> Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?"

You don't need Ukraine to do any of this. Poland and the Baltic states are NATO members already.

> If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors.

This is clear Russian propaganda.

You "seem to forget" that Russia attacked Ukraine, committed several war crimes... Ukraine would be the happiest if the Russians GTFO and left them to be . They should even pay for the reconstruction costs and should be punished for their war crimes. That would almost make things even.

As I've replied to others, "both sides" here means US and Russia. Both are culpable in this war and it is Ukraine that has to suffer the consequences.

> Both parties are

No, not both sides. Ukraine was perfectly to stay home and take care of their own citizens. There's only one country that invaded the other and started stealing their kids and bomb their population.

Russia can leave anytime, peace will be immediate.

Sorry, I realize English may not be your first language. When I say both sides I mean the United States and Russia. Ukraine is just stuck in the middle getting f'ed from both ends.

Just to be clear: Russia invaded Ukraine. I’m not sure why you are both-sidesing this.

Also, who are you talking about when you say "both sides"?Are you talking about Ukraine and Russia? Withdraw to where? Agreement with whom?

Please be specific.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant US and Russia. That is the overarching narrative here.

How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.

I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.

How do you want to achieve that? What path do you see for such a solution?

What you are suggesting ist just not realistic in any way. It’s pure fantasy.

You're stuck in the 19th century imperialist mindset, like most of your Russian/Chinese compatriots.

Come to the 21st century and ask yourself: "why war when we can have commerce"?

> "why war when we can have commerce"?

Can't help but sad chuckle over this whole clash of rams battle of perspectives and the fact that Russia, Ukraine and other western countries had somewhat great relationships at the beginning of the century.

One could ask the same question from the Russian perspective when analyzing how Russia-West relations have deteriorated from Russia being in love with it, towards Russia having a lovecraftian fear of it (from Russian perspective, this is more of a proxy war with the West). This is actually the TLDR of Putin's Munich speech in late 2000-something.

I wonder what could be games theory solution here. Russia and the West don't trust each other and can't meet each-other expectations of peaceful coexistence - Ukraine got caught in the crossfire. What could hypothetically serve as a common ground for aligning the perspectives before it inertly escalates too far?

That's the wrong question to ask. From an amoral game theory perspective, the real question is: how can we bleed Russia to death? The ideal outcome would be to trigger multiple civil wars in Russia where various provinces break away from Moscow, leaving the rump successor state no more of a threat than North Korea. In that scenario, Russia would still have to be taken seriously as a nuclear threat but would no longer have enough conventional force to seriously threaten most of their neighbors.

thats not ideal either a bunch of breakaway states would be eaten by china which is not something NATO wants either.

from the wets prospective a quick internal cue falloewed by regim change to a more western friendly pro democracy leader that ideally is afraid of china would be the best outcome.

The best outcome, temporarily. It's not a stable situation. What happens next? Russia will get eaten by China anyways, the question now is, will it be piecemeal or in one big chunk.

> Russia will get eaten by China anyways

Wonder what is the realistic incentive for that?

China will not annex Russia or anything like that. But their government has everything to gain from extracting concessions from Russia. Russias influence is already waning in Central Asia, and China is eager to fill that role.

Russia is on its way to becoming hamstrung by China. Who else can Russia turn to?

China does not want Russia to implode and fracture, because that is an unstable situation for them. But if Russia was to fracture, you can be sure that China will want to control the pieces bordering China. They don't want chaos on their borders, or the power vacuum there somehow filled by western powers.

But how would the relationship you're describing be different from early post-Cold War era relationships between Russia and Europe?

Europe is more democratic and has more liberty than China.

Might be, but that wouldn't affect Russia that much specifically.

China's and Europe's attitudes and practices towards their let's say "dependent trade and strategic partners" is a different story, but EU can hardly boast on that front, judging e.g. by various African states.

The US is taking advantage of a golden strategic opportunity, because why wouldn't they, but it's Russia scoring the own goal here. If they wanted to stop destabilizing themselves they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home. Nobody is going to follow them into Russia. They don't even have to do anything diplomatically. Just leave, no special agreements required, and the war is over.

A peace that grants Russia the Sudetenland as a consolation prize along with a guarantee that Ukraine is sovereign (but with a big asterisk in that they are also not sovereign in the sense that they are able to join an alliance of their choosing to protect themselves from aggressors) is just an invitation for Russia to consolidate the new territory and prepare the next push. And not being able to see that is for me much more shallow thinking.

> they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home

I wonder if that's actually realistically true.

The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.

home here being Russia not mearly Ukrainian land the Russians have been illegally occupying for a bit longer.

Yeah, let our imagination run wild and suppose this happens.

How would you deal with the Crimeans who got overly cozy showered with Russian Oil/Gas money?

They would end up in court, but more likely they will flee while the bridge to Russia still stands.

Do you actually plan to court martial sizable fractions of population?

I'm just curious why do you suppose that there would be no friction or resistance.

+1 for your question.

Maybe I misunderstood who you meant. I was thinking about business leaders striking lucrative deals, mayors appointed by the Russian administration, and so on.

I think there will probably be some resistance, but once the Russian troops leave Crimea, I can't see a popular uprising against the Ukraine as a state or something like that. Time will tell. I don't think Russia can hold Crimea in the long run. I'm not qualified to even guess, but when did that stop anybody?! :-D

I think it's likely Kiev will control Crimea within 24 months.

"Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country"

Based on what Ukraine at least appears to want, especially now, if it is sovereign it won't be neutral, and if forced to be neutral it isn't really sovereign.

Check your logic. If you want to be my room mate and I refuse, does that make you less of an individual?