General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Ukraine people are sick of the war and want it to stop.
They want the killing to stop.
President Zelinsky has said he wants the war to be over by the end of this year. A brother of a famous mayor, a former heavyweight boxing champion of the world, has stated that they need to have a ceasefire and to begin talks for peace.
But, is Europe and America ready for their war to end? Are they ready to stop fighting the Russians? That is not the primary concern of many Ukrainians at this time. It is they that are dying.
Perhaps the only good side benefit of the war up to this time is that Putin has probably not interfered in any other country's elections?
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)kentuck
(111,104 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)It reminds me of the episode called, "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,133 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)There is no side benefit to this war. Ukraine is devastated. Millions of refugees from the east who can never go home.
The global famine it will cause has barely begun.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)Ukraine is dying in this war.
They wish to be part of NATO and they want more help from the "allies".
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)when they are weary and ready to negotiate:
If Ukraine were to concede the conquered territory to Russia, they would not have any unresolved conflicts, and would be eligible for NATO membership.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)At this time, they can only give them the arms to defend themselves. Naturally, the Ukrainian people would feel that they have proven themselves worthy of more assistance from NATO.
I suppose they could cede that land that Russia now controls and the conflict could be resolved? And they could then join NATO?
It's a tough nut to crack.
Triloon
(506 posts)Keep faith with any agreements made with Ukraine. Ukrainians know this better than anyone. They won't cede anything to Russia, despite what the brother of the mayor of Kiev may say.
Even now they are moving to retake the city of Kherson, which controls all the fresh water to reach Crimea. Crimea has not been ceded and neither will the Donbass region. How can I assert this? Because Russia will always return to try and gobble up more. Again, no one knows this better than the Ukrainian people.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)More suffering.
Than what?
Triloon
(506 posts)Of subjugation to a hostile dictatorship.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Remember, what's best for Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin is best for the Empir ... Um, uh, America!
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Just like Finland.
TheRealNorth
(9,481 posts)I think he still wants more land. Unless they want to surrender it.
Beachnutt
(7,324 posts)destroying russian infrastructure in russia and making the russian people feel the war as well, not killing innocent people but take out bridges and roads and such.
It's a one sided war as Ukraine is taking all the pain.
Am I wrong ?
kentuck
(111,104 posts)At the very least, let them join the Organization.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)They are in less of a condition to do so now.
It sounds cold and heartless, but NATO is a strategic defense alliance between nations that can provide defensive assistance to each other in the case of aggression from nations outside the alliance. There are certain conditions that need to be met regarding democratic institutions, anti-corruption, military capacity, etc... before nations are allowed to join.
Ukraine had applied for membership some time ago and had "partnership" status, but the Obama Administration (Remember vice President Biden was over there) was working with them on anti-corruption policies before the idiot Trump took over and basically started to try to shake them down.
Also, on its face, the NATO charter explicitly prohibits countries from joining who are actively in conflict.
They likely do need more help from NATO and we should give it to them, but not in the form of allowing a membership against the very nature of the charter and no formal boots on the ground.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)It's one of the reasons Russia sent their unmarked troops into the Donetsk Region in the wake of the 2014 Revolution.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)They did not want to allow Ukraine to join and let them slip out of their sphere of influence like they lost Latvia and Estonia.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)In 2008 they advanced an "action plan" that would bring them closer to compliance with key conditions but in 2010
President Yanukovych scrapped the plan and advanced "non alignment". Of course that was before he fled the country.
As you point out Ukraine was not a realistic candidate to meet NATO requirements before the war and cannot join while they are in the middle of a conflict.
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)One interesting source played and translated an intercepted conversation between a pro-Russian separatist and his gf. The conversation suggested morale amongst the separatists fight for Russia is tanking
Lovie777
(12,281 posts)That's their goal and that is what they are fighting for. Ukraine requires weaponry from many countries to achieve this, and honestly I believe they can.
And hell yes Ukrainians are tired of a madman killing and destroying their beloved country.
Also guess who was in Ukraine meeting with President Zelenskyy, none other than L Graham along with Blumenthal, where they discussed continued support and weaponry.
oioioi
(1,127 posts)vimeo.com/36346145
kentuck
(111,104 posts)over and over.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)3 months Ukraine have been repeatedly saying that they need to contain Russia until August before the weaponry from the West reaches a critical mass, so hold that thought and let's see where they are by the time September rolls around.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Such an assertion is not only factually wrong but also is completely out of touch with Ukrainian existential realities
There are two key historical events that compel Ukrainians to fight and not agree to any compromise with the Russians in ceding Ukrainian territory to Russians under any circumstances.
1) The Ukrainian famine of 1932
As the Bolsheviks instituted national collectivization of farm lands the peasants in Ukraine resisted, and for good reason, they were the bread basked of the new Soviet Union. The Russian controlled Soviet instituted a completely artificial famine in Ukraine resulting in the death of millions. The loss of life of Ukrainians was at a higher rate than that of Jews in the Holocaust.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-famine-of-1932-33-Holodomor
The result of Stalins policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 193233a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated five million people who died in the Soviet Union, almost four million were Ukrainians. The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture. Its deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine. The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population. Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level. Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated. At the same time, a law was passed in August 1932 making the theft of socialist property a capital crime, leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses. The rural population was left with insufficient food to feed itself. The ensuing starvation grew to a massive scale by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief. In fact, the Soviet Union exported more than a million tons of grain to the West during this period.
2) Ukrainian De Nuclarization - the Budapest Memorandum of 1993
When Ukraine left the Soviet Union they retained a sizable stock of nuclear weapons. They agreed to give up their nuclear stock on the condition that the West would come to the aid of Ukraine if attacked by Russia. Anticipating that Russia would in the future invade Ukraine they wanted assurances that the West would stand with her. The Budapest Memorandum had security assurances from all of the major powers, including Russia, that provided for support of Ukraine to maintain its existing borders. Obviously Russia never intended to support the agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#:~:text=Later%20in%201993%2C%20the%20Ukrainian,for%20its%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.
Scholars assumed at the time that Ukraine's decision to sign the Budapest Memorandum was proof of Ukraine's development as a democracy and its desire to step away from the post-Soviet world and make first steps toward a European future. For 20 years, until the 2014 Russian military occupation of regions of Ukraine,[32] the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was an exemplary case of nuclear non-proliferation.
For Ukrainians this struggle is a basic existential one. Will Ukraine be free to be independent and able to advance its integration with a democratic Europe with shared values or will it return to status of a vassal state under Moscow control which in the past has used mass murder to subjugate Ukrainian independence.
Ukraine could have easily prevented a Russian invasion had they kept their nuclear weapons and pointed them at Moscow. They agreed to give up these weapons with Western assurances of assistance. It isn't the West that is the driving force in resisting Russian aggression, it is Ukraine, and for good reason.
Ukrainians don't really have a choice either sacrifice now or face subjugation by a Russian despot that has no compulsion about mass murdering millions of Ukrainians.
A similar existential choice faces the West. Are we willing to stand by Ukrainians after having promised that we would when they agreed to non-proliferation. If we do not stand with Ukraine now then we should expect that all efforts to persuade nuclear states to give up their nuclear weapons in the future will be futile as no one will believe our promises.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)Very informative.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Ukraine wasn't an ideal democracy but they got rid of their nukes
The US isn't an ideal democracy but we put a narcissistic man child in control of nuclear launch codes.
PSPS
(13,603 posts)Everyone wants the war to stop ... except Putin. You're crazy if you think we're "forcing" Ukraine to fight the war. They are, essentially, the west's proxy here and everyone knows it. If they surrender, which is what you seem to be implying that they do, that will be a green light for putin to keep going and invade more countries. Again, everyone knows that's the case. It has happened before, you know.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)I think it is safe to say we have an interest and an incentive. That does not mean we are "forcing" them to do it.