Peace does not require "negotiation" in this war. There is a clear aggressor: Russia. So things are really simple, at least this once. All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory, and we will have peace.
Either Russia is abjectly defeated so they are incapable of fighting, or they are presented with an option which they prefer to continuing the war. The former is extremely difficult (to put it mildly) and the latter is broadly filed under negotiation.
Ukraine is not fighting because "The West" won't let them stop; they're fighting because they know what will happen to them if they do stop. Russian soldiers are brutal occupiers. Russian officials have been deporting lots of children from the territory they've occupied.
That is, I can't see Ukraine trying to negotiate some kind of peace-for-land deal. Apart from anything else, any land Russia occupied as part of such a deal would be used to launch a new attack once they've reconstituted their forces.
So any negotiation would be between "The West" and Russia, over Ukraine's heads. And that is the only kind of negotiation that Putin will countenance; he's been very clear that he thinks Ukraine is not a country, it's people are no more than ill-educated Russians, and its leaders are nazis.
Of course, Russia has negotiated with real nazis before; but it's pretty seditious to mention that in public in Russia nowadays.
>All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory
That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe's promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe's promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
Realistically that probably won't happen until there is a regime change in Russia. So, the best option for now is to keep giving Ukraine all of the weapons they ask for in order to maintain a stalemate and inflict as many casualties on Russia as possible. Russia has a large population but it's not unlimited; kill enough and eventually the civilians will march on the Kremlin. This may take years.
Ultimately it's up to the Ukrainians what terms they want to negotiate. But it would seem foolish to give up the option of joining NATO and the EU just to gain a temporary peace. If they're going to survive as an independent country rather than a Russian vassal state then they will need alliances with nuclear powers.
> That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe’s promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe’s promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
There is zero chance the war would take more than a slight pause before resuming in full force with a less-capable Ukraine if Ukraine’s allies promised to stop supplying it with weapons. (The Russo-Georgian War, immediately, and with a slight delay because of temporarily Russia-favorable political conditions that emerged in the interim in Ukraine, the Russo-Ukrainian War are both direct results, in fact, of that kind of accommodationist thought winning the day at the 2008 NATO summit with regard to Russia’s demand at the time that Georgia and Ukraine not have Membership Action Plans extended to them. Fool me once…)
There’s a very good chance that Russia will stop if that does not happen, even if it is unlikely that the current leadership would do so.
Chances are small, but I wanted to immediately oppose the "we should start the peace negotiation process" narrative, which often (not necessarily here, but often) implies that Ukraine needs to do something to achieve peace, that Ukraine is somehow responsible for the war and that Ukraine must concede territory.
This narrative is being strongly pushed in various social media by Russian troll farms.
Another option is a "frozen conflict" -- for Ukraine to accept a cease fire with current front lines, but not to recognize Russia's claims of sovereignty. Leaving open the possibility of a final counteroffensive after Putin croaks. Some 43 percent of Ukrainians are open to some form of negotiations, according to a recent poll (independent of Russia's deranged narratives).
That's the standard first-pass response, of course.
It could also serve as an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same in reverse -- ultimately leading to a Russian withdraw (many years later but with many lives spared also).
OTOH, a continuation of the status quo (assuming the political climate in Western countries permits the Ukrainians to do so, which is in itself a highly dodgy proposition) is not at all guaranteed to end in Ukraine's interest, and brings certain obvious tail risks to the rest of the world as well.
Ultimately it's a matter for the Ukrainians to decide. My only point is that it's perfectly possible to discuss different options for achieving the same desired end result (which it seems we agree on) -- without having to label these as being in favor of Russian "peace narratives".
But Russia has no reason to do that. To end the war you need one of two things to happen: send enough weapons (and possibly soldiers) to Ukraine to force the Russians to retreat, which West is clearly not capable of doing, or you need the negotiations. I would not count on Putin suddenly getting conscience-stricken and saying: "what I did was wrong, please forgive me, I'm ending the war now".
Russia isn’t bleeding its economy and military to death in order to win a few patches of land in Eastern Ukraine, and if they are they’re idiots. The only way this war makes sense is if they see these worthless chunks of land as a jumping off point for a larger war of conquest, which is why peace deals aren’t happening.
Yes, it's worthless. Are you a troll or something?
Large parts of the Donbas look like the moon after Russians bombed them. They've sent most of the local men to the slaughterhouse. Industry is gone, mining was obsolete, natural gas resources are less and less valuable as we advance with renewables, etc.
If there is ever a compromise, as a Ukrainian president I'd choose Crimea before Donbas because Crimea is strategically important and protects 80% of the Ukrainian South from invasion.
In an ideal situation, Ukraine should still get it back, because it's Ukrainian territory. But in practical terms, Donbas 2013 was a totally different place to Donbas 2024.
And if those regions are given up today and peace is declared between Ukraine and Russia why would Russia not just apply the same strategy tomorrow to destabilise and then annex a big chunk of Georgia/Estonia/Moldova.
This is a common misconception. It's something that was discussed orally and taken out of its context and is being repeated today [1]. Besides the fact that NATO is a voluntary alliance and not an empire. At one point Russia was even considered for joining NATO.
The Budapest memorandum however was a written agreement, much more meaningful, though sadly not binding.
> USSR was also once told in ~1990 “no NATO expansion to your doorstep”.
No, they weren’t, as even Gorbachev admitted, and even if they had been given private assurance not memorialized in a treaty or even a formal executive agreement, there would be no reasonable expectation of a binding commitment that survived the administrations on each side then in power, much less an actual collapse of the Soviet Union.
It’s not like the Soviet Union didn’t understand the mechanics of how binding international commitments are formed.
