-
In fact he makes a point that total occupation of Ukraine would be the worst outcome. But I suppose that's where the argument over how best to prevent that starts.
I think that's a really important point. It's also where there is a divergence between the interests of Ukrainian people and western governments. Western governments would be quite happy for Russia to be stuck in an Afghanistan type occupation, where they can't get out without losing everything, so they have to stay at massive human and financial cost, until putin gets deposed or however else it ends. But that is not a good way for Ukrainian people to live for the next decade.
Good outcomes involve negotiation ASAP and Russia withdrawing straight away. I don't know that it matters anything like as much to the average person in Ukraine exactly what the terms of the peace are, as that it comes quickly.
A bad outcome could be Western governments giving Zelensky enough help to enable him to prolong the war indefinitely. In the short term it will make the Russians more violent and destructive (Chechnia). And it makes the hell of war last longer.
frank9755-
What worth would the negotiations have?
Isn’t this already a breach of the previous agreement? It doesn’t seem to me at least that the invasion has come from a breakdown of the relationship. -
Western governments would be quite happy for Russia to be stuck in an Afghanistan type occupation, where they can't get out without losing everything, so they have to stay at massive human and financial cost, until putin gets deposed or however else it ends.
Is there any evidence for this? The west has been extremely comfortable with Putin's Russia for the last couple of decades. Reliance on Russian energy in Europe, gobs of oligarch cash juicing local property markets, political parties etc. Do you really think western governments want the second largest nuclear power, led by a questionably adjusted autocrat bogged down in a bloody war on Europe's doorstep? I'd bet every one of them would take a quick Russian withdrawal to 2014 lines and a staged reversal of sanctions in a hot minute. Betting on regime change happening organically in Russia is a pretty out of the money option, especially without the sort of turbulence that would deleteriously affect western European interests in the short term.
-
Western governments would be quite happy for Russia to be stuck in an Afghanistan type occupation, where they can't get out without losing everything, so they have to stay at massive human and financial cost, until putin gets deposed or however else it ends.
Hmmmm. Not sure about this.
GoatandTricycle
Jung
Howard
Yeah it does seem like some people have interpreted any call for de-escalation to mean "Ukraine should stop resisting".
In Corbyn's piece there I didn't detect any desire for Ukraine to stand down. Instead the concern seems to be over direct action from NATO escalating the situation.
In fact he makes a point that total occupation of Ukraine would be the worst outcome. But I suppose that's where the argument over how best to prevent that starts.
(Eta that what I'm getting at is that it's hard to pick the nuance out of what's being said at the moment. I don't really have a position on whether NATO should be involved directly or not)