Originally Posted by WBA1955
Reply With QuoteI have believed all along that ultimately any peace agreement would likely involve Ukraine giving up both areas of Donetsk and Luhansk that wish to be part of Russia (Crimea was already lost before the invasion). This might seem reasonable if the vast majority in these regions want to return to the Russian fold. Similarly, any such peace may also mean that whilst it's soverignty should be guaranteed, Ukraine cannot join NATO.
The problem, of course, is Putin himself. When Hitler annexed the Sudentenland in 1939 many thought this in itself not entirely unreasonable as this region was inhabited primarily by German speakers who wished to be part of Germany-but we all know that Hitler wanted more and he proceeded to take the rest of Czechoslavakia as well as then moving on Poland. Similarly, Putin wants more of Ukraine. He wants its natural resources, it's industry and it's agriculture and if he cannot physically take the whole country he wants to at least install a puppet regime.
But Putin's actions in Ukraine cannot now be forgotten -or forgiven-and he has shown himself to be another Hitler or Stalin whose word cannot be trusted. Doubtless he thought that he could take Ukraine far quicker and force changes through before the West could properly respond but he grossly miscalculated Ukrainian resistance and probably the strength of Western support for them too. He has now painted himself into a corner and no way now will he be able to achieve his aims of limiting the military presence in the Easterly NATO countries that he perceives as Western aggression. In fact, his actions have achieved the very opposite!
I have always thought that, however unpalatable, the old hard-line stance of not negotiating with terrorists was ultimately a block to peace, especially in situations where there was obviously large support for their aims if not their methods. Northern Ireland might be a case in point. One man's terrorist can, indeed, be another man's freedom fighter. Aside from the possible exceptions in Donestk and Luhansk however, this is clearly not the case here but that does not mean that all efforts to negotiate with Putin should not continue. The obvious problem though is finding a solution that may suit both parties that will also be enough to ensure a level of stability going forward. Russia gaining the disputed areas of Donestk and Luhansk and NATO offering assurances that Ukraine will not be allowed to join may ultimately still be something that Ukraine would have to agree to, but Putin's illegal invasion cannot be without consequences. There must be caveats and Putin must surely pay reparations for the enormous damage he has caused to Ukraine and it's people through his illegal invasion. He is never going to agree to that though as it would make him lose face and look weak. He is not someone, I believe, who can be reasonably negotiated with.
The more Putin lashes out and escalates his war in Ukraine, the more likely it seems that this will ultimately bring in direct action by NATO forces. This might be either accidental or deliberate attacks on neighbouring NATO countries such as Poland as the conflict nears their borders or else actions by these countries themselves in response to perceived Russian threats. Almost certainly Putin will spin it via a False Flag operation or otherwise to be down to Western aggression. The moot question is whether the Russian government would really support Putin as far as allowing this to escalate into a NATO-Russian war especially given current shortcomings of their military operation in Ukraine and the increasing bite of economic sanctions. Can only pray that they would not.
