cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/49348810
...
Forcing Ukraine to relinquish the Donbas would dismantle its defensive shield, which together with the army, broader society considers an internal security guarantee. Rather than de-escalate the conflict, it would provide Russia with fortified ground, logistics hubs and forward operating depth, enabling it to regroup and prepare further offensives from a dramatically stronger position. A Russia that gains territory through coercion will use any pause not to reconcile, but to rearm.
It also violates a core principle of international law: borders cannot be changed by force. If conquest succeeds in Ukraine, other revisionist powers will conclude that war pays. Framing the Donbas as a bargaining chip also ignores the lived experience of Russian occupation. It treats territory as a bargaining chip while ignoring the people who live there.
...
Millions of Ukrainians live under Russian occupation across parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Sumy and Dnipropetrovsk, along with the areas of the Donbas and Crimea. Their experience of Russian rule offers a clear indication of what further territorial concessions would entail.
Human rights organisations have documented widespread abuses in Ukraine’s temporarily occupied territories, including mass repression, forced deportations, filtration camps, torture, disappearances and the systematic eradication of Ukrainian language and culture. The Kremlin is implementing a comprehensive campaign to erase Ukrainian statehood and identity – an ethnic cleansing in plain sight.
Russia’s coercive ‘passportisation’ policies deny access to employment, mortgages, home ownership, school enrollment and healthcare – including to critical medicine and other basic services – to anyone not holding Russian papers. Residents are also forcibly conscripted into the occupying Russian military, which is a war crime.
Education systems now impose the Russian curriculum, while Ukrainian language instruction has been banned. Tens of thousands of children have been deported to Russia or subjected to so-called ‘re-education’ programmes, including via ‘summer’ or ‘holiday’ camps. Disinformation is widespread on Telegram and other social media communities, which have become powerful tools to foster loyalty to Russia.
...
Territorial concessions do not bring lasting peace. They create temporary, unstable ceasefire lines which Russia transforms into militarised enclaves to exploit in future escalation.
There is also a question of democratic legitimacy. Ukrainians have endured extraordinary hardship since the start of the war, yet public opinion repeatedly shows strong resistance to trading land for so-called peace. This reflects a widely shared understanding that surrendering territory under military pressure would reward aggression and leave Ukraine permanently vulnerable. Pressuring Ukraine to hand over land undermines its sovereignty and agency.
Wars do not end simply because one side seeks peace. They end when aggression fails. Peace without justice and security is an illusion. When Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2014 was rewarded with limited consequences – it returned stronger. Rewarding further territory would only embolden an even more dangerous aggressor.
...
Yes exactly. Russian soldiers are forced as well, never said anything else.
If the fucking west was really interested in Ukraine winning we would have given them the weapons they needed early on. But we didn't want them to win, we want them to keep Russia busy.
There are literally no gains for either side in the last two years. Do you suppose this war should go on until either side has it all?
Your outrage about where my account was made is pretentious and silly tbh.
The west should've, but they didn't. I never said the west did everything right while helping Ukraine, but you were suggesting that they should let Russia keep the territories that they stole, which is basically giving Putin what he wants.
Remind me what happens the last time they conceded their territory to Putin? It definitely didn't prevent them from invading again.
Ukraine is not conquering Russian lands, so there is no "has it all" for them. It's a fight to not let Putin steal their land. The fact that you're equating the two sides really shows your lack of neutrality in this matter. Where you made your account is simply more proof of it.
Okay so you say the EU should keep the war running as long as possible. If it makes me a monster to not see any sense in it so be it.
Nah, I don't agree with prolonging the war, but I vehemently disagree with forcing the war to end by capitulating to Putin.
We've seen what happens when you do and the answer was not long term peace. Doing that again is as stupid as the US starting another war in the middle east.
As long as Ukraine is still fighting, the EU should keep letting them fight. Stopping Putin's ambitions short is beneficial for them as well as Ukraine.
Beneficial how? They are indebting themselves one loan at a time, having to give off bonus like mineral access on top of it from time to time. What is the end goal? Zelensky probably would say to get back all conquered land. And while that is understandable, how do we suppose to make Russia agree? They can and will keep on going much longer.
Like don't get me wrong. I get why a peace without land back seems moot to many people but the alternative is war without land back.
And capitulation would entail agreeing to any demands made. That is what happens when there is no fight left on either side. When do you suppose that happens? Especially considering the war in Iran, which seems pretty beneficial to Russia if you ask me.
In what way would the Iran war benefit Russia outside of increasing the profit margin of their oil exports? Iran is now using up their supply of Shahed drones in the war, which means they would be less likely to have enough to sell to Russia. It just sounds like another blow to their ability to continue waging war against Ukraine.
On the other hand, can Russia keep this up longer than Ukraine is willing to fight? Given that one side is protecting their own sovereignty while the other is doing it for the imperialistic ambitions of the few at the top, I'd say they can't unless the EU or the US forces an end to the war. Even if you prove that they can, you still need to weigh this over the fact that giving Putin the land will only embolden him to continue his invasion after he rebuilds his army.
Less arms sales to Ukraine and higher profit for Russia's main source of income makes it look like a win over less shahed drones but I might be wrong.
I don't see how and why Putin would give back Donbass and Crimea and I don't see Ukraine taking it back. Russia simply has the material basis for waging war far longer. Ukraine is already bled dry, financially and personally.
If Ukraine is not ready to defend itself any longer it also is pretty late fore a ceasefire deal don't you think?
Well, less Shahed drones also means Russia has to rely more on expensive ballistic missiles for the foreseeable future. Whether the balance tilts to Ukraine's favour or Russia would require more in-depth research than I can perform.
You'll have to provide some sources when saying Ukraine is already bled dry. That's not something I can accept at face value.
I doubt Ukraine is looking for a simple ceasefire. And me saying until Ukraine is unwilling to fight does not mean until they are unable to defend themselves any longer.
Obviously, there are competent people in the Ukrainian military that can determine when continuing the fight is more disadvantageous for the long term. That point has not been reached yet.