How do you imagine that would work? Because it currently seems that the only way to de-escalate is to kill tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, and/or a coup and consequent total regime change in Russia.

The US needs to push Ukraine to agree to neutrality. Had we done that in the first place this war likely wouldn't be happening. Ukraine would have lost nothing by agreeing to that. Zelenskyy already said he was told in private Ukraine wouldn't be admitted to NATO anyway, making this entire war senseless.

>The US needs to push Ukraine to agree to neutrality.

Russia's version of "neutrality" is a joke.

Russia's demand for "neutrality" means letting Russia decide Ukraine's foreign and military policies. Russia want to enforce specific limits on the size and capabilities of Ukraine's military. That will never be accepted by Ukraine.

Spheres of influence are a geopolitical reality despite any disbelief people might entertain.

It's interesting that we have no popular qualms about the Monroe Doctrine, which we've abused to interfere with and overthrow legitimate governments in South America for decades, but when Russia takes a Monroe-Doctrine-esque position with a country on their border it's out of the question.

I see basically 3 possibilities. Ukraine agrees to neutrality, Ukraine resists neutrality and has its country destroyed and is eventually forced to agree to it anyway (what is happening now), or the western powers start a hot war with Russia and risk WW3/nuclear holocaust. Given those options I'd go with the first.

>Ukraine resists neutrality and has its country destroyed and is eventually forced to agree to it anyway (what is happening now)

What is happening now is the Russian economy collapsing and thousands of Russian soldiers returning home in body bags in just the past few weeks. The same things that caused the fall of the Soviet Union.

The rubble is back at the level it was before the sanctions. How is their economy collapsing?

It isn’t really. Even Russia itself does not believe that the current rate is “real”. If it was Russia would have used its rubles to buy euros/dollars to pay its debt instead of defaulting by trying to pay with the rubble. Basically it is currently up artificially due to Russia buying rubbles with dollars/euros/gold/etc (and 20% interest rate) and them themselves pushing it the other way by trying to buy dollars/euros with rubbles would be counterproductive.

They are keeping it by burning through their foreign reserves.

Typical Russian whataboutism. Who, other than American right-wingers and Russian trolls, are defending the Monroe Doctrine?

- 1 is a joke which cannot be accepted.

- 3 is a bluff.

- 2 is the only option. Ukraine has already beaten you in the north. How long till it defeats you in the east and south?

Ukraine will suffer many dead civilians and hundreds of billion in damages, but Russia is losing thousands of soldiers and the economic impact will last for decades while Ukraine will be rebuilt.

Whataboutism is good. It's not a Russian thing.

It takes a special kind of dumb to criticize the mistakes of others ferociously then make the exact same mistakes yourself, with the only difference being even greater incompetence.

All of the Russian criticism was plainly self serving anyway. You can clearly tell by this war that they had no qualms with anything the US did in Iraq, excluding maybe their own geopolitical interests in the area.

Is this a common law thing?

Whatever was done in the past, is something you have to allow everyone else to do?

Surely you see how that is morally untenable?

Errors of the past do not need to be repeated or allowed. (Even though they likely will be as human life is complex and fallible).

It’s not even the past. Look at what the US is doing right this moment in Somalia Yemen Palestine. No one here actually believes Joe Biden cares about the Ukrainian people right?

But as we all know, it was just a pretext; the idea behind the invasion was to make Ukraine part of Russia, which is evidenced by all these talks about Ukrainians being Russian people.

That's correct if you're talking about Donbas.

Sorry, which country are you from? You're English, right? You must be since you're communicating in English. This would be consistent with the idea that every person in the world who communicates in English is actually English.

This is pure speculation. Nobody knows what would have happened, had Ukraine agreed to Russia's demands. Maybe the invasion would not have happened, or maybe Russia would have come up with more demands.

> The US needs to push Ukraine to agree to neutrality.

Why would the US willfully feed countries to Russia?

Ukraine is being attacked exactly because it's not allied with major powers.

> Zelenskyy already said he was told in private Ukraine wouldn't be admitted to NATO anyway, making this entire war senseless.

You're living in a parallel reality. Ukraine is fighting for its right to exist. The war is senseless, but that's something you need to tell Putin.

Well that's completely wrong. Please read this[0] so that you have some real context on this matter.

[0]: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/into-the-heart-of-darkness-what-russi...

>Can we please start de-escalating this situation?

Only Russia can de-escalate the situation.

The irony is that Russia could have taken Donetsk and Luhanks and the war would have been out of the news cycle by now. The West would just have repeated the harmless 2014 targeted "sanctions" on Russian oligarchs and politicians.

Putin's and Lavrov's genocidal speeches about Ukraine being a fake nation that should be "de-nazified" and the Russian attempt at taking the capital Kyiv has escalated this conflict into its current state.

One of the biggest reasons for the Russian military offensive is to establish borders that Russia considers defensible, which always indicated that Russia would push up to the Carpathians because it vastly narrows the attack surface on the northern European plane. Ukraine anchors Russia in the Carpathians and a loss basically opens the entire south up to Volgograd and Moscow. Just conquering Donetsk and Luhansk has fairly limited military value.

Why would Russia, a large nuclear power, need defensible borders? To prevent an invasion by Ukraine, Finland or Estonia?

It doesn't. This "geopolitical realism" is the ideology that Russia uses to justify its aggression to useful idiots in the West.

to bolster its defense against NATO, Russia's largest threat which is present in Eastern Europe, these countries are not non-aligned. Taking important strategic positions gives Russia leverage, reduces defense burden and ensures access to important geographic access points (like to the Black Sea). It increases Russia's opportunities and margin for error and diminishes their opponents'.

It's kind of a weird question honestly, why do you think India, China and the United States pursue territorial interests and fight wars? History and conventional warfare hasn't ended just because countries have nukes.

> to bolster its defense against NATO, Russia's largest threat

The idea of NATO attacking Russia is bonkers. They're barely moving to defend Ukraine. "NATO is a threat" is post hoc rationalization for Russia's own revanchist behavior; even the Russian propagandists who push it don't take it seriously.

Of course NATO is a threat, or at least it is credibly perceived as one in Moscow. Do you think the US would tolerate the Warsaw pact on its own borders merely because it has nuclear weapons? (Cuba knows the answer to this question, the US does not).

There's plenty of examples like the deployment of missile defenses to Eastern Europe (which contrary to the name is strategically an aggressive move, as they're first strike enablers, diminishing strategic deterrents. The one thing Russia is supposed to rely on). The basic point is, no country on earth has stopped deploying its military in the pursuit of national security merely because it is a nuclear power.

> Do you think the US would tolerate the Warsaw pact on its own borders

NATO is a defensive treaty organization, joined by consent. Warsaw Pact was the result of USSR using military force to subjugate its neighbors. There's no comparison, and I see no reason to engage such tripe further.

There are also stable and peaceful borders, and Putin could absolutely have chosen to have one with Europe. Instead he chose instability in order to expand by force to areas that Russia used to control.

The only reason for US military presence in Europe is the Russian threat. The US would gladly move forces to the Pacific and Europe would be happy to have a peaceful and democratic Russia on their border and to see the US go.

Putin chose empire-building by force. He could have chosen peace and economic prosperity instead. Just compare the development of Russia and the former Warsaw pact countries.

All other issues aside - it's not the newspaper's job to de-escalate anything. It's their job to print the news.

Should they avoid true headlines that are actually important, because of the perceived effect on politics / international relations?

> All other issues aside - it's not the newspaper's job to de-escalate anything. It's their job to print the news.

Unbiased, truthful news? That would be the day. Until that happens, newpapers always editorialize. They exaggerate. They clickbait. They speculate. It's fine and often harmless. But it's not harmless when sabres are rattling and people are dying.

Newspapers, more than anyone, should check, verify, and double-check before they publish anything pertaining to anything as polarized as an armed conflict. Polarized, in this case, because Russians seem to think they are on the right side of history, while the West obviously feels the same.

Should they avoid publishing true headlines? Maybe. They should at least make sure the headlines are truthful.

Newspapers often delay publication of sensitive issues. See important leaks like the Panama Papers, where many journalists coordinated publication. Same with various criminal investigations, where reports are delayed or initially partially redacted to protect the integrity of the investigation, or to protect the victims.

> Should they avoid publishing true headlines? Maybe. They should at least make sure the headlines are truthful.

I totally agree about the "making sure the headlines are truthful" part.

Not sure how I feel about not publishing truthful things because it might escalate the war. Should the press not publish anything about the war in Ukraine, because it might lead to nuclear war? I guess that's a defensible view in some sense, but I sure don't want to live in a world in which that happens.

You clearly don't live in a country bordering Russia. This is not an issue you will solve with de-escalation, it's a fundamental issue that stems from the fact that Russia has shown that nothing they say can be trusted. Try telling the people of Finland that Putin promises to not invade the country, and try not to get laughed out of the room.