Ukraine Faces a Grim Choice- Compromise or Collapse

18 comments

1. Submission Statement:

   Simply put, Russia has far greater reserves, financial (despite sanctions), industrial, and [cannon fodder](https://about.rferl.org/article/central-asia-in-focus-russia-continues-sending-central-asians-to-ukraine/) for a prolonged war of attrition. Add up a collapse of Ukrainian morale, political wavering in the United States and Europe, and a Kremlin determined to maintain escalation dominance, and you have a situation where Ukraine faces a grim choice.

   Either Ukraine must sit down with Moscow and make unthinkable concessions- a constitutional prohibition on NATO membership and the permanent annexation of the Eastern regions by the Russian Federation- or face a complete military defeat with all the horrors that Russian occupation would bring.

   Commentary: Ukraine will be forced to make this decision no matter who becomes the next American President. A Harris administration might give Ukraine more time, but eventually, Russia’s advantages will leave Washington and European allies no choice. A Trump administration would make continued European support for Ukraine militarily risky, as Russia would feel emboldened to more aggressively retaliate against European countries devoid of Uncle Sam’s backing.

   The theory of total Ukrainian victory is still pushed in NATO countries’ establishments mainly because they have declared Ukraine as ground zero for the fight over the “world order”. Any compromise would be a major loss of face both internationally and domestically, where Western governments have faced [skeptical publics](https://www.politico.eu/article/europeans-think-ukraine-lose-war-russia-survey/) fatigued by the conflict.

   Thus, Ukraine will be forced to make a horrific decision no matter what. I know this is a grim reality. But I see no other option. We can Monday Morning Quarterback all we want about steps we could have taken earlier on, but there’s no denying the congressional delay last year was absolutely devastating for Kyiv.

2. It is truly rarely to see an American newspaper telling grim bad news of Ukrainian side of war.

   Well, considering Zelensky still has not conscripting 18 years-old yet, the current situation may not be as bleak as the newspaper is telling here.

3. They had a great negotiation position after the rout in Kharkiv and kherson. But they bet on the counteroffensive and were hoping Russian lines would collapse. Not sure if it was overconfidence or Russia pretending to be weak but it was obvious that the time for negotiation was RIGHT after the counteroffensive ran out of steam. Now the Russians smell blood in the water in its not even clear they will come to the negotiating table

4. This was always going to happen

5. The way to solve this dilemma is to make it no longer a war of attrition. That means feeding Ukraine every last weapon system possible and removing all constraints on their usage. Let Ukraine do what needs to be done to end this thing outright. It may already be too late for that, but I’m a “go down swinging” kind of guy, so let ’em try. Let’s stop pussyfooting around Putin. He’s already escalated, multiple times. It’s long past time we do the same, and that takes the form of finally taking the cuffs off Ukraine.

6. None of the military experts have been saying Ukraine faces collapse. The words we keep hearing are “marginal tactical gains” for Russia.

   I can’t take the article seriously when it prattles on about the “theory of total Ukrainian victory” while also failing to acknowledge that Russia does not seek a compromise solution.

   It also imagines a collapse of Ukrainian morale which is utter fantasy. Perhaps the author imagines such a morale collapse will occur in the future?

   I expect better from the nation.

7. Western newspapers promoted and hyped the war saying Ukraine is winning, Russia is running out of Missiles within 1 months etc etc.

   So many lives lost and now they are speaking of compromise. We never got the actual truth about losses from biased newspapers.

8. Slow painful close of war or slower painful close of war? What an utter waste of lives.

9. I think they might choose collapse. A negotiated settlement will just make the West think that it’s not their problem anymore, whereas a collapse will immediately make it the West’s problem.

   If Ukraine settles, every captured city will become a Bucha and, once they reorganize and rearm, Russia will come for the rest.

10. Looks like wishful thinking doesn’t win wars, even if you do it for years.

    This war was decided when it started. At least Europe could have come out of it with its face and economy intact, and could have made an early commitment to negotiations. Cynical, yes, but without the disastrous loss of life and the decline of its economy.

11. Don’t go to *The Nation* for military/political strategy.

12. Unfortunately Europe is weak! It cannot even defend itself without US assistance.

13. >The Nation endorsed Bernie Sanders for President in 2016. They have also been criticized for being a Pro-Russia publication by conservatives and liberals. Here is a quote from the right-leaning Washington Free Beacon: “The Nation’s modern-day Russia coverage has been criticized as too pro-Putin. Stephen F. Cohen, the husband of editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, has been characterized as a Putin apologist.” However, an op-ed writer for The Nation was forcibly removed from a press briefing between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin on July 16, 2018, for holding up a sign regarding a nuclear weapons ban treaty, according to CNBC.

14. The entire fallacy of this article is best summarised here: “Western support to Ukraine should continue during negotiations so that the Ukrainian forces can continue to fall back slowly and inflict heavy casualties, thereby encouraging the Russians to accept a compromise.”

    Why should Russia accept any compromise if Ukraine is “falling back” (albeit slowly)? Why not then just wait and take it all?

    Someone not understanding the “Russian soul” might think it’s about saving some Russian lives. Unfortunately, the Russian motherland and the Russian soul don’t work this way. Putin doesn’t give two smiths if 100K more soldiers die.

    So yes, situation is not great, but this “solution” offered here will lead to complete occupation and, considering the bloody recent history, genocide of the Ukrainian people. Which the author doesn’t give two smiths about, since he’s “safely in the West”.

15. no more money avail to be laundered

16. This is the consequence of the EU (US) pushing more and more eastwards towards Russia. Remember the revolution where a Russia-friendly Ukrainian government was overthrown by the people (yeah… that wasn’t an organic, grassroots event – the US have been excelling at stuff like that for years). With a now pro-EU Ukrainian government, the prospect of Ukraine becoming part of the EU was one Russia didn’t want to accept. Pushing their long range missiles closer and closer to Russia over the years poked the bear this point. It’s not a case of bad Putin. Russia’s influence for generations would be severely weakened with EU long range missiles so close to Russian territory. So, Ukraine is going to have to negotiate hard to stop their country from being overrun.
    NOTE: This is not me taking Russia’s side but analysing the situation objectively from a Russia perspective.

17. I’ve heard Russia has gotten Wagner, Syrian mercenaries and now Korean soldiers. For Ukraine, its gotten private volunteers, but I reckon the number isn’t too high, how many Korean soldiers did Russia get exactly?

18. If my people were in a position of fight or be exterminated then we would fight to the last person. Today, Russian losses reach 700K. It’s November so the weather will give Ukraine a respite soon.

Comments are closed.