Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Hill: The case for supporting Ukraine is both moral and geostrategic
The Hill - The case for supporting Ukraine is both moral and geostrategic
by Alexander J. Motyl, opinion contributor
12/05/24 10:00 AM ET
As the second Trump presidency approaches, calls for immediate negotiations to end the Russo-Ukrainian War are getting louder. That fact alone is of little importance — after all, even Putin says he wants to negotiate. What is important, and frequently ignored, are the assumptions on which calls for negotiation are based.
Putin assumes that Ukraine is part of Russia. Invading Ukraine not only makes sense for him; it’s a moral imperative/ Anything short of Russia’s destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty is unacceptable to him.
Putin also assumes, wrongly, that Russia is winning. Given these assumptions, he can accept nothing short of Ukraine’s capitulation. Compromise with him is impossible as long as he he remains in power and believes he’s winning.
Ukraine assumes it has the right to exist as an independent state. The size and content of that state — though not its survival — are negotiable in principle. Compromise is, as President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent remarks about Ukraine’s willingness to accept territorial losses in exchange for NATO membership, therefore possible.
Until the war began on Feb. 24, 2022, most Western leaders assumed Ukraine did not matter to their own nations’ stability, security and survival. For most of them, that assumption has changed. Survival is non-negotiable, but stability and security are open to a variety of definitions. Compromise is possible.
It follows that, while Ukraine and the West are willing to make concessions in order to reach a compromise with Russia, Putin is not. He will accept a compromise only if he is forced to accept one.
/snip
by Alexander J. Motyl, opinion contributor
12/05/24 10:00 AM ET
As the second Trump presidency approaches, calls for immediate negotiations to end the Russo-Ukrainian War are getting louder. That fact alone is of little importance — after all, even Putin says he wants to negotiate. What is important, and frequently ignored, are the assumptions on which calls for negotiation are based.
Putin assumes that Ukraine is part of Russia. Invading Ukraine not only makes sense for him; it’s a moral imperative/ Anything short of Russia’s destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty is unacceptable to him.
Putin also assumes, wrongly, that Russia is winning. Given these assumptions, he can accept nothing short of Ukraine’s capitulation. Compromise with him is impossible as long as he he remains in power and believes he’s winning.
Ukraine assumes it has the right to exist as an independent state. The size and content of that state — though not its survival — are negotiable in principle. Compromise is, as President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent remarks about Ukraine’s willingness to accept territorial losses in exchange for NATO membership, therefore possible.
Until the war began on Feb. 24, 2022, most Western leaders assumed Ukraine did not matter to their own nations’ stability, security and survival. For most of them, that assumption has changed. Survival is non-negotiable, but stability and security are open to a variety of definitions. Compromise is possible.
It follows that, while Ukraine and the West are willing to make concessions in order to reach a compromise with Russia, Putin is not. He will accept a compromise only if he is forced to accept one.
/snip
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
