Tom Kazansky 2012 said:
J. Walter Weatherman said:
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:
Rossticus said:
Tom Kazansky 2012 said:
Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.
I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.
Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.
Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.
This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".
To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?
I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.
Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.
We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.
That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.
Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.
And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?
See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.
And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.
We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?
In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?
Edit: I don't consider wiki to be a legit source, but they sure don't seem very pro Ukraine based on recent history:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic
Maybe the people just voted in a bunch of pro Russian yahoos by accident or they are subverting their elections?
This was addressed numerous times over the first 6 months of the war. Lots of threads and posts covering it. Going to keep it simple because I'm just tired of writing dissertations on this same issue. Prior to Russia seeding, supporting, supplying, training, etc a relatively small initial group of separatists in 2014 there was no broad movement for independence from Ukraine outside of areas containing a high volume of illegal Russian immigrants. Yes. Eastern Ukraine had Russian illegals. Not surprising.
Via direct Russian influence and support, the group expanded and, via violence, bribery, and other coercive means ensured that pro-Russian elements were installed in local and regional government positions. They also ensured that there was little choice as to where local allegiances would lie if you lived in that area. It's a poor area. People didn't have an option to pick up and leave. Most residents who weren't men of fighting age just tried to keep their heads down and keep living. Men of fighting age didn't have a lot of options if they wanted to remain alive and keep their families safe. Their "opinions" and "voting" practices were whatever kept them safe and off the radar.
Eventually, as we know, this all boiled over into direct conflict between the Russian backed contingent (which was also comprised of actual illegal Russian citizens and literal Russian military), local Ukrainian nationalist militias, and Ukrainian government. There was never some wholly organic movement of Ukrainians who wanted to join Russia out of desire for some greater liberty or escape from Ukrainian tyranny. Russia manufactured it, pitched a pretty story, and when things got ugly, as they do in conflict, they pointed fingers as justification of their narrative.
If you want to talk about negotiation of a portion of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine where the MOST pro Russian concentration of residents lived (many being literal Russian citizens) in order to cease hostilities and save lives then I don't see that as being unreasonable.
Advocating for permitting Russia to annex an area of 4 oblasts nearly 1/3 the size of Texas (whose residents, outside of the Donbas conflict, literally never pushed to leave Ukraine) based on what a limited group of people supported in a limited border region due largely to Russian subversion and destabilization seems a bit much, unless your logic is that the greater good is to end the war at all costs, with the quickest way of doing so being to offer Russia a sweetheart deal that allows them to achieve, for all practical purposes, victory.
And if that's your logic then that's your logic. Just trying to hone in on the heart of your pov.