comment: >
  
  Since they took crimea they need to connect it to land, hence this war. Even a narrow land bridge to Russia would end the war
context: Russia has lost so much, to gain nothing but global hatred. >
  
  All over a war torn country which Russia lacks the resources or economy to rebuild. Ok, so if they do get the territories or country? It would end up looking like how they left Grozny. >
  
  I think they have the resources. Economy will be tricky of course though >
  
  That's assuming Russia will have a decisive victory and acquiescence from the Ukrainians during occupation.  Russia has been shockingly ineffective at a quick takeover of Ukraine.  Ukrainians have responded in a decidedly non-docile way so far, and have regained so much ground, there's no reason to believe they will accept less than removal or liquidation of the Russian occupation forces. >
  
  This war rages on because Russia can’t walk away with zero gain, despite them being entitled to jack shit.
  They want the war over, but not at the asking price of leaving empty handed. Pathetic >
  
  We want to start negotiations!*
  *As long as the STARTING point is us getting everything we want. >
  
  you always start a negotiation by asking for more knowing you'll get less. you don't start with your final offer. >
  
  But in this case they are refusing start the negotiation. This isn't a start of discussions, this is a price to start discussions. >
  
  Ok this really annoys me.
  You CAN NOT negotiate with Russia.
  They will break an agreement at any time when it suits them.
  Would you believe someone's word when they constantly lie and break promises? >
  
  Right they broke the agreement after they took Crimea. Putin just wants everything his way and there is no discussion about that. >
  
  Serious question, do Russians owe anything for breaking the Crimea treaty and the treaty from 90’s?    Did they pay? >
  
  Good question and one to which I do not know the answer. Just a guess: nothing happened and no payments were made. I think that is one of the reasons that Putin invaded Ukraine again. >
  
  It sounds like putin will have a credibility issue with anything he promises.   It should put him at a disadvantage in my opinion >
  
  I agree. >
  
  If Russia walks away from this with even one square meter of land then Europe will have failed and will pay the price in the future. We have a chance to make a global example of Russia here - despots and invaders will be utterly destroyed and will get nothing. >
  
  If Russia walks away from this with even one square meter of land, they will be back next year. >
  
  shit i'll donate a square meter of my backyard if it means russia fucking off back to their hidey hole. i'l even ship it over there >
  
  That's a good way to have russia all up in your house and shit; in a couple years they'll want to annex your kitchen. >
  
  I’m willing to give the kitchen but no one touches the book shelf >
  
  They'll agree to leave the books alone, but they will break that promise as soon as they think you're not paying attention closely enough. >
  
  Ukraine is right.
  Any gain made by Russia would encourage them to do it again.  They should be punished for their aggression, not appeased. >
  
  Yeah, let's have them return Karelia to Finland, maybe even Petsamo... >
  
  Why stop there? South Kurils, Tuzla Island, South Ossetia, as well as forcing them to end their recognition and military occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. >
  
  I didn't say stop, just gave a few suggestions. . >
  
  I think we saw this before in Europe. Didn't one country invade another then a third party stepped in and negotiated/accepted/legitimized the invasion on the flimsy promise they wouldn't invade anywhere else? Maybe I'm remembering history wrong but he said something about "securing peace" or whatever. >
  
  Sorry, conquerors who fail at the conquering part do not get spoils. >
  
  To be honest they did conquer territory. It’s just that they might lose all of their conquests made in this and previous war and that’s why they want to negotiate while they’re ahead. >
  
  I am once again asking you to fuck off outta our land. >
  
  Ukraine shouldn’t give Russia any land. The Russians will only establish themselves there, regroup and continue to annex more in the future. It would portrayed as major step toward victory by Putin. >
  
  Russia is going to end up losing Russian territory to Ukraine/NATO in the form of a DMZ on the Russian side of their border, if anything.
  They can’t be trusted not to invade their neighbors.  It’s rich of them to think they’re in any position to negotiate. >
  
  Not only should they be forced to create a DMZ, but they should also be forced to withdraw their soldiers from ALL foreign soil, meaning Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia can finally be reclaimed by their rightful owners. >
  
  Those foreign bases are fucked regardless.  They’ll see less and less critical supplies, attention and manpower as Russia focuses primarily on Ukraine and eventually on internal power struggles.  
  Those bases won’t last long. >
  
  While I agree, it would be in our best interest to also get it in writing (for what that’s worth) >
  
  Russia’s word is meaningless.  It’s why their empire is crumbling. >
  
  Russia's, yes, which is why signatories to such a treaty should include trustworthy guarantors as well. >
  
  What happened the trustworthy guarantors last time ??? >
  
  They didn't have a formal alliance or any circuit breaker troops in Ukraine, an easily remedied error in future. >
  
  A truce should include a hefty DMZ zone, a 30 mile wide buffer on Russian soil. >
  
  I was thinking about this the other day. Presuming Ukraine gets all their land back, NATO accession should come within a few years after which I'd wager it would become the most militarized strip of land on the planet. >
  
  It really depends on how long Russia is prolonging the inevitable defeat, if they insist on grinding down their military resources, the DMZ will be a no mans land with advanced technology on the Ukrainian side and not much on the Russian side >
  
  Russia: but we stole it fair and square >
  
  That deal was not an effort to end war but rather an effort to keep stolen goods. >
  
  As they should.  Russia (or, for that matter, any country) has no right to seize a foreign country's territory. >
  
  They tried diplomacy already with russia. Russia attacked them twice after demanding they disarm.
  If russia wants peace it can give the territory they took back >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 54%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  A senior Ukrainian official on Thursday reiterated Kyiv's rejection of any peace deal with Moscow that would allow Russia to keep Ukrainian territory seized by Russian forces.
  Russian President Vladimir Putin told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier on Thursday that Moscow was open to dialogue over Ukraine but that Kyiv would have to accept the loss of territories claimed by Russia, the Kremlin said.
  "The Russian Federation under the word 'talks'offers Ukraine & the world to recognize 'its right to seize foreign territories' & 'to fix the absence of legal consequences for mass killings on foreign territory.' It's fully unacceptable."
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russian^#2 territory^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Kyiv^#5 >
  
  
  Kyiv would have to accept the loss
  
  HAHAHAHAHA >
  
  Please Ukraine, never yield, please, for the future of our planet and democracy ! Putin must be defeated in order to evolve as humans! >
  
  It's so sad that there's apparently so much Russian influence in conservative media.  Several of the conservatives at my job keep saying that there's been too much violence and Ukraine just needs to accept what Russia wants to that peace can be declared.  I keep asking them if all of Central and South America suddenly invaded and took chucks of Texas and Arizona, would they then just let them have it?  I get a lot of hemming and hawing at that point mixed with a lot of "Well, our military would never let that happen."  I've been standing firm with that example, though.  Would they be cool just letting the invaders keep half of Texas and Arizona?  When pressed, none of them think that should happen, but Ukraine is different because reasons!
  It's so obvious that their brand of media is pushing this narrative really hard. >
  
  
  "Well, our military would never let that happen." I've been standing firm with that example, though. Would they be cool just letting the invaders keep half of Texas and Arizona? When pressed
  
  Keep doing this.
  Hypothetical thinking is an important part of critical thought, yet conservatives refuse to engage in it. Never let an argument devolve into whether a hypothetical could ever happen. Just acknowledge it's a hypothetical, and press on. >
  
  I’m convinced that a considerable amount of the population physically do not have the capacity to understand hypotheticals.
  Example
  Question: What if your mom got covid?
  Response: But she hasn’t.
  Question: Yes but what if she had?
  Response: She hasn’t got covid. >
  
  Nah that's just them refusing to engage in an argument that they could lose. They play dumb because they feel they would look way dumber if they lost to you. And that's absolutely not limited to conservatives. Cognitive dissonance will make you act like an idiot without realizing it if you don't keep yourself in check. >
  
  Negotiations with Russia are as pointless as trying to negotiate my rent lease from not going up without moving out >
  
  Knock knock, Russia, no one will ever buy your shit anymore. You have proven yourself as the worst friend any state can have (except Iran and fucking NORTH KOREA), you are a piece of shit no one wants anything to do with >
  
  As they should. >
  
  At this point could Ukraine have a special military operation in Russia that would effectively give them control of Russian territory. Maybe then they could hold a vote on if the newly liberated territories want to stay with Russia or join Ukraine… hmm🤔 >
  
  It will get a 146% vote :) >
  
  Negotiations are not for territoritory, but rather for the amount of monetary reparations to be paid by Russia for the damages it committed, for repatriation of all kidnapped Ukrainian citizens, and for Russian war criminals to be turned over to the ICC for prosecution. >
  
  I really hope the world remembers Hitler invading what was then Czechoslovakia and prime minister Chamberlain allowing Hitler to keep the invaded land on the condition he invade no further. We all know how that turned out. 
  If Europe gives Russia a single meter of land in Ukraine, we are clearly not learning from our mistakes. >
  
  That's literally why NATO was created after WW2, there weren't any real military alliances and that allowed  for Germany to keep going and no one backed each other up. >
  
  They should demand their Nukes returned as well! >
  
  Bare Minumum Peace Deal should be:
  
  
  Ukraine has all land returned to it
  
  
  Russia goes home, tail between its legs
  
  
  A Pro-Russian Treaty would be:
  
  Russia gets to keep ANY territory it has illegally acquired since 2014 (including Crimea)
  
  A JUST treaty could include any of the following:
  
  
  Return of all Ukrainians deported across Russia, especially children
  
  
  Russia must repay to rebuild Ukraine through any and all means possible
  
  
  A demilitarized zone is established between Russia and Ukraine on Russian Soil
  
  
  Russia must agree to no longer recognize the breakaway republics of Luhansk, Donetsk, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Artsakh
  
  
  Russian soldiers, officers, and responsible politicians must be handed over to the United Nations for an “International Tribunal over Potential War Crimes Committed in Ukraine between 2014 and 202X”
  
  
  And if we REALLY want to punish Russia:
  
  
  Vladimir Putin and his cabinet be forced to resign from the Russian Government, and the country returned to Democracy via-UN overseen elections
  
  
  Russia must acquiesce to all territorial disputes currently ongoing with neighboring countries (South Kuril Islands, Tuzla Island, Karelia, South Ossetia)
  
  
  Russia must hold UN-overseen referendums in all autonomous republics in regards to separating from the Russian Federation
  
  
  Russia must remove all of their navy from the Black Sea
  
  
  All Russian Troops outside of UN-recognized territory must return home (including South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria) >
  
  Also: all cultural heritage looted over these 8 years of war must be returned to Ukraine, along with all artworks “evacuated and never returned” during the Second World War and those stolen by Nazi Germany which were transferred to Russia as part of post-war retrieval and the majority of which remain in Russia still. >
  
  At this point I'm open to orbital mass drivers throwing asteroids at Russia. >
  
  Russia - "Hey, we pretend claim this land as ours."
  The World - "Go F yourselves."
  Russia - "We celebrate this victory!"
  Ukraine - Bombs the shit out of them to take it back.
  Russia - "OK cool we will just keep Pretend Land and we're cool!"
  Ukraine - "Sending more bombs." >
  
  For Ukraine to do any different would be astoundingly stupid!
  It would also alarm all their neighbours who know they could be next! >
  
  There are four ways for wars to end:  truce, balance of power, elimination of the core issue, and convergence of values.
  A truce is when both sides know the stoppage is temporary and the war will resume.
  Balance of power is when both sides will sit there armed to the teeth, but not fight.
  Elimination of the cause is when for whatever reason the thing they were fighting about goes away.  An example is the end of American conflict with North Vietnam when the North conquered the South in 1975.  After that what did the US have to argue with Vietnam about?
  The final way is convergence.  When one side, typically the defeated side, adopts the values and objectives of the other.  Example is Germany and Japan after WW2.
  So given these examples, which outcome is Ukraine attempting to achieve?
  From the looks of it, the very best they are hoping for is balance of power:  kicking Russia out of their territory and then arming to the teeth to dissuade Russia from continuing the war.
  It's unfortunate because convergence would be so much better.  If we could convince Russians that this whole thing is a huge waste of time and resources- for them.  If Putin would just hurry up and leave the stage - so to speak - it might just be possible.
  But since balance of power is the goal, the Ukrainians should say so, and the West should set about planning to arm Ukraine to the teeth and beyond. >
  
  Russia will have nothing but dust and blood. >
  
  Honestly, Russia must at withdraw at least 100km behind their own former borders. And then the new borders can be drawn there. >
  
  No peace as long as any Ukrainian soil remains in Russian hands. And that includes the Crimea. >
  
  Good!
  Slava Ukraini!!!
  🇺🇦 >
  
  Putin looks pretty stupid right now >
  
  I hope this includes Crimea. >
  
  Then keep on keeping on. Don't worry, America has plenty to spend. >
  
  Ukraine should take its land back and push into Russia. >
  
  Why would they push into Russia? Fuck some people are so dumb! >
  
  
  Why would they push into Russia? Fuck some people are so dumb!
  
  4 month old troll account, of course. >
  
  How do you a troll account when you see one? >
  
  Not one fucking square inch >
  
  Ukraine should accept to annex Russia for themselves >
  
  Keep killing russians.   
  They like getting ground up to bits, and most of the rest of the world is happy with that as well. >
  
  See - that's weird as I was thinking giving the Crimea back it's independence would be a fair trade to stop the war. >
  
  Russia. "Territorial realities" - much of Ukraine is now Russia  and "repeated demands" - new Ukrainian government, de-armed, and non-allied, none of this fighting back stuff when Russia comes for the remainder of Ukraine >
  
  I honestly don’t believe that guy is walking away empty handed. Yield SOME territory and join NATO. Next time he tries this we’ll really all get down then. >
  
  Why give him even a pyrrhic victory? >
  
  People here are delusional. If Russia can defend the land they grab over the next few years they will end up keeping them. The support for the war will eventually lose public interests and if another recession hits the western countries will cut back their support to focus on themselves. They will pressure Ukraine to make a deal. >
  
  Shades of 1939 land grabs by another dude in Europe. Don’t appease this one too or we’ll all be sorry. Talking to you Chamberlain. >
  
  agreements aren't worth the paper they print them on. >
  
  Ukraine should open negotiation with territorial concessions by Russia. Kuril Islands to Japan. China to the Shilka river. Mongolia gets Buryatia. Finland Karelia, Abkhazia back to Georgia, and Kaliningrad to the EU as a capital territory. Offer to meet them in the middle. >
  
  Those bloody pro-Russia Ukrainians in the Donbas region should be sent to Russia to live. Kick them out of Ukrainian lands if they love Russia. >
  
  This is such an obvious condition wanting you land back. Next are reparations and who goes before war trial court >
  
  Putin's Russia: It's the West's and Ukraine's fault if WW3 happens because we want this war to end with "peace"
  Ukraine: Peace can be achieved when you leave our land and return all of the sieged land you unlawfully stole?
  Putin: Why won't you let me keep bullying you until I get what I want! I want your land and I want peace! Until the next time i unlawfully invade another country to take more land.
  The world: Da f$@# he just say? Is he high?
  China and Iran: We are watching to see if we can get away with the same shit >
  
  First off all its a must that both sites agree the scale of the conflict 
  
  Invasion 
  War
  Military operation 
  Civil unrest 
  Drunk people fighting 
  Redue cities to look like a war zone for a movie
  
  Come on guys, we all know the answer and ready to go to jail for saying it >
  
  Russia will only negotiate if Ukraine actually takes Russian territory >
  
  This is existential for Putin now.  He's gambled, and lost more than was at stake.  On the bright side, this is good for global stability. >
  
  What terms would Ukraine find acceptable? I mean, a peace deal requires some bargaining. Unless the goal is Russia's unconditional defeat - which sounds nice but I don't know if that's possible. >
  
  So someone comes up randomly claiming your house, burn half of it down, kill your pet, and your solution is "oh well, guess if we want peace i gotta give them the room they barricaded in at least."
  Its just so ... Outlandish and not your call to make. Russia uses the rethoric of pretending to want peace to buy time. I seriously doubt anyone is in good faith when writing some drivel about bargaining and leaving them land. >
  
  I support NATO arming Ukraine, and would oppose recognizing any Russian conquests. But I think any viable peace deal would have to include something like a DMZ, prisoner swaps, etc. If we don't think a viable peace deal is possible, then fine. I'm okay helping Ukraine continue. >
  
  
  If we don't think a viable peace deal is possible, then fine. 
  
  That pretty much is where we are. The only peace deal it seems Russia will accept is full recognition of the annexed areas as Russian. Which is not tolerable to any extent.