Comment by The_Colonel
4 years ago
> We do it all the time with North Korea.
Some food help is not comparable.
> I don't think the concession would be territory
If Russia "loses" Crimea, then it's an undeniable Russian fiasco and Putin has no way to claim the war as a success.
It sounds like a weird scenario where Russia threatens to use nukes and then leaves satisfied with no NATO membership. (worth reminding that this war wasn't about NATO at all)
>If Russia "loses" Crimea
I think Crimea is gone to Russia for good. It is out of play. I am talking about the Northern regions of Ukraine. In fact, I think the whole invasion of the northern regions was to eventually play that into a DMZ. Which it might still end up becoming.
>It sounds like a weird scenario where Russia threatens to use nukes and then leaves satisfied with no NATO membership. (worth reminding that this war wasn't about NATO at all)
I mean, Putin claims is was. So from his perspective, he can call that a win, right? If you take him at his word (I know!) then all he wanted was to not have NATO military bases on Russian borders. From that perspective, everything he has done so far can make a sort of sense, including nuclear threats. So, again, from that perspective, if he gets what he is publicly asking for, why would he not tout it as a win?
> I think Crimea is gone to Russia for good.
The problem is that Putin would probably require recognition of Crimea as Russian, which would essentially underwrite his conquest and create a precedent for further conquests/annexations of further regions with Russian majorities/minorities.
> I am talking about the Northern regions of Ukraine.
Russia pulled out of northern regions back in March and now occupies the east and south. TBH I'm not sure how seriously I should take your opinion in light of such a basic mistake.
> So, again, from that perspective, if he gets what he is publicly asking for, why would he not tout it as a win?
He might get what he's publicly asking for, but he's not getting what he actually wants. If he's willing to credibly threaten nuke use, I'd rather expect he will insist on having what he in fact wants (some sort of further slicing up of Ukraine).
>Russia pulled out of northern regions back in March and now occupies the east and south. TBH I'm not sure how seriously I should take your opinion in light of such a basic mistake.
Then let me restate it, any land touching or close to Russia. I think that is what he wants. A DMZ type areas on Russian borders and no NATO bases anywhere close to Russia (ie. nowhere in Ukraine). I think you and I are talking past each other with using North and East. Really, NorthEast would be more appropriate for the areas I am talking about and of course the South.
>He might get what he's publicly asking for, but he's not getting what he actually wants. If he's willing to credibly threaten nuke use, I'd rather expect he will insist on having what he in fact wants (some sort of further slicing up of Ukraine).
Well, he's not going to get that I think. But he can likely negotiate parts of Ukraine into DMZ type areas that are effectively controlled/not-controlled by both Russia and Ukraine. Like maybe technically part of Ukraine, but needs Russian approval for certain things.
I believe this is the most he can get, and eventually if he is willing Ukraine will be forced to accept it.
So, my bet, a buffer on the borders and some sunsetted period where Ukraine cannot joing NATO (and possible EU).