[codedokode]

In theory West could offer something in exchange for peace, so that Russia will not want to break it, for example: withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe, withdrawing nuclear weapon from Europe, lifting sanctions, paying a compensation for losses due to sanctions etc. There is actually a whole spectrum of options for negotiations.

[KiwiJohnno]

The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion!

Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats?

And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened.

NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.

[codedokode]

> NATO is a purely defensive organization

Are nuclear missiles located in Europe and pointed to the East also "purely defensive" weapon? It doesn't help good relations when you have a gun pointed at your face.

[KiwiJohnno]

Yes, they are exactly that. The only (current) working deterrence/defensive strategy against an attack from nuclear weapons is the threat of a nuclear reprisal.

This has stopped a war directly between the major powers for the last 70 years and is known as MAD - Mutually assured destruction.

Its not a situation which anybody is comfortable with, but it works.

Honestly, this is basic cold war history stuff. Your question above shows you are either completely naïve or you consume way too much Russian propaganda.

[tweetle_beetle]

Defensive weapon is something of an oxymoron, apart from technologies like missile defense [1]. Putting that to one side, rational deterrence theory[2] suggests that:

(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat × Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action × Benefits of the action)

You could argue that Russia successfully destabilising the US (via Trump) and Europe (via Brexit and far right) is proof that nuclear missiles "pointed to the east" worked at defending against direct conflict and forced an alternative.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense?wprov=sfla1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory?wprov=sfla1

[dlahoda]

i thought they just point vertically? like other nuclear missiles.

[impossiblefork]

All these suggestions seem comically unsound.

Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right.

Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.

I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome.

This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative.

We're planning to borrow money to get weapons. This will be interesting, considering today's interest rates. I think it might be we who must be given something that we can agree is some kind of 'win', rather than the Russians, if the world is to be orderly.

[thiht]

Sounds like your strategy is giving Russia all they want so that they can prepare for the next attack in a few years. If you’re on Russia’s side I guess it makes sense

[bakuninsbart]

The carrot is that Russia will probably be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains in Ukraine. Some sanctions relief might be on the table as well. Dealing with a stupid, yet dangerous state like Russia, a carrot only works with a stick. All your suggestions effectively allow Russia to be even more brazen in its imperial ambitions going forward. That would be a big mistake. Conquering land needs to be prohibitively expensive. And for the sacrifice Ukraine is giving,they need proper assurances that they won't be attacked again a few years down the line.

European troops in Ukraine, adding them to a new European nuclear umbrella, and giving them a pathway towards EU membership and a "Marshal Plan" to rebuild are the kinds of things Ukraine needs to feel any kind of confidence in a ceasefire or peace agreement.

[user432678]

Should’ve West offered something in exchange for Hitler? In theory of course.