Why Ukraine would rather fight than give Crimea to Russia

12 comments

1. ***From The Times:***

   For President Trump, the solution to the war in Ukraine is extremely simple: Kyiv should recognise the realities on the ground and put aside its objections to the Kremlin’s land grabs. For many Ukrainians, though, Trump’s demands are not only unrealistic but a threat to the very existence of their country.

   As he pushes hard for a peace deal before his 100th day in office, Trump has taken a sledgehammer approach to diplomacy, threatening to walk away entirely from negotiations and attacking President Zelensky’s refusal to acknowledge Russian rule in Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula that was annexed in 2014.

   “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelensky’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday. He said that Crimea had been “lost years ago” and that its status was “not even a point of discussion”.

   For Kyiv, the recognition of Russia’s seizure of Crimea would set a “dangerous precedent” and only encourage President Putin’s appetite for Ukrainian lands, according to Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst who is seen as close to Zelensky’s administration.

   Although Trump’s peace proposal has not been published by the White House, a draft copy that was seen by Axios, an American media outlet, says that it would involve Washington formally recognising Russian control over Crimea and acknowledging its de facto rule in four regions in the east and south of Ukraine.

2. isn’t crimea already Russian??

3. [deleted]

4. so if the same happened in america and we couldnt get them out of alaska for 2 years, should we just give up alaska and say oh well they got us you can keep it

5. [removed]

6. People might not like to hear it, I wouldn’t if America were invaded, but at some point you have to wake up and smell the coffee. Ukraine is never getting Crimea back. That idea was buried in the fields of Zaporizhzhia back in 2023. It is increasingly unlikely it’ll even get back the Donbas lands it’s lost to the Russians since 2014. Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Kursk put an end to that. The Ukrainian army is battered and worn. The best of their western trained and equipped maneuver brigades have been bled dry in brave, but ill-conceived, offensives over the past 2 years, and what’s left is a shadow of its former self. The army of 2022 or 2023 is gone. What’s left is a hodgepodge of poorly led/trained/equipped/motivated conscripts and a few fire brigades made out of the remnants of once venerable offensive forces. They are increasingly unable to hold onto their defensive positions let alone launch the sweeping offensives that would be necessary to re-claim their lost land. As evidence of this look at the situation around Pokrovsk and Toretsk.

   What’s more is the utter ruin that’s befallen Ukrainian civilians as this war has dragged on. Ukrainian infrastructure is obliterated in much of the country, its industrial heartland devastated by Russian air strikes, or captured by the Russians outright. Its agricultural output is no doubt severely impacted by conscription and war too. Billions in damages would need to be rebuilt, and it’s doubtful Ukraine has the money. What that means is generations of future Ukrainians are going to be living in conditions potentially similar to Weimar Germany, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. What’s worse is that demographically Ukraine has collapsed. It’s birthrate is the lowest in the world (or at least one of the lowest), it’s lost millions who’ve fled abroad, and I have no doubt once they open the borders up many more will leave.

   There doesn’t even seem to be a real strategy on how exactly to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat here. We’ve already given them most of the weapons they’ve wanted. More weapons shipments aren’t likely to be forthcoming under Trump. Like it or hate it that’s the reality. You can claim Trump only has to increase the support in order for Ukraine to win, but 1) that isn’t going to happen while we’re facing down a potential war in Iran, and frankly 2) that hasn’t been borne by the evidence so far. We gave them (the West collectively) hundreds of armored vehicles, air defense systems, HIMARS, etc etc, even training, and yet look at the result of their 2023 offensive. Look at Kursk. Again, like it or hate it, but the amount of support that would likely be necessary to actually change the result instead of merely delay it would be a level that the West, in particular the US, isn’t willing to accept. At the end of the day, Ukraine is not that important to America or even Europe to risk putting our own security at risk by giving away all of our equipment. If Ukraine seriously thought otherwise and built its strategy around that assumption then I’m sorry, but they should have picked up a history book and looked at what happened to South Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

   Basically my point is it seems like Ukrainian leadership is increasingly out of touch with their demands. You can hate that all you want, but the truth is they are not winning this war. That doesn’t mean Russia isn’t hurting, but it does mean that Ukraine is hurting more, and is likely to fold before Russia does, even with Western support. Given this reality, Ukraine needs to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and try to preserve what they can while they still have an army/war effort to back up their demands. The longer they wait in the vain hope that Trump is going to magically start giving them hundreds of F-35s and all of our artillery (which honestly doesn’t seem so far from what Ukraine actually wants) the worse their negotiating position will be.

   And as for security guarantees, again like it or hate it but that realistically was never going to happen. Even under Biden the US was not going to risk the escalation threat putting our troops on the contact line would bring, let alone the new Trump administration. Ukraine frankly is not that vital to us. If Ukraine thought that would be the case, then again I’m sorry, but they should have read the room a little. We were willing to give them weapons to defend themselves and bleed the Russians. We were never willing to bleed ourselves. It sucks, but that’s the facts.

7. [deleted]

8. So lose more of your people, your army, your infrastructure, your territory, instead of just surrendering part of your territory.

   “Oh but if it was the US”   
   IT’S NOT!

   Ukraine has no way of winning the war, unlike the US,  nor does it have nukes or an alliance with countries that do.

   it’s losing territory “oh but it will take 100 years to to get everything” 
   that is a stupid statement for many reasons 

   1- war is not measurable by territory gain per day, ex. When the allies invaded italy, hittler said that it would take the allies decades to get berlin at that rate, few years later the war was over

   2- it only takes that time when measuring the entire of the ukraine territory, capture of kyiv would probably be enough to ukraine to surrender, currently the border is 600 km away from kyiv advancing a kilometer perday on average, that would take 2 years instead of a century if focused.

   3- capture of strategic positions speed up the rate of territory gain

   “But we could supply then with more weapons”

   We did, yet it doesn’t seem like it will matter at the end, just more tech for russia to seize eventually 

   “But if ukraine joins NATO” they won’t allow it, no developed country wants to go to war with another nuclear nation just to defend a smaller weaker country that has barely any chance fo winning, that’s the truth wheter you like it or not

   “If we keep fighting the russia economy will collapse” it won’t atleast not in the next decade, it’s gdp is growing decently well, inflation is bad, but inflation was always bad in russia, yet they are still intact, plus russia aligned with BRICS and alot of countries who support it, people tend to forget that there are others countries outside of north america and europe, and that are not aligned with them

   This is just keep people dying for no real reason, the only chance of ukraine to keep existing with it’s current politics is by giving up some territory and join NATO later

   And no putin is not hittler, he won’t create a concetration camps to systematically erase Ukrainians from existing, the most likely course of events would be ukraine eitheir been annexed (less likely) or ukraine becoming a puppet from russia like belarus

   And no, i am not pro russia, i condemn the invasion, i am just being realistically here

9. [removed]

10. Might doesn’t make “moral right”, but it creates outcomes as it always has that’s why alliances form and it’s how every nation stakes out & maintains its borders.

    It’s why Europe, Canada, etc need to unite strongly to discourage US bullying under Trump.

11. Russia already has it, Ukraine has no ability to retake it, what does prolonging the war over territory Ukraine cannot reclaim accomplish?

12. I’m conflicted on this issue. 

    Obviously Crimea and the other occupied Oblasts legally belong to Ukraine. However, reality on the ground is that Russia has firm control of Crimea and the occupied territories. I do not see any viable path for Ukraine to get that land back by force. No third nation, or even coalition of nations has any desire to enter Ukraine and help them take it back. And Russia certainly isn’t going to just give it back. 

    Whether Ukraine and her allies recognize it or not, Crimea and everything behind the surovikhan line is probably gone forever. Barring something crazy like a total collapse and massive civil war inside Russia, the Russian army is never going to just pack up and leave Ukraine. 

    So where does that leave us? Ukraine cannot / will not recognize the occupied territories as being Russian. Doing so would be political suicide and doesn’t do anything to guarantee future security. 

    Russia won’t take a peace deal until they receive recognition of the “annexed” territory. Anything less would be political suicide for them, and again leaves their security needs unmet. 

    So, someone is going to have to give in. We might be in for another 2-3 years of this war. It will drag on until someone breaks, maybe catastrophically. By the simple math of size difference, this scenario favors Russia. Ukraine has exceeded my expectations time and time again, but their manpower and resources are not infinite. They can’t do this forever. Especially if the US pulls support. The same can be said for Russia. They also can’t do this forever. But I’m willing to bet they can carry on like this longer than Ukraine can. 

    I’m afraid that either way Ukraine might be screwed. They can fight on and risk catastrophic defeat in a year or two. Or they can cede their territory now, and still maybe get invaded again later. It’s hard to swallow but Russia is probably going to win this war. It’s been ugly and enormously expensive in lives and material, but a win is a win and the winner usually gets what it wants. 

Comments are closed.