to commit genocide that has done this twice before and gone back on its word both times is, obviously, not a reasonable option.
I can’t think of an examples of countries wanting peace but can’t have it because they can’t share. I also can’t think of any countries that swapped some land and everything was cool and grovy later.
You don’t think it has to do with the complex trade relationships, a shared language, related cultures, and geopolitical similar goals?
Nah it must be because the US and Canada made sure some piece of East Jahunga Island with 1000x as many beavers as people border was perfectly defined.
Legit, we came close several times during the 19th century to outright war (other than the War of 1812, naturally). One of our presidents was elected with a “Pro-War with Britain if they don’t give us the land we think is our’s” platform. Land swaps were an integral part of avoiding that.
The only reason they did it again was that they got away with it. A war with NATO and nukes the next time around is not “getting away with it”. If Ukraine had not given up its nukes in the first place, the first time would not have happened.
(Plus, I want to know what will happen when peace is called and +1 million unhappy soldiers return to Russia. Might be a faster way of returning Crimea if Russia devolves into civil war)
Any compromise that gives Russia even an inch of ukranian soil should be deemed unacceptable. Fucking armchair geopolitical experts trading off a sovereign nation’s territory.
There are cases when cession of territory should be considered as a means of obtaining a lasting peace.
1/6th of the country to an aggressor state trying to commit genocide that has done this twice before and gone back on its word both times is, obviously, not a reasonable option.
I can’t think of an examples of countries wanting peace but can’t have it because they can’t share. I also can’t think of any countries that swapped some land and everything was cool and grovy later.
US and the UK in the 19th century comes to mind. Or the US and Canada, if you prefer to think of it that way.
You don’t think it has to do with the complex trade relationships, a shared language, related cultures, and geopolitical similar goals?
Nah it must be because the US and Canada made sure some piece of East Jahunga Island with 1000x as many beavers as people border was perfectly defined.
Legit, we came close several times during the 19th century to outright war (other than the War of 1812, naturally). One of our presidents was elected with a “Pro-War with Britain if they don’t give us the land we think is our’s” platform. Land swaps were an integral part of avoiding that.
The only reason they did it again was that they got away with it. A war with NATO and nukes the next time around is not “getting away with it”. If Ukraine had not given up its nukes in the first place, the first time would not have happened.
(Plus, I want to know what will happen when peace is called and +1 million unhappy soldiers return to Russia. Might be a faster way of returning Crimea if Russia devolves into civil war)
I appreciate the intentions, but I don’t know that it would work out that way in practice.