What end to the Ukranian war would be acceptable to you?

[quesaisje]

This is Ukraine's decision to make, not ours.

The ideal end would involve a negotiated peace along something close to Ukraine's pre-war boundaries, substantial reparations to Ukraine, and personal consequences for Vladimir Putin. The likelihood of any of this happening is slim to none.

Besides which, the underlying problems in Russia run deeper than Putin's whims. There is no plausible future in which we don't have to deal with those problems in some form, especially while the adversarial relationship with China persists and US allies in Europe remain so vulnerable and unprepared.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Not really sure why so many people seem to be treating this as a moral question. In an ideal world, yes, Russia would be totally defeated. That seems extraordinarily unlikely right now, as many Ukrainian commanders semi-openly have stated. Even with massively increased Western aid, the demographics of the situation combined with the technological factors at play make it almost inconceivable that Ukraine retakes all its lost territories.

Accordingly, I instead would encourage thinking in terms of priorities rather than ideals. Here are the things I think most important for Ukraine

1. Diplomatic freedom. If Ukraine is a member of NATO and the EU, it will be safe, prosperous, and democratic a generation from now. That matters far more than any territorial losses, or any lack of financial compensation or punitive measures against Russian leadership.

2. Territory. Again, same thing. Territory matters for defensive depth and for the freedom of the Ukrainians living in whatever oblasts might be lost.

Everything else is secondary. It does not matter that much whether Ukraine gets even a single penny in compensation, or whether some Russian flunky is handed over as punishment for Bucha. Both of those things would be good if obtainable at no cost, but they would not ensure Ukraine's long term security (just as Germany demanding reparations from France in 1871, or the reverse in 1919, did not). Territory and NATO/EU membership can do that.

[Florida Man for Crime]

What ending do you want to see in the war, ideally?

Return to the pre-war borders that existed before the start of the war in 2014 when Russian troops began the war by invading Crimea. If Ukraine wants to settle for something a bit short of that, that would be OK too, but it should be up to Ukraine, and --- crucially --- it should not be that they are effectively forced to settle for less than that because we are giving them inadequate support to enable them to achieve that.

I think it is important to clarify specifically that Crimea is Ukrainian territory, because the moment that Putin fake-"annexed" Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk, he placed those on an equal legal footing to Crimea, which had previously been "annexed." And since there is no possible legitimacy to the Russian claim to (especially Kherson and Zaporizhzhia above all, but also Luhansk and Donetsk), there can now also be no possible legitimacy to the Russian claim to Crimea. So the moment Putin made that ludicrous move, he shredded any possible claim to Crimea that I might previously have been willing to consider.

I should also note (not because it is likely, but just for completeness) that I would not want to see Ukraine gaining any Russian territory such as Belgorod or Stavropol Oblasts, and that hypothetically if Ukraine tried to cross into Russian territory we should first warn them not to, and ultimately, if necessary, even directly use NATO military force against them to defend Russian territory (so that Russia would not need to use nukes to defend the Russian state).

But, what ending would you accept?

I am going to answer this in a different way than you intend, but in a way which does actually follow directly from the wording of the question. You are basically intending to ask, "how much are you willing to appease Putin and let him keep?"

Instead of saying "how much appeasement would I tolerate," I will instead say what cost would I be willing to accept in order not to appease and to achieve the desired goal. We should not be feckless appeasing toads.

What I would be willing to accept in order to achieve that is several European and/or American cities and several equally sized Russian cities destroyed in a limited tit for tat nuclear exchange, with millions of dead civilians on both sides.

Obviously I don't want that to happen, and I don't expect that it will happen, but if push comes to shove, it is something that we could have to accept and which we should be willing to accept.

I do not think that Putin actually really does want to escalate to nukes, and in addition, even if he did want to, he knows that he would lose support from China and India in particular if he did so, and they would turn decidedly against him. The Russian economy is dependent on trade with China and India as a lifeline to the outside world, and he knows that would be gone.

But if Putin did escalate to limited use of nuclear weapons, it would be absolutely vital that we show absolutely unbending resolve not to give an inch to nuclear blackmail. Any use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine should result in the immediate direct entry of NATO into the war. In that case, at first, NATO should confine its efforts to Ukrainian territory and should only use conventional weapons unless Putin first uses nuclear weapons against NATO. And any use of nuclear weapons by Putin against either NATO troops (including NATO troops in Ukraine) or NATO territory should result in an equivalent tit for tat nuclear response against Russia, combined with unambiguously clear public and private messaging that will under no circumstances allow Russia to gain anything whatsoever by using nuclear weapons and intense pressure from China and India (as well as literally the entire rest of the world) at Russia demanding that they cease use of nuclear weapons (in which case we will do likewise).

If this occurred, though the loss of life would be tragic, it would at least set a clear positive precedent for the future, clearly indicating to future dictators that they have nothing to gain by escalating to nuclear weapons, or by waging wars of imperial aggression in the first place. So I expect it would e.g. deter Xi Jinping from trying to invade Taiwan and starting another (very dangerous) war, but at least as importantly, it would hopefully help prevent future wars starting 50, 100, 200, or 1000 years from now. Which is the real reason why we should be willing to pay the price of setting that precedent, if we have to. Even though setting that precedent could cost millions of lives in the short term, it could save many more lives in the long term.

I would not be "willing to accept" a full nuclear exchange, but at the end of the day, that's not something we can control. We should not start a full nuclear exchange, but if Vladimir Putin decided to press the button, that's that, and there's not really anything we can do about it. Although I do expect that if he did try to do so, the other Russians in the chain of command would not really want to go along with that decision, because even if Putin is suicidal, they probably are not for the most part. So there would be a high likelihood that Putin might end up couped or simply have that order disregarded if he gave it, which hopefully would be the case. But even right now, theoretically, Russia could initiate a full scale nuclear exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ultimately, if they decide to be suicidal, they are suicidal, and as a result they will die (along with us). At the end of the day we just have to rely on the likelihood that they are not suicidal, and so we should not be deterred from doing the right thing by the fact that they have nukes. MAD prevails. So we should not concern ourselves with that.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't think Ukraine should give up anything other than Crimea.

The taking of Crimea was certainly 100% unacceptable, but realistically I don't see how Ukraine can get it back without prolonging a war that has gone on much too long

[Libertas Vel Mors]

What ending do you want to see in the war, ideally?

/snip

This is deranged. Putin presides over a weak country with a declining native population. Losing several European (let alone American) major cities with millions of people dead to avoid "appeasing him" would be a far greater cost than the gain, particularly from a national perspective.

[Florida Man for Crime]

This is deranged. Putin presides over a weak country with a declining native population. Losing several European (let alone American) major cities with millions of people dead to avoid "appeasing him" would be a far greater cost than the gain, particularly from a national perspective.

In the immediate term you are correct, we could save lives by appeasing.

In the longer term though, you are totally mistaken, because rather than ensuring that others will not do the same thing in the future, we would ensure that others will do the same thing in the future.

For a start, Xi Jinping could just say "USA, don't help Taiwan, let me have it, or else I will nuke Los Angeles."

This sort of extortion by any dictator who has nukes would then either continue indefinitely over the next hundreds of years, or else eventually we would have to stand up to it, which would precipitate a nuclear exchange then rather than over Ukraine.

It would also mean that all dictators would want to get nukes so that they could extort, and that every other country would also want to get nukes because that is the only possible way they can hope to stand up to extortion.

If we appease in Ukraine, we will have shown that Ukraine made a horrible mistake by giving up their nukes and signing the Budapest Memorandum, and other countries will be sure not to repeat Ukraine's mistake.

Nothing good can ever come from giving in to nuclear blackmail.

[Florida Man for Crime]

This is deranged.

One thing that I will add, though, is that you sort of ARE correct about this.

It is MAD. It MADness. So yes, in that sense, it is indeed totally deranged.

[Beet]

Ideally, we would return to where things were in 2013, including a Ukrainian Crimea.

Practically, I would accept an armistice at the current front lines. As far as deterrence, I think it has already been established. Even if Russia were to gain territory from 2022, I am quite sure Putin regrets his 2022 invasion, and, if he knew then what he knows now, he would not have done it, nor tried to do it again for the rest of his term in office. I think he was expecting an easy cake walk due to getting bad intelligence, hence "Special Military Operation" instead of a war. I also think he would be willing to negotiate a cease fire agreement today, including dropping many demands that Russia currently claims to have.

The real failure of deterrence was in 2014, and it's bizarre that this is not talked about more. It was 2014 that convinced Putin that 2022 would be a cake walk and that he should do 2022. If an armstice was reached tomorrow, Ukraine would eventually join the EU and NATO, and Russia would not be able to prevent Western troops from establishing defensive bases in Ukraine, which would effectively guarantee it from future attack. And of course, the slaughter would end. I think that would be a better outcome than an endless stalemate where Ukraine slowly bleeds itself out. All the latter accomplishes, is a genocide of Ukraine by other means. The only winners in that case would he defense contractors and the most ghoulish of the natsec elite. In any case, I think Ukraine should make the offer, and if Russia refuses it only makes them look bad.

[President Johnson]

It's up to Ukraine to decide this on their own. Obviously I would prefer Ukraine retaking all of its territory back to 2013 borders. Russia has no business occupy a single inch of Ukrainian land.

[Upper Canada Tory]

At the very minimum, Ukraine has to get back the entirety of its occupied territory minus Crimea (I'm theoretically ok with a negotiated settlement where Crimea goes to Russia and Ukraine gets reparations and NATO membership in return).

Ideally, however, I would want everything including Crimea, but that could be complicated because of the political demography of the peninsula.

[7,052,770]

Ideally full restoration of Ukraine's borders and Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, but if Ukraine wants to agree to less than that to end the war, we can go with what they want. Ultimately, we should back them with whatever they decide.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Putin dead, Russia in tatters, Ukraine gaining border provinces in Russia and joining NATO, Russia's economy devastated by punitive reparations, independence movements all across central Asia.

[HillGoose]

MOSCOW-BEIJING-TEHRAN AXIS OF EVIL COLLAPSES
VLAD PUTIN TRIED FOR CRIMES AT THE HAGUE

[Jeffster]

This is sort of a two part question:

What ending do you want to see in the war, ideally?

But, what ending would you accept?

Personally I hold to the unrealistic idealistic dream of Ukraine and Russia coexisting peacefully as they did until this war, but that's the ending I want - it's not the ending that is realistic.

The ending I'd accept would be Russia moves out of Ukraine, and gives back the Donbass region to Ukraine. In return, all sanctions against Russia are dropped, and Russia would be allowed to return to the international table on Putin's abdication. We will waiver any reparations for the war on the condition that Putin (and the current government) abdicates, is barred from holding any future state office, and that Putin and senior officials are allowed to be brought to the Hague for trial. A special election will be held in Russia that will be observed by UN and independent watchdogs. Ukraine is allowed to have nuclear weapons for future defense as a deterrent, and a permanent garrison of US troops exists near the Ukraine-Russian border for further deterrence.

We fund a Marshall Plan-like aid package that helps not only with the rebuilding of Ukraine, but also invests in a "DePutinization" of Russia and invests in Russia such that they can be slowly moved toward a future democracy.

This is so childish, how would you force any of this without occupation of Russia by foreign troops?

[GMantis]

Putin dead, Russia in tatters, Ukraine gaining border provinces in Russia and joining NATO, Russia's economy devastated by punitive reparations, independence movements all across central Asia.

Leaving aside the absurd idea of Ukraine being able to gain any Russian territory or the immense hypocrisy of doing so, what would be the point exactly? None of them have any significant Ukrainian population or the least desire to join Ukraine.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Putin dead, Russia in tatters, Ukraine gaining border provinces in Russia and joining NATO, Russia's economy devastated by punitive reparations, independence movements all across central Asia.

Leaving aside the absurd idea of Ukraine being able to gain any Russian territory or the immense hypocrisy of doing so, what would be the point exactly? None of them have any significant Ukrainian population or the least desire to join Ukraine.

It's a sarcastic post.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Putin is willing to drop his demand that Ukraine demilitarizes, a deal can be reached but until then no deal can be .

[Flyersfan232]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

this plus eu membership for ukraine

[Del Tachi]

Do the "Ukraine must be part of NATO" people not realize that is the only reason Putin needs to invade?     lol

Bush nor Obama should have treated NATO expansion into Eastern Europe as the doctrinaire imperative they did.  If the point of the NATO alliance is to make the U.S. and our allies safer, then dangling eventual membership for Ukraine has had the opposite effect.

[HisGrace]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[HisGrace]

Do the "Ukraine must be part of NATO" people not realize that is the only reason Putin needs to invade?     lol

Bush nor Obama should have treated NATO expansion into Eastern Europe as the doctrinaire imperative they did.  If the point of the NATO alliance is to make the U.S. and our allies safer, then dangling eventual membership for Ukraine has had the opposite effect.

Russia's invasion has been a complete strategic failure in this way. NATO's been expanding ever since they invaded which is precisely what the war was intended to stop, Finland and Sweden already joined and Bosnia and Georgia probably will too, and others are probably coming. He's scared everyone into NATO's arms instead of the other way around.

The idea of Ukraine joining NATO is to enforce whatever the new borders will be and deter a further attack. Ceding territory to Russia and lifting sanctions so the state media can spin it as a victory for the brainwashed public there while Ukraine joins NATO and the EU to ensure its independence has always been the best case scenario here.

[Obama24]

This is deranged. Putin presides over a weak country with a declining native population. Losing several European (let alone American) major cities with millions of people dead to avoid "appeasing him" would be a far greater cost than the gain, particularly from a national perspective.

If we appease in Ukraine, we will have shown that Ukraine made a horrible mistake by giving up their nukes and signing the Budapest Memorandum, and other countries will be sure not to repeat Ukraine's mistake.

If we let Vietnam fall to the Communists, we will have shown the Communists we are weak and the rest of Asia will fall.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Crimea+Donetsk+Luhansk going to Russia and Ukraine joining NATO (or some other defensive agreement that has teeth to ensure this doesn't happen again) is the absolute floor. Ideally of course, Russia leaving entirely and Ukraine joining NATO, but that seems unlikely.

One of the few serious posts here and about what I would say.

Good lord Putin got under you guys's skin with the election interference stuff which is about the only reason I can think of why you're being so intense about this. You wuss out in Afghanistan, want Israel to roll over and just let Hamas take over their country, but then you don't want Ukraine to give up one foot of land even if it means WWII casualties. Some of you are even talking about regime change in Russia which presumably means starting WWIII and invading and hoping it goes better than all the other times in history that's been tried.

As I've said before if this is what it looks like when you're on someone's side in a war than you clearly weren't on the US's side against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre Now kindly go shove it

[Pres Mike]

As things stand, the best realistic option is for Russia to withdraw to Feb 22 2022 borders. UN peacekeepers on the border

[SnowLabrador]

Russia cannot have a square inch more territory than they started the war with. Considering that they're likely committing genocide against ethnic Ukrainians in the occupied territories, letting Russia have any territory that isn't rightfully theirs is wrong. Additionally, if they gain even an acre of territory permanently, this means that wars of conquest pay off, and they are likely to try again in a few years and/or China to invade Taiwan.

That being said, I agree that this sadly isn't realistic at this point.