It's easy to frame things that way if someone is fighting a war against a nuclear power. What Zelensky is actually doing is defending the sovereignty of his country, as any good leader would do. Tell me another leader and country that would willingly give up huge parts of their territory without a fight? Accepting such a position for the sake of an end to the fighting is capitulation and rarely does it lead to any good long term outcome. Should we have just let Germany keep Poland for the sake of peace? Why did our grandparents bother fighting and dying when we could have all just conceded territory so nobody would die? Would America concede entire states to Russia rather than fight for them, even if that meant losing?
@UBotMate Let's see where it all goes. I have a 3 state solution of Ukraine. One part goes to Russia, another one to EU as Ukraine, the largest one. The last one to USA. Each group have to rebuild Ukraine and after 10 years, hold a referendum to know the will of Ukrainians.
@Peterthe1 Russia has absolute red lines for Ukraine joining any association or body including the EU or NATO. They won't allow that in any peace deal. The only deal that Russia will accept is one where their terms are met because they don't need to accept anything less. They are prepared to put up with the sanctions and the costs of war. America and Ukraine have no leverage over Russia. The only reason that Russia have come to the table at all is for incentives. If they can get rid of the sanctions and still keep everything that they've taken then they get a victory. They can then rebuild their forces and come again for the rest of Ukraine.
No. Russia did when they started a war. If I attack a country and it fights back, I can’t then tell them they’re gambling a world war. No. That responsibility goes to me as the aggressor. I mean I thought that was obvious.
