[Cthulhu_]

"we" are doing nothing because "we" are not under attack; Ukraine did not have defense pacts with other countries, and the military aid took a while to get started because of the risk of Russia seeing it as hostility towards them, further escalating the conflict.

If it escalates, it will escalate bigly. If Russia attacks a NATO country, article 5 will / should kick in and the combined military force of 31 countries (with or without the US) will combine their strengths.

But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes. Nothing will matter anymore if Russia decides to use them. It doesn't matter if they lose hundreds of thousands of people, material, and are completely humiliated, as long as they have nukes, "we" cannot strike back.

At this point, wishful thinking that the Ukraine conflict seizes up again, keeps the Russian army occupied, and things cool off slowly. Or that the Russian leadership is replaced, but there's no guarantees it would be replaced by someone who would stop the war.

[fjfaase]

Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its nuclear bomb and destroyed its strategic bombers with the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia. Now that Russia stept out of that deal, it does not mean that the USA no longer has the moral obligation of its part of the deal.

[fjfaase]

I stand corrected, the Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The Ukraine government acted in good faith that they would not be invaded. Now that it has indeed be invaded by one of the countries signing the memorandum, it does give the other parties a moral obligation to step in. The USA is now showing to be an unreliable party and I think that this weakens the position of the USA in the world.

[alephxyz]

> Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine.

The Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The only obligation the US has is to e escalate to the UN security council if Ukraine gets nuked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...

[aembleton]

> the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia

The promise[1] was to not invade it, it was not to provide defence.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[KingOfCoders]

"But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes."

France and the UK will not use nukes when Poland is invaded.

Russia will not use nukes when invading Poland.

Russia might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad (but I'm not so sure there, if Ukraine gets back Crimea we will see).

[GoblinSlayer]

>might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad

https://bellenews.com/2013/12/16/world/europe-news/russia-de...

[thriftwy]

What are you going to do with Kaliningrad if you occupy it? Are you going to hand out EU Schengen passports to its residents? You may get a large line for ingress if you're going to swap Russian passpors for EU ones.

If you don't, Russia will politely ask to have its territory back and would get that eventually.

Bottom line, stop thinking about the land as if it was not full of people settled there.

[SXX]

Honestly if you offer residents of Kaliningrad some free EU passports on condition they need to move out of Russia I pretty certain like 90% of them will gladly accept.

[KingOfCoders]

Because Germany has no interest in Kaliningrad and Poland has no (or a very weak) claim, I'd say should it come to that, Kaliningrad will be demilitarized and then "given back" to Russia.

And the argument was about nukes, in the event NATO invades Kaliningrad because of missle sites, not if it should or would.

Funnily the staunchest supporters of Putin in Germany (Nazis) would also be the only ones who would like to have Königsberg back.

[jacquesm]

Lithuania might want some more beach.

[docmars]

The easiest solution to this war is sitting Zelenskyy down with Putin and striking a compromise and forming a peace treaty, if the U.S. war mongers allow it.

[KingOfCoders]

Like the last several ones, before or after Russia invaded Crimea?

Or the one where Russia guaranteed Ukraines sovereignty if they would give up nuclear weapons? (Russia playing the long con, got what it wanted, Ukraine free of nuclear weapons, ready to be invaded).

[JAlexoid]

The nukes deal wasn't about granting sovereignty. Ukraine had sovereignty since the formation of Soviet Union over 100 years ago(Ukraine even retained it's seat in UN, upon founding).

That deal was just about nuclear proliferation. It was well reasoned at the time and had no special conditions.

That being said - the idea that Ukrainians are a "fake nation" has been a prominent talking point in Russia my entire life.

[KingOfCoders]

No.

I didn't say "grant" I did write "guarantee".

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum [0] ("guarantee Ukraines sovereignty") so Ukraine would sign the Lisbon Protocol [1] ("give up nuclear weapons").

Ukraine gives up nuclear weapons, Russia guarantees Ukraines sovereignty. Simple:

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements [..] to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of [..] Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [..] Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Protocol

[actionfromafar]

How long will that last?

[inglor_cz]

"to this war"

What about the next war? Have you listened to Putin? Ukraine is an artificial nation according to him and Russia has the right to reabsorb "Little Russia". How do you compromise with that view?

[oceanplexian]

I listened to him speak for two hours. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the war, how many more lives should be sacrificed to avoid compromise? What about prioritizing the value of human lives over drawing lines on a map between two very broken, very corrupt countries?

[inglor_cz]

I don't really get how you can even begin to trust anything that Putin promises or signs.

Russia has a long tradition of treating treaties as scraps of paper, and they have a recent history in this regard with Ukraine.

Their long-term aim is to absorb Ukraine and exploit its industrial and agricultural potential for further imperial expansion. The next will be the Baltic countries and after them Central Europe.

Whatever peace will be signed now will last precisely as long as it takes Russia to rebuild their offensive capabilities for the next round of war.

All the dead are fault of Putin and his imperial ambitions. Our only choice is whether to submit and become serfs in a neo-Russian empire, or fight back and help Ukrainians fight back.

[docmars]

I'm not sure how anyone begins to trust our own military or elected Establishment leaders who start and fund endless frivolous wars for decades, for greed, leaving the Middle East absolutely laid to waste.

Bush, Obama / Hillary, and Biden are no different than Putin, if not far worse. They deserve no more trust from Americans than a serial killer who took out members of your family for fun. They are reckless abusers, for greed and continued power.

[inglor_cz]

If I were a Middle Easterner, I would agree. Or South American, for that purpose.

(With one huge caveat, both the Middle Easterners and the South Americans are perfectly capable of starting various shit themselves. Don't deprive them of agency by painting them as blind and obedient puppets of Washington. Especially the Middle East is a very ancient civilization with a tradition of backstabbing and betrayal going deep into the Antiquity. They don't have to learn that from some Westerners.)

But in the context of European security, the main problem of the last decades was either the USSR or Russia, not the US. It was Soviet tanks that rolled through Czechoslovak cities in 1968 to crush our attempt at political independence, not American ones.

Context matters, and for former Soviet Bloc nations, Americans are an ally against potential reestablishment of Russian rule.