• Skua@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So in your own description, if international support ends, Ukraine will be forced to surrender without a negotiated peace. On that basis, it is either “keep supporting them” or “Ukraine surrenders”. Again, that’s the situation as you have just described it.

    Considering the total failure of both Minsk agreements, the fact that the pre-2014 borders were already based on a treaty with Russia that included security guarantees for Ukraine, and the fact that Russia has no right to anything out of this war, I don’t expect Ukraine to really have a lot of faith in any negotiation in which they don’t hold an extremely strong hand. The Russian government has demonstrated with Crimea that even if it takes something, it will not be satisfied there, it will be only be emboldened to try to take more. Following that, I say we should give them that strong hand.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t expect Ukraine to really have a lot of faith in any negotiation in which they don’t hold an extremely strong hand.

      They already have a strong hand because of international support, but international support could end if Ukraine tries to negotiate peace without demanding total surrender. It’s a Catch-22 that Ukraine has been forced into by the West, because they are not allowed to negotiate for peace. They are only allowed to “win”, and that isn’t going to happen either.

      So the war will never end. Either it ends up like the Korean War or the War on Terror - endless war forever.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I disagree with your analysis, but even if you’re 100% correct then we should still keep sending them equipment or they’ll be forced to surrender. So what’s your gripe with Biden looking for money to do that?