Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Notably, you snipped out the first half of my post - the crucial part that explains why Ukraine will not - cannot - cede anything to Russia. And who, exactly, has the moral authority to tell them they cannot attempt to rescue citizens who are presently subject to the utter brutality of a genocidal occupying army?
|
I snipped to get to what I thought the central point of the post, but I did refer back to your point of war crimes in your post.
Quote:
|
Ukraine does not have the luxury of a negotiated settlement, because they know that a negotiation now merely delays the next war, it does not stop it. Western support is predicated on an understanding in Nato and other capitals of this very point, and while Western leaders prefer not to talk about Crimea directly, I think it’s fairly clear from listening to the comments made over many weeks that they understand Crimea will come into play sooner or later.
|
Understood, but I don’t think it moves the discussion on.
If a negotiated settlement is categorically off the table, and always will be.
And if it is acknowledged that Ukraine by itself cannot retake Russian gains including Crimea
And if it is further acknowledged that only a total win for Ukraine, regaining all lost territory pre-2010 is acceptable, although also acknowledged Ukraine by itself is incapable of achieving this goal.
And if it is acknowledged that for Russia, keeping what they have gained is an absolute minimum acceptable result.
And it is also acknowledged that direct assistance of Ukraine by foreign ( probably NATO)
Powers would result in, or endanger the globe, to nuclear Armageddon and would therefore be avoided.
And it is also acknowledged that Russia is capable of holding this out For as long as they want.
If there is no negotiation, how do you see it being resolved?