That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe's promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe's promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
There is zero chance the war would take more than a slight pause before resuming in full force with a less-capable Ukraine if Ukraine’s allies promised to stop supplying it with weapons. (The Russo-Georgian War, immediately, and with a slight delay because of temporarily Russia-favorable political conditions that emerged in the interim in Ukraine, the Russo-Ukrainian War are both direct results, in fact, of that kind of accommodationist thought winning the day at the 2008 NATO summit with regard to Russia’s demand at the time that Georgia and Ukraine not have Membership Action Plans extended to them. Fool me once…)
There’s a very good chance that Russia will stop if that does not happen, even if it is unlikely that the current leadership would do so.
Ultimately it's up to the Ukrainians what terms they want to negotiate. But it would seem foolish to give up the option of joining NATO and the EU just to gain a temporary peace. If they're going to survive as an independent country rather than a Russian vassal state then they will need alliances with nuclear powers.
This narrative is being strongly pushed in various social media by Russian troll farms.
That would only serve as an opportunity for Russia to regroup, build up the war machine, and attack again, possibly not just Ukraine.
It could also serve as an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same in reverse -- ultimately leading to a Russian withdraw (many years later but with many lives spared also).
OTOH, a continuation of the status quo (assuming the political climate in Western countries permits the Ukrainians to do so, which is in itself a highly dodgy proposition) is not at all guaranteed to end in Ukraine's interest, and brings certain obvious tail risks to the rest of the world as well.
Ultimately it's a matter for the Ukrainians to decide. My only point is that it's perfectly possible to discuss different options for achieving the same desired end result (which it seems we agree on) -- without having to label these as being in favor of Russian "peace narratives".
That is, I can't see Ukraine trying to negotiate some kind of peace-for-land deal. Apart from anything else, any land Russia occupied as part of such a deal would be used to launch a new attack once they've reconstituted their forces.
So any negotiation would be between "The West" and Russia, over Ukraine's heads. And that is the only kind of negotiation that Putin will countenance; he's been very clear that he thinks Ukraine is not a country, it's people are no more than ill-educated Russians, and its leaders are nazis.
Of course, Russia has negotiated with real nazis before; but it's pretty seditious to mention that in public in Russia nowadays.
Oh it will. I don't see US and EU propping up the Zelensky regime limitless. (a country us non-US citizens laugh often about, for stopping government operations every couple of years until congress approves _another_ raise of its debt ceiling, just agreed on yet ANOTHER 6B of wasted money!?)
Given Russian endurance and ability to withstand economic hardship & sanctions, along with friendly country support, and Ukrainians losing equipemnt left'n'right, it is a matter of time.
Ugly things to talk about: give up Donbas, give up Crimea, give Zelensky the boot.
Large parts of the Donbas look like the moon after Russians bombed them. They've sent most of the local men to the slaughterhouse. Industry is gone, mining was obsolete, natural gas resources are less and less valuable as we advance with renewables, etc.
If there is ever a compromise, as a Ukrainian president I'd choose Crimea before Donbas because Crimea is strategically important and protects 80% of the Ukrainian South from invasion.
In an ideal situation, Ukraine should still get it back, because it's Ukrainian territory. But in practical terms, Donbas 2013 was a totally different place to Donbas 2024.
USSR was also once told in ~1990 "no NATO expansion to your doorstep". And now look what happens / has already happened due to Atlanticism pushing its agenda.
The Budapest memorandum however was a written agreement, much more meaningful, though sadly not binding.
[1] https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...
No, they weren’t, as even Gorbachev admitted, and even if they had been given private assurance not memorialized in a treaty or even a formal executive agreement, there would be no reasonable expectation of a binding commitment that survived the administrations on each side then in power, much less an actual collapse of the Soviet Union.
It’s not like the Soviet Union didn’t understand the mechanics of how binding international commitments are formed.
Ukraine needs a powerful bargaining position before entering negotiations, and though it's regrettable this is the case, a powerful bargaining position derives from power on the battlefield. The best route to peace is therefore to give Ukraine as deadly a sting as possible.
When in the 1960s tensions between Moscow and Peking rose, Moscow asked Washington if Washington would be okay with Moscow's nuking China. (Washington replied with a firm no.)
Although Russia is probably not going to resort to nukes, the risk is high enough that I wish my country (the US) had started drastically increasing American preparedness for nuclear war when it started sending military aid to Ukraine.
It takes more than one thing going wrong at the same time, for an accident to happen, but that happens - that's why we have car accidents - only here we're talking about a potentially civilization/climate ending accident.
Better not to be in that situation in the first place.
Anything else rewards and encourages the use of invasion, profoundly encourages China to invade Taiwan, and North Korean and Iran.
It will also anyway only be a temporary peace; Putin will try again in some years time. Anyone want to trust him when he promises not to - again?
The West has been forced to spend vast amounts of money, in many ways, and millions of people have been forced to flee Ukraine and resettle in the West, and about 500,000 people have been maimed or killed.
To not win after such costs is to lose.
It also means all nations which have a threatening neighbour need their own nuclear weapons. That's in the end will lead to their use.
There is also a more personal reason.
The world has a lot of shit in it, and people generally are increasingly depressed in their normal, day to day lives, because of it. We are not happy.
Stopping Putin would bright a vast ray of hope and a vision of a decent future in our lives.
Also, there can be no peace between the sheep and the wolf. Russia believes Ukraine does not and cannot exists. How can that ever lead to long lasting peace and long term territorial integrity for Ukraine?
A nuclear World War 3?
> Let’s say you start pounding blocks
Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time.