DustyBin
Established Member
Russia was already rewarded 8 years ago when they took it and we did nothing - that’s a sunk cost.
The caveat is that they currently have an unstable region on their hands, and we/Ukraine would be giving them a stable one. But I think improving stability is good for the world (specifically its citizens).
I do see your point of view though — I too am uneasy with “borders can shift by force” as those days should absolutely be behind us; however a settlement with Russia is not necessarily a good option but merely the least-bad option compared to continued death, destruction and risk.
I agree. We also need to consider what constitutes a "reward" in this context. If Ukraine were to concede Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, what has Putin actually gained by launching a full-blown invasion? It's been a disaster for Russia economically, militarily, and geopolitically; I don't think we can overestimate how damaging it's been. Even if Russia's annexation of Crimea were to be effectively legitimised, I find it very difficult to believe Putin will sit back and think it was all worthwhile.
And while it might *feel* like pre-WW2 in terms of appeasement, I reiterate - nuclear weapons change everything.
If we allow the threat of nuclear weapons to be used as leverage, a precedent would be set that actually increases the chances of nuclear war in future. Any negotiations will be around Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine so nuclear weapons don't come into it; nobody wants to invade Russia itself.
Last edited: