Which isn't really that dissimilar to now. Someone wrote that in February 2022, Western "powers" like the UK and France only had enough ammunition in stock for a few days of the intense fighting seen in Ukraine. And we're only now desperately playing catch-up (also Poland by buying hundreds of tanks from Korea and trying to find ways to increase the manpower in the army).
Which isn't really that dissimilar to now. Someone wrote that in February 2022, Western "powers" like the UK and France only had enough ammunition in stock for a few days of the intense fighting seen in Ukraine. And we're only now desperately playing catch-up (also Poland by buying hundreds of tanks from Korea and trying to find ways to increase the manpower in the army).
Imagine what would have happened if Poland managed to successfully resist the Nazi invasion and aid was able to somehow reach it (maybe through the USSR). The West would be thinking that Hitler is only interested in Poland. After all, Nazi Germany didn't say in 1939 they're at all interested in Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway...
I was listening to a programme about the Winter War. It's an amazingly 'close' war in Ukraine -- there the USSR, here Russia, invades a weaker neighbour (though Ukraine is much more powerful than Finland); the latter doesn't succumb to the larger neighbour, and the West, bewildered by the tough defence, sends in the guns.
There is a very popular argument that Ukraine cannot win peace by conceding territory to Russia, because Russia would just wait a little and attack again. But the Finnish example shows that this is not true.
It was surely difficult to give up territory, but in the end Finland ended up in a much better position than other countries neighbouring with Russia. And Russia hasn't tried to grab more territory from Finland since, even though Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire, so taking it over was certainly one of the Russian imperialists' dreams.
Russia cares about Ukraine more than about anything else, I think. Finland is no comparison. The Russians don't have a legend that the Finns are "one people" with them.
Finland also paid a huge price for not being further attacked by the Soviet Union, they had to concede a significant part of their sovereignty for peace. Not "just" land.
If there's one thing Russia cares about more than anything else, it's Crimea. All of Ukraine - not necessarily. For example, already in 1990s there were Russian politicians who questioned the 1954 transfer of Crimea, saying, in effect, that it was Russian. But nobody important in Russia seriously questioned Ukraine's sovereignty (except over Crimea) at that time.
Finland paid a huge price, and Ukraine will pay, too, if not this year, then next, unless there's a major breakthrough in the counter-offensive. And that's unlikely without air superiority. I'm not happy about it, I'm just realistic. The sooner the negotiations take place, the fewer Ukrainians will have to die.
The concession of Karelia can be compared to a concession of Crimea/Donbass, and Finland's limited sovereignty can be compared to a ban on Ukraine joining NATO. And these are potential options that could be on the table during the negotiations. Nobody knows how strong/weak the sides will be then, but it's clear that there will be negotiations, unless Russia completely collapses (but that depends mostly on what the Russians themselves do and opens another can of worms, e.g. who will control the nukes?).
I wish Ukraine well, after all it is a victim of an invasion. But I don't think territorial concessions would be the end of the world. Karelia, AFAIK, was mostly inhabited by Finns, while Donbass/Crimea are inhabited by people who don't identify too much with Ukraine. How many refugees from these areas have you met, compared to refugees from other parts of Ukraine? I'm sure not too many, because if they fled the war, they fled to Russia. Do you know of any large-scale protests and resistance movements in Crimea/Donbass that would be comparable to what we saw in Kherson?
There were many protests in Donbas in the first years of the occupation, of course later the Russians put a stop to it - with the brutality described by the thread I linked to. Did you read it?
I met a Ukrainian from East Ukraine (maybe even Donbas originally, I don't recall), who supported Yanukovych in the past. She hates Russia now.
You know, if territorial concessions aren't the end of the world, offer Russia a piece of your own country ;-) Save lives!
"The concession of Karelia can be compared to a concession of Crimea/Donbass, and Finland's limited sovereignty can be compared to a ban on Ukraine joining NATO."
The concept of Ukraine BOTH conceding land AND not joining NATO is ridiculous. It would leave it at the mercy of Russia. Weaker economically, with Crimea a perfect staging point for another invasion. This is a complete non-starter.
I'm just saying what options might be on the negotiation table. It could be either or. As I said, we don't know how strong/weak the sides will be at that point.
Ceding land is definitely a better option than not joining NATO, because NATO could ensure that Russia doesn't attack Ukraine again (unless it's feeling completely suicidal).
If that was the way to stop a bloody war, I would surely consider giving up a piece of my country.
And guess what, we actually did it. In 1945, Czechoslovakia signed a treaty that ceded Subcarpathian Rus' to the USSR. And you know what, that's fine by me. For the next few decades, people were more oppressed in the USSR than in Czechoslovakia. But the people of Subcarpathian Rus' never really identified with Czechoslovakia, so that's not our problem. I don't feel that we betrayed them.
But the truth is that it's not even a way to stop a bloody war, just to freeze the conflict for a while until Russia rebuilds its army. They'd come back for more.
Show me those pro-Ukrainian protests in Donbass from the first years of occupation that would be comparable to this protest in Kherson, for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587
In Kherson, there were 2000 people attending a clearly pro-Ukrainian protest in 2022. In Donetsk, a city three times as big, there were 500 people protesting in 2015, and even then, the protest wasn't even pro-Ukrainian, they just demanded that separatists remove rocket launchers from residential neighborhoods. One lady in the video is saying: "I understand that the Donetsk Republic soldiers fight and protect our position, but how much longer?"
"Thousands attended a pro-Ukrainian rally the eastern city of Donetsk on April 17 despite security worries as armed separatists continued to occupy government buildings in the Donbas region. Activists addressing the rally said the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine's east did not need Moscow to protect them. Demonstrators unfurled a giant Ukrainian flag in Victory Park, sang the Ukrainian national anthem, and chanted, "Donbas is Ukraine!" (RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service)"
"if not this year, then next, unless there's a major breakthrough in the counter-offensive. And that's unlikely without air superiority. I'm not happy about it, I'm just realistic. The sooner the negotiations take place, the fewer Ukrainians will have to die."
I didn't have the pleasure of knowing you on the first day of invasion, but I'm sure you were one of these "I'm just realistic" guys saying "Ukraine cannot win, Kyiv will be taken in 3 days, they should surrender ASAP so fewer Ukrainians will have to die".
Within a year, Ukrainian F-16's are quite likely to happen (I'm just being realistic), and they will end Russian air superiority for good.
"Within a year, Ukrainian F-16's are quite likely to happen (I'm just being realistic), and they will end Russian air superiority for good."
We don't know. USA never had to fight against such a powerful air defence capability as the one fielded by Russia. But Ukraine's chances for engaging Russia in the air with F-16s (in significant quantities, not 10-20) are much better than without them. At least the F-16s should make life harder for Russian helicopters.
The breakup of the USSR was associated with Russia's attempt to build some independence, but at the same time Russia did not give up its attempts to dominate the former USSR territory, with the possible exception of the Baltic States. From the beginning, Russia advocated not only the acquisition of Crimea, but also an economic union and a military union of the former Soviet states. Crimea and the military union were not agreed to by Ukraine - in retrospect, it can be said very well, since other states remained in the sphere of influence, losing (see: Belarus) at least partially their independence.
In a previous commentary, I wrote that Russia must own Ukraine if it wants to mean something. The USSR had a population of nearly 300 million people, Russia had 140 million. Russia may dominate the countries of Central Asia, but in such a relationship the importance of countries with dominant Islam grows; in other words -- countries whose culture Russia considers foreign. For Slavic-Orthodox domination to occur, Russia needs a partner -- Ukraine, with a population of more than 40 million, is not only a large country, but also meets these racist-cultural requirements of Russianness. Besides, some significant citizens of the USSR were Ukrainians (see Khrushchev). Well, and Putin, in a famous speech, refuses to recognize the separateness of the Ukrainian people -- in what, by the way, was part of a long Russian tradition.
As for your link: "The Cossacks would walk up to little girls wearing make up & threaten to rape them, they also said women who drink deserve to be gangraped. If you were caught out, they would tie you up & flog you. They even were proud of these ISIS style laws & played it on TV"
Don't you think it's curious that the author thought it was important to mention that it was the Cossacks who did it? You can hardly blame the Russians for what the Cossacks are doing, that's another ethnic group. And it just so happens that the Cossacks live in eastern Ukraine and neighbouring parts of Russia, which is further evidence that these regions have strong cultural ties across the (official) border. In this case, the ISIS-like "culture".
You can blame the Russians for everything what happened in Donbas after 2014, because Russia was in control. These things happened because Russia allowed them to happen.
And guess what, this Russian paramilitary is called "Registered Cossacks" because it is made up of people of Cossack ethnicity. If all Russian (para)militaries did such things, the tweet wouldn't mention Cossacks specifically.
1) Historical analogies do not prove. Historical analogies indicate possibilities.
2) The situation is different -- Finland has always been more "next door" to Russia than Ukraine. If Russia wants to be a superpower, to dominate the territories of the former Russian empire (even if only to have great influence), it must possess Ukraine.
3) Returning to the question of a possible lasting, such a compromise peace -- well, that depends on Russian policy -- Russia would have to change it. There is a catch here -- Russia changing its policy is Russia withdrawing from war without territorial gains. Russia that nonetheless cares about maintaining its conquests is a Russia that has not changed its policy and attitude toward its neighbor.
PS.
As to whether it is "difficult to give away territory," none of us should comment -- this is a matter exclusively for Ukrainians.
Ad 3 -> Russia might change its policy to: "we want territories inhabited by ethnic Russians, we're not interested in other territories". Keeping some parts of Ukraine (e.g. Crimea), and not invading others would be in line with such a policy.
You forget that while Russia claims "ethnic Russians", it does not recognize the existence of "ethnic Ukrainians". In other words, every resident of Ukraine is an "ethnic Russian" for Russia.
By the way, I don't understand why an "ethnic Russian" would be obliged to live in Russia if he doesn't want to?
For the Russian imperialists, the Ukrainians are an artificial nation. They have never existed.
Unless they are talking about Khrushchev. He was born in the nineteenth century in Russia, in a place that is also in Russia today. But - it's very interesting, for some mysterious reasons (which perhaps have something to do with Crimea) they claim that he was .... Ukrainian!
Then I don't know anymore - did Ukrainians exist in the 19th century or not?
Funny thing about Khrushchev. He's as much Ukrainian as Rudyard Kipling was Indian: child born to immigrants from imperial center who moved to Mumbai for work
Which isn't really that dissimilar to now. Someone wrote that in February 2022, Western "powers" like the UK and France only had enough ammunition in stock for a few days of the intense fighting seen in Ukraine. And we're only now desperately playing catch-up (also Poland by buying hundreds of tanks from Korea and trying to find ways to increase the manpower in the army).
Yes, the lucky attacker is less effective.
Imagine what would have happened if Poland managed to successfully resist the Nazi invasion and aid was able to somehow reach it (maybe through the USSR). The West would be thinking that Hitler is only interested in Poland. After all, Nazi Germany didn't say in 1939 they're at all interested in Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway...
I was listening to a programme about the Winter War. It's an amazingly 'close' war in Ukraine -- there the USSR, here Russia, invades a weaker neighbour (though Ukraine is much more powerful than Finland); the latter doesn't succumb to the larger neighbour, and the West, bewildered by the tough defence, sends in the guns.
I hope the analogy doesn't stretch too far, because in the end the Finns lost and had to concede territory.
There is a very popular argument that Ukraine cannot win peace by conceding territory to Russia, because Russia would just wait a little and attack again. But the Finnish example shows that this is not true.
It was surely difficult to give up territory, but in the end Finland ended up in a much better position than other countries neighbouring with Russia. And Russia hasn't tried to grab more territory from Finland since, even though Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire, so taking it over was certainly one of the Russian imperialists' dreams.
Russia cares about Ukraine more than about anything else, I think. Finland is no comparison. The Russians don't have a legend that the Finns are "one people" with them.
Finland also paid a huge price for not being further attacked by the Soviet Union, they had to concede a significant part of their sovereignty for peace. Not "just" land.
Another reason why Ukraine won't abandon its people to Russian occupation is to spare them the fate of the people in Donbas: https://twitter.com/DonbasDIY/status/1631769715050946562
If there's one thing Russia cares about more than anything else, it's Crimea. All of Ukraine - not necessarily. For example, already in 1990s there were Russian politicians who questioned the 1954 transfer of Crimea, saying, in effect, that it was Russian. But nobody important in Russia seriously questioned Ukraine's sovereignty (except over Crimea) at that time.
Finland paid a huge price, and Ukraine will pay, too, if not this year, then next, unless there's a major breakthrough in the counter-offensive. And that's unlikely without air superiority. I'm not happy about it, I'm just realistic. The sooner the negotiations take place, the fewer Ukrainians will have to die.
The concession of Karelia can be compared to a concession of Crimea/Donbass, and Finland's limited sovereignty can be compared to a ban on Ukraine joining NATO. And these are potential options that could be on the table during the negotiations. Nobody knows how strong/weak the sides will be then, but it's clear that there will be negotiations, unless Russia completely collapses (but that depends mostly on what the Russians themselves do and opens another can of worms, e.g. who will control the nukes?).
I wish Ukraine well, after all it is a victim of an invasion. But I don't think territorial concessions would be the end of the world. Karelia, AFAIK, was mostly inhabited by Finns, while Donbass/Crimea are inhabited by people who don't identify too much with Ukraine. How many refugees from these areas have you met, compared to refugees from other parts of Ukraine? I'm sure not too many, because if they fled the war, they fled to Russia. Do you know of any large-scale protests and resistance movements in Crimea/Donbass that would be comparable to what we saw in Kherson?
There were many protests in Donbas in the first years of the occupation, of course later the Russians put a stop to it - with the brutality described by the thread I linked to. Did you read it?
I met a Ukrainian from East Ukraine (maybe even Donbas originally, I don't recall), who supported Yanukovych in the past. She hates Russia now.
You know, if territorial concessions aren't the end of the world, offer Russia a piece of your own country ;-) Save lives!
"The concession of Karelia can be compared to a concession of Crimea/Donbass, and Finland's limited sovereignty can be compared to a ban on Ukraine joining NATO."
The concept of Ukraine BOTH conceding land AND not joining NATO is ridiculous. It would leave it at the mercy of Russia. Weaker economically, with Crimea a perfect staging point for another invasion. This is a complete non-starter.
I'm just saying what options might be on the negotiation table. It could be either or. As I said, we don't know how strong/weak the sides will be at that point.
Ceding land is definitely a better option than not joining NATO, because NATO could ensure that Russia doesn't attack Ukraine again (unless it's feeling completely suicidal).
If that was the way to stop a bloody war, I would surely consider giving up a piece of my country.
And guess what, we actually did it. In 1945, Czechoslovakia signed a treaty that ceded Subcarpathian Rus' to the USSR. And you know what, that's fine by me. For the next few decades, people were more oppressed in the USSR than in Czechoslovakia. But the people of Subcarpathian Rus' never really identified with Czechoslovakia, so that's not our problem. I don't feel that we betrayed them.
But the truth is that it's not even a way to stop a bloody war, just to freeze the conflict for a while until Russia rebuilds its army. They'd come back for more.
Show me those pro-Ukrainian protests in Donbass from the first years of occupation that would be comparable to this protest in Kherson, for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587
The closest thing I could find is this: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-antiwara-protest-donetsk/27074917.html
In Kherson, there were 2000 people attending a clearly pro-Ukrainian protest in 2022. In Donetsk, a city three times as big, there were 500 people protesting in 2015, and even then, the protest wasn't even pro-Ukrainian, they just demanded that separatists remove rocket launchers from residential neighborhoods. One lady in the video is saying: "I understand that the Donetsk Republic soldiers fight and protect our position, but how much longer?"
https://www.rferl.org/a/donetsk-russian-speakers-dont-need-putins-help/25353960.html
"Thousands attended a pro-Ukrainian rally the eastern city of Donetsk on April 17 despite security worries as armed separatists continued to occupy government buildings in the Donbas region. Activists addressing the rally said the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine's east did not need Moscow to protect them. Demonstrators unfurled a giant Ukrainian flag in Victory Park, sang the Ukrainian national anthem, and chanted, "Donbas is Ukraine!" (RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service)"
"if not this year, then next, unless there's a major breakthrough in the counter-offensive. And that's unlikely without air superiority. I'm not happy about it, I'm just realistic. The sooner the negotiations take place, the fewer Ukrainians will have to die."
I didn't have the pleasure of knowing you on the first day of invasion, but I'm sure you were one of these "I'm just realistic" guys saying "Ukraine cannot win, Kyiv will be taken in 3 days, they should surrender ASAP so fewer Ukrainians will have to die".
Within a year, Ukrainian F-16's are quite likely to happen (I'm just being realistic), and they will end Russian air superiority for good.
"Within a year, Ukrainian F-16's are quite likely to happen (I'm just being realistic), and they will end Russian air superiority for good."
We don't know. USA never had to fight against such a powerful air defence capability as the one fielded by Russia. But Ukraine's chances for engaging Russia in the air with F-16s (in significant quantities, not 10-20) are much better than without them. At least the F-16s should make life harder for Russian helicopters.
The breakup of the USSR was associated with Russia's attempt to build some independence, but at the same time Russia did not give up its attempts to dominate the former USSR territory, with the possible exception of the Baltic States. From the beginning, Russia advocated not only the acquisition of Crimea, but also an economic union and a military union of the former Soviet states. Crimea and the military union were not agreed to by Ukraine - in retrospect, it can be said very well, since other states remained in the sphere of influence, losing (see: Belarus) at least partially their independence.
In a previous commentary, I wrote that Russia must own Ukraine if it wants to mean something. The USSR had a population of nearly 300 million people, Russia had 140 million. Russia may dominate the countries of Central Asia, but in such a relationship the importance of countries with dominant Islam grows; in other words -- countries whose culture Russia considers foreign. For Slavic-Orthodox domination to occur, Russia needs a partner -- Ukraine, with a population of more than 40 million, is not only a large country, but also meets these racist-cultural requirements of Russianness. Besides, some significant citizens of the USSR were Ukrainians (see Khrushchev). Well, and Putin, in a famous speech, refuses to recognize the separateness of the Ukrainian people -- in what, by the way, was part of a long Russian tradition.
As for your link: "The Cossacks would walk up to little girls wearing make up & threaten to rape them, they also said women who drink deserve to be gangraped. If you were caught out, they would tie you up & flog you. They even were proud of these ISIS style laws & played it on TV"
Don't you think it's curious that the author thought it was important to mention that it was the Cossacks who did it? You can hardly blame the Russians for what the Cossacks are doing, that's another ethnic group. And it just so happens that the Cossacks live in eastern Ukraine and neighbouring parts of Russia, which is further evidence that these regions have strong cultural ties across the (official) border. In this case, the ISIS-like "culture".
"You can hardly blame the Russians for what the Cossacks are doing, that's another ethnic group."
No, that's complete BS. "Cossacks" mean here a Russian paramilitary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Cossacks_of_the_Russian_Federation
You can blame the Russians for everything what happened in Donbas after 2014, because Russia was in control. These things happened because Russia allowed them to happen.
And guess what, this Russian paramilitary is called "Registered Cossacks" because it is made up of people of Cossack ethnicity. If all Russian (para)militaries did such things, the tweet wouldn't mention Cossacks specifically.
1) Historical analogies do not prove. Historical analogies indicate possibilities.
2) The situation is different -- Finland has always been more "next door" to Russia than Ukraine. If Russia wants to be a superpower, to dominate the territories of the former Russian empire (even if only to have great influence), it must possess Ukraine.
3) Returning to the question of a possible lasting, such a compromise peace -- well, that depends on Russian policy -- Russia would have to change it. There is a catch here -- Russia changing its policy is Russia withdrawing from war without territorial gains. Russia that nonetheless cares about maintaining its conquests is a Russia that has not changed its policy and attitude toward its neighbor.
PS.
As to whether it is "difficult to give away territory," none of us should comment -- this is a matter exclusively for Ukrainians.
Ad 3 -> Russia might change its policy to: "we want territories inhabited by ethnic Russians, we're not interested in other territories". Keeping some parts of Ukraine (e.g. Crimea), and not invading others would be in line with such a policy.
You forget that while Russia claims "ethnic Russians", it does not recognize the existence of "ethnic Ukrainians". In other words, every resident of Ukraine is an "ethnic Russian" for Russia.
By the way, I don't understand why an "ethnic Russian" would be obliged to live in Russia if he doesn't want to?
For the Russian imperialists, the Ukrainians are an artificial nation. They have never existed.
Unless they are talking about Khrushchev. He was born in the nineteenth century in Russia, in a place that is also in Russia today. But - it's very interesting, for some mysterious reasons (which perhaps have something to do with Crimea) they claim that he was .... Ukrainian!
Then I don't know anymore - did Ukrainians exist in the 19th century or not?
Funny thing about Khrushchev. He's as much Ukrainian as Rudyard Kipling was Indian: child born to immigrants from imperial center who moved to Mumbai for work