So their best chance is to push back and to look for allies who could help put Putin back in place that he belongs - near the latrine.
According to Ukraine, Russia invented the pretexts it has already cited for the “need” to intervene in those two regions, so from Ukraine's perspective, avoiding given Russia a “genuine” (given Russia’s nakedly illegal claims) pretext has zero marginal cost, since the absence of a “genuine” (even given Russia’s preexisting propaganda position) pretext has no evident impact on Russia’s willingness to act.
Given that, Ukraine has little rational reason to consider providing a pretext under Russia’s propaganda framework to be a significant factor.
Put another way, when someone has broken into your house at night when it is obviously occupied, you do not hand over your wife or children in hopes your own life may be spared. You respond with an escalation of force.
I think concessions from the West would be better for Russia. But since they aren’t giving them any, Putin seemingly had to go in with his “peacekeeping force” or be called on his bluff.
I think Putin might plan to invade Ukraine to the point of making a land bridge to Crimea. Because I don’t see how Russia’s position has been improved with this move, even if Ukraine backs off from Donetsk and Luhansk completely.
The concessions Russia is looking for from the West are retreat from the NATO countries of Eastern Europe so that Russia can do (or, turn them into puppets with the threat of doing) the same thing to them that it is now doing to Ukraine.
The first part is nakedly overt, the second part is not even all that subtle in their intent. They’ve been very clear that Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence around its borders under its effective exclusive direction.
On the other hand, if this stirs up nationalistic sentiment, his support will go up.
I am not sure how these net off.
Their best bet is probably to <pay the Danegeld>, in hopes <the Dane> will not <return with further demands>.
Without them voting in Ukrainian elections, the entire political scene in Ukraine has shifted towards the West and become somewhat more stable... Ukrainian politicians can't admit it but they don't actually want those regions back.
Yeah, if you were advising the government of Ukraine, you could make that argument in 2014 about why yielding in practice without formally giving up Crimea made sense.
But, given Crimea, if you were Ukraine in 2022, you’d have to consider the balance to have shifted back to the Munich/Danegeld position.
In fact, Russia can't sustain an Afghanistan level war/quagmire, which is what a broader Ukrainian invasion would be. Even if they had designs beyond Abkhazia/SO style "independence movement support", I don't think they could afford (militarily, not economically) to follow through. Maybe I'm wrong and this will be like the 2nd Chechen war. I think it won't. Plenty of Western powers are already more than happy to supply "lethal aid", i.e., weapons and munitions, to Ukraine, even with neo-Nazi groups involved. The same could not be said for the Islamic fighters in Chechnya (AFAIK).
And I don't think Minsk 2 was a bluff. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are honoring it. Ukraine needs to stop implementing discriminatory language and education laws, and seriously seek to implement some form of regional autonomy. Russia needs to withdraw its forces (it was pretending it hadn't deployed any). Neither side wishes to "give in" to the other. Neither side are "the good guys", or a "beacon of democracy", or "anti-imperialists", and deserving of military support.
I wish that there had been more focus on the fact that the West could have relatively easily applied pressure to make a more serious attempt at implementing Minsk 2. But instead, everything is reduced to a battle of good and evil.
True or not, that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the action now in Donetsk and Luhansk demonstrates that the approach of tacit acceptance taken in response to the occupation of Crimea is not (contrary to what one might assume if only looking at Abkhasia and South Ossetia as indicators) sufficient to forestall further Russian territorial aggression.
My other two points were that there are strong practical reasons why a full Ukrainian invasion is quite unlikely and why a full withdrawal was quite unlikely ("quagmire" and no Minsk 2 implementation, respectively).
I'm not a fan of terms like "territorial aggression", not that it's not apt (Russia invading is clearly aggression, even a meaningful threat is "aggression" according to the UN charter), but such phrases are often used as a substitute for the actual motivating factors, and hence, used as a way to obfuscate the substantive issues. I still think there is a more straightforward and practical explanation.
> And I don't think Minsk 2 was a bluff. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are honoring it. Ukraine needs to stop implementing discriminatory language and education laws, and seriously seek to implement some form of regional autonomy. Russia needs to withdraw its forces (it was pretending it hadn't deployed any).
Putin is not consumed with abstract "territorial aggression", looking at a globe with flames in his eyes (I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just having fun, and making a broader point about some of the international relations phrases that are kindof weasel words in my opinion).
I think Russia might possibly have ambitions of conquering the east of the Ukraine up to Dnieper but no further. Which is still a large area, to be sure.
And includes the capital of Ukraine.
And yeah, a lot of pain that will now ensue likely could have been avoided if that NATO thing hadn't started now, or maybe even taken Russia in when they pleaded for it 20 years ago? But yeah, now go on and push them more and more into their corner, where either one of us or them will soon do something really stupid.
I know I will be downvoted to oblivion, and Russias move now is very bad, but the hypocracy and the US-pinked armchair geostrategic world view here is really so one sided, cannot believe it.