A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
  • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
    322·
    4 days ago

    What’s the point of ceding part of your country for peace, if you get invaded again a few years later? That’s not peace.

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      62·
      4 days ago

      There isn’t. There’s also no point in continuing a strategy that clearly favors Russia (they’re the ones steadily gaining ground every month).

      The better strategy (which Trump almost certainly won’t entertain) is to negotiate a peace now and use that time to build a robust defense-in-depth at the current border.

      It will be ugly because it will turn miles of border into a dangerous DMZ. But Russia already demonstrated that it works. Dig a crap ton of trenches. Build out bunkers and anti-tank traps. Ignore Geneva a bit and mine the crap out of the area. Lots of surveillance. Probably some experimental infrastructure to make it easier to deploy drones.

      That would also need to be coupled with commitments to build out munitions plants in Western Ukraine; primarily artillery shells and drones.

      This will work because it dramatically raises the cost of each meter of ground gained by opposing forces. Ukraine can get defensive infrastructure that they can cheaply operate, without significant external assistance.

      The downside is that Ukraine would loose parts of its territory. The upside is that it has a far better chance of keeping the territory it still has.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
      410·
      4 days ago

      Seems like something that’s atleast worth the shot when the alternative is to continue with the ongoing war while losing more and more territory and soldiers each day. In order to prevent a war from happening again you first need to stop the war that’s already going on.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        9·
        4 days ago

        I feel like it might be a bit better to try to fight on until you have at least some security guarantees, so you know they just don’t attack you right after regrouping than let them disarm you in name of peace and then get fucked right after by their attack.

        Leaving yourself at the mercy of your attacker is the sort of lunacy you’d only have to resort to when you have no other choice.

        • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
          17·
          4 days ago

          I don’t see how continuing the fight is going to lead to security guarantees for Ukraine. A peace deal or ceasefire could at least allow individual countries to send peacekeepers independently of NATO. There are ways to deter a future attack outside of full membership. And if a ceasefire ends up being just a chance to regroup, then at least Ukraine gets that chance as well. As we saw during Ukraine’s “counteroffensive,” well-fortified positions are extremely difficult and costly to break through.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            9·
            4 days ago

            Continuing fighting gives more time to get those security guarantees. A peace is worth nothing without them.

            A peace deal or ceasefire could at least allow individual countries to send peacekeepers independently of NATO

            That’s assuming that’s the sort of peace deal or ceasefire Russia would agree to.

            And if a ceasefire ends up being just a chance to regroup, then at least Ukraine gets that chance as well.

            Not only would that give a better position for Russia who has better means to regroup with Ukraine’s support faltering, for that too, that’s assuming that’s the sort of peace deal or ceasefire Russia would agree to.

            If Russia did say that we should just pause the fighting, I’d imagine Ukraine would go for that. But it’s not likely Russia is going to do that when they have the upper hand.