I don't care if there happens a 'mass suffering' in Russia — M777

So? why should I care about supporters of Putin's regime. Hopefully at least through suffering they might learn something.

I get it, you're neither interested in peace nor analysis.

Most? Not even most countries have imposed sanctions. But I agree that if Russia loses this war, which seems more likely by the day, Putin is likely not to survive politically. Whether that leads to meaningful change or just another figurehead remains to be seen. Hopes or on changes to a liberal democracy are fine, insistence really none of our business and dangerous to boot as recent 40 years of history have shown.

Hopes or on changes to a liberal democracy are fine, insistence really none of our business and dangerous — Benkei

Probably there would be some intermediate form of governments would last a few week each. As for the government to be sustainable, it needs an army ( which is being decimated in Ukraine right now ) and money, which also won't be there without foreign trade.

So trade partners would ask for liberal democracy and giving up nukes, to which sooner or later Russia would have to agree.

It is our business, as to prevent Russia from attacking other countries, and I don't see how it is more dangerous than allowing Putin's regime to stay in power.

So trade partners would ask for liberal democracy and giving up nukes, to which sooner or later Russia would have to agree. — M777

Plenty of countries are and will continue to trade with Russia. Your view is western centric. The majority of countries have not changed their trade relations with Russia and for the time being Europe is not free of its energy dependence on Russia.

Here's a map showing countries stances on sanctions btw

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/686699

you're neither interested in peace nor analysis. — Benkei

I'm not interested in pie-in-the-sky analysis, you got that right. It's facile to go around an internet board yelling "Peace!" It's harder to face reality, which is what I am trying to do.

The majority of countries have not changed their trade relations with Russia and for the time being Europe is not free of its energy dependence on Russia. — Benkei

Europe is quickly moving in that direction and the map shows that countries that were buying Russian gan/oil and among the ones that are implying sanctions.
Being able to trade with some Paraguay, or even China for that matter, doesn't really help Russia much. They can buy stuff from China, but they need dollars/euros first, so they need to sell stuff to Europe.

Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

I sympathise with your proposition as a means to avoid destruction of the species. I suggest it is complicated when it comes to geopolitics and it is going well when there is a period of stability(Cold War for example). What is more important in reference to Russia is the moving away by Europe from buying Russian oil and gas. If Russia had taken Ukraine and the oil and gas revenue had continued to pour in then Putin’s strategy would be reinforced and he would then push on into other Eastern European states.

In geopolitical terms powerful, wealthy countries are fine when they are stable and cooperative with other powerful countries. When a powerful country becomes unstable and expansionist it triggers the risk of world war. Now in the 21st Century it’s time for humanity to go beyond this kind of instability and focus our resources in more important issues such as climate change and ecosystem collapse.

I would suggest though that as the climate crisis hits, geopolitics will evolve into powerful countries helping each other out as crises become more serious for each of them. A good example is the current ecological crisis hitting India. They are currently experiencing an extreme heat wave, which has destroyed a lot of this years crops. Resulting in a ban on exports of grain, a couple of days ago. The worlds second largest grain producer. This at a time when the worlds 3rd largest grain producer, Ukraine can’t export a lot of its harvest. India has the largest population, having recently outstripped China. Will likely experience famine over the next few years. This may only be a harbinger for far worse ecological crisis over the next decade.

you were only too happy to mention Western leaders urging peace. Did they do so because they think it's pie in sky according to you or because they see a realistic road to peace? I assume it's the latter and I'm challenging you to think about what that would look like but as usual thinking beyond your pre-conceived opinions is beyond you.

I should've asked @ssu

Being able to trade with some Paraguay, or even China for that matter, doesn't really help Russia much. They can buy stuff from China, but they need dollars/euros first, so they need to sell stuff to Europe. — M777

China pays in yuan for Russian oil and gas. Guess where Russia spends it yuan? Nice example of pretending you know what you're taking about when you really don't.

you were only too happy to mention Western leaders urging peace. Did they do so because they think it's pie in sky according to you or because they see a realistic road to peace? I assume it's the latter and I'm challenging you to think about what that would look like but as usual thinking beyond your pre-conceived opinions is beyond you. — Benkei

Why, I'm challenging you to read and try and understand what those leaders I quoted have actually said. They didn't say: "peace now and no matter what". They said 1) Ukraine decides when and what they want to negotiate; 2) Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now; 3) but ultimately, once this is achieved (if possible) then a peace deal will need to be found -- the goal is not to bleed Russia forever.

What Draghi and Macron don't want is a never ending proxy war. They want to be clear about the end game. They are not saying, like a facile little internet troll would: "Let's have peace now by being creative and thinking out of the box -- hey why not hostages?"

They didn't say: "peace now and no matter what". They said 1) Ukraine decides when and what they want to negotiate; 2) Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now; 3) but ultimately, once this is achieved (if possible) then a peace deal will need to be found — Olivier5

Nowhere in those quoted speeches did either politician say "Restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity ought to be the primary goal now". Draghi didn't mention it and Macron qualified it with 'at least before February 24th'.

Neither politician even referenced the idea of peace negotiations only following a Ukrainian win.

More of your usual bullshit.

Neither politician even referenced the idea of peace negotiations only following a Ukrainian win. — Isaac

I think Macron did:

the French president continues to plead, in the long term, for a "negotiated peace" with Moscow. This would follow a ceasefire that is still unattainable at this stage, with fighting still raging in the Donbas. For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion. (Le Monde) — Olivier5

The "delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv" is meant to help fight off the invasion, and thus "re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders". However, "in the long term", a peace deal will need to be found.

I listened carefully to Draghi's Washington press conference when he speaks of "David and Goliath" not being the case anymore (around mn 9, in Italian). What he is saying is also about "the kind of peace Ukraine wants", long term, and whether it stops here or there. That he has some long term idea in mind is evidenced by his language: "we need to start to think about peace"; "to construct a path towards peace negotiations"; etc.

In my understanding, Draghi is saying: the tide of the war, the mid game, has turned. Now is the time to start strategize the end game. What type of end game are we trying to land on? A draw, an endless bloodbath, a resounding Ukrainian victory all the way to Moscow, or something in between?

These calls can be interpreted in the context of US pronouncements in favor of "bleeding Russia". For the French and Italians, this would indeed constitute war mongering. There needs to be some end to this. Draghi is an economist and stressed heavily the economic consequences of a long war.

the kind of peace Ukraine wants — Olivier5

And again, that kind of peace involves security assurances from countries not willing to give it. So what's the solution? It's not a difficult question to understand, even if its answer isn't immediately apparent. So again, what would that possibly look like.

"I have no idea" is an answer too you know. But I've offered several questions you could try to answer to help you get an idea.

what would that possibly look like. — Benkei

What it may look like now is this: either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out, or they keep on pushing until they reconquer Crimea and Dombas.

In the latter case, Putin is left no face saving way out. He might do something nuclear, or opt to get reunited with Stalin, or both... Beside, the Ukrainian forces are likely to be perceived as invaders rather than liberators by a majority of the local population in Dombas and Crimea. So the latter option is possibly too risky, but it would secure the territorial integrity of Ukraine, a paramount national security goal.

However, "in the long term", a peace deal will need to be found. — Olivier5

There's no "however" in the speeches. Absolutely key difference.

No one but the Americans and their warmongering allies are trying to actively avoid peace negotiations until after a Ukrainian win. That would be absurd... unless your whole economy and foreign policy is based on perpetual war.

either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out — Olivier5

The very deal you've been spitting your vitriol at for the last 200 pages. The one on the table since the beginning...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-invasion-end-ukraine-war-four-conditions-1685492

Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue?

Russia is still sore about the sinking of their Black Sea flagship and attacks on patrol boats near Snake Island. How else to explain this delirious disinformation campaign on Twitter? But who are these English-language posts aimed at? (Although, given that some posters here have been quite willing to give credence to the most ridiculous Russian propaganda, simply because it validated their favorite narratives, perhaps this isn't as stupid as it looks.)

How else to explain this delirious disinformation campaign on Twitter? — SophistiCat

Literally any other of fucking hundreds of alternatives... but sure, it's everyone else who are choosing an interpretation...

simply because it validated their favorite narratives — SophistiCat

Not you... definitely not the guy who's picking a couple of random Twitter posts and using them to divine the mindset of the entire Russian leadership.

What it may look like now is this: either they stop pushing back the Russians at the pre-24 Feb border and allow Putin for some face saving way out, or they keep on pushing until they reconquer Crimea and Dombas. — Olivier5

These are results of the war. The question was what would a peace agreement look like. Russia and Ukraine need to settle and agree on the future or another war could arise even if Putin would be forced out of office. Ukraine stated it wanted security assurances from Canada, UK and the USA, none of them wanted to give it.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue? — Isaac

Well, I have to admit that Russia's insanely backward military command structure, Ukraine's ability to listen in on Russian communication and now the arrival of GPS-guided artillery is making it very likely Russia will fail to make any meaningful gains if at all. Aside from the fact Ukraine would be prepared to make those concessions if they got security assurances (which they're not getting and why any peace deal kept failing, including USA's absence in any talks), stopping now would strategically be stupid when they're on the cusps of nullifying any gains the Russians made.

Edit: I still think none of this answers how longlasting peace looks like.

Peskov said Moscow could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agreed to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognized Crimea as Russian, recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceased all military action.

So remind me again why you want the war to continue? — Isaac

I don't want the war to continue. This is not about me.

This offer you mentioned dates from early March and was the basis for the talks in Antalya, Turkey during the month of March, talks during which some progress was reportedly achieved. Then the Bucha massacre came to light and the Ukrainian position stiffened while the Russians were denying it all.

These are results of the war. The question was what would a peace agreement look like. — Benkei

A peace agreement with a totally defeated Russia would be relatively easy to arrive at and to enforce through whatever international mechanism à la blue helmet they would agree on for Crimea and Dombas. But if Russia is not soundly defeated military, then the question becomes: Can Ukraine trust any deal signed with Putin and his generals?

The problem is not just the American reluctance to seat at the negotiation table (they might prefer to wait until they have Sweden and Finland joining NATO, and bled the Russians' military machine and economy as close as possible to the brink of collapse). The point is that Russians may have made clear their demands, but they didn't clarify what they are ready to concede to Ukrainians in terms of material and psychological compensations and assurances for now and the future. If the only thing Russians are ready to concede to Ukrainians is peace now, Ukrainians will keep fighting for the reasons you just explained, and also because surrender to Russians demands would likely look as their humiliation: to the ones still alive and for the ones they have lost due to Putin's criminal aggression.

stopping now would strategically be stupid when they're on the cusps of nullifying any gains the Russians made. — Benkei

I think that depends if there's a notion to push through to Crimea and/or to try and regain more control over Donbas than before February. Personally, if we're talking about disputed territory, I think it's unjustifiable to use war as a means of either obtaining or regaining it. Exactly the same logic which applies to the injustice of obtaining territory by war applies to regaining it. It's not as if the territory 'belongs' to Ukraine in any meaningful sense.

I think one of the fundamental divide that this conflict has revealed is between those who are pro-borders because of some misplaced notion of 'nation' and those who are pro-borders simply as a means to avoid war. The former group now want Ukraine to 're-take' Donbas and Crimea, the latter group see the same principle applying to both.

As far as repelling Russia from gains outside of those contested regions, I think it's a moot point. If a peace settlement included a full withdrawal from those regions, I don't see why that should be accomplished militarily, even if it could be done at a great strategic advantage. There will still be great loss of life.

Overall, though the situation has changed insofar as the original decision was whether to sacrifice economic independence for political independence. The latter is easier to sell, so it was an obvious (though wrong) choice. That now done, they have the weapons to achieve what was previously not possible. There's no undoing the damage and the debts thus incurred, so I suppose they might as well. If you've irreversibly remortgaged the house to buy a yacht, you might as well have the yacht.

I don't want the war to continue. This is not about me. — Olivier5

Of course it's about you. The only matter of possible interest here is our reasons. Yours, mine, everyone else's. That you have some insane notion of us sitting in our armchairs rationally working out global geopolitics by logical debate is your own problem.

This offer you mentioned dates from early March and was the basis for the talks in Antalya, Turkey during the month of March, talks during which some progress was reportedly achieved. Then the Bucha massacre came to light and the Ukrainian position stiffened while the Russians were denying it all. — Olivier5

So?

And yes, there is a flaw in your logic, because according to it the most crazy dictator can get his hands on a nuke and rule the world by threatening to blow it up. — M777

Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?

This isn’t the same as sacrificing your life for freedom— or even many lives. I wouldn’t want to live under a dictatorship either, of course. But that’s not really the question. The question concerns the survival of the species. Is it worth it to sacrifice everything for a principle or ideal?

I don’t think so. Much better to find another way. Dictators don’t live forever— neither do empires. Assyrian rule or Mongol rule was pretty bad, I’m sure. Would it have been worth it to destroy everything rather than be ruled by them?

Our forefathers fought for a host of freedoms over centuries. To give them up is an insult and thankless, so I really don't agree. Mere survival, life without dignity is not enough. I don't believe Russia poses such an existential threat. China might eventually. — Benkei

I agree it’s an awful choice. But would China rule, for example, be so bad as to warrant destroying everything? I’m talking specifically about nuclear war. Quite apart from whether a ruler orders a strike, ground wars increase the risk of accidents— which are very real.

I would go so far as to say even a worse regime would still be worth enduring if it means the species survives. No regime is permanent. The annihilation of humans is.

Of course it's about you. The only matter of possible interest here is our reasons. Yours, mine, everyone else's. — Isaac

Thanks for your interest but that's not what I am looking for here. I already have a fan club.

So? — Isaac

The offer has been rejected by Ukraine.

Are there any indications that Putin wants to see Russia (sustainably) surpassing the Chinese neighbor? (in the usual ways, power in particular, economically, control, being heard/respected on the world stage, whatever) Having to rely on China might be like a thorn in the eye. Resources/territory could go some way.

Maintaining peace often means a measure of friendly, reliable relations among societies, at the very least dependable indifference. And internally, reasonable treatment of people. Openness/freedom/fairness can help, fear/posturing/subversion/aggression the opposite. And making genuine efforts (in good faith) can help. (No one is expecting France to attack the UK or to interfere significantly in internal UK politics, despite past centuries of hostile action; it can be done, it's non-hypothetical.)
"Politics and governing demand compromise."
How to achieve something like that with respect to the Ukraine-Russia situation...?
In some ways that ship has sailed, new orders coming out of the Kremlin would do it, ...

Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything? — Xtrix

That's because you are a coward. Luckily so is Putin, so knowing that NATO would drop a small nuke on his head if needed, he won't go too far. So in this case mutually assured destruction is better than banning nukes.