tend to agree with this. also, against my better judgement i will respond to Fender:



There is no fairness. Also a peace negotiator has no power at this time noting the west does not want peace at this time. In my own country those that ask for peace between ukraine and russia are told to shut up, no compromise, we must defend ukraine, be united, dont let russia win. with that position as a backdrop, throughout western countries, no peace deal can materialize. At this point I would say that there is no realistic chance of a lasting peace for decades. The US does not want peace, Ukraine is happy with this position, the West will remain onside therefore the most plausible outcome is Nuclear. The 2 sides as i said, are poles apart. The US would have to abandon Ukraine for peace to proceed, and thats not going to happen, regardless of who is president. Even if there was a peace treaty it would be broken within a short span of years. No lasting peace for decades is my view.

Perhaps on Putin's death things will change but I expect another (possibly worse) hardliner after him.

Peace could only be achieved if :

1. US stopped sending billions in aid to Ukraine and changed the narrative somehow (this is contrary to their long term interests ergo complete fantasy land)
1. Ukraine government morale broke. (1 will not occur ergo 2 will not occur)
2. Ukraine government accepted that they would have to lose land. (may occur at some point in the future)
3. Ukraine government accepted they will not get reparations. (may occur at some point in the future)

there is no fairness in the world ok.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 22 2022 09:08am

i don't understand this line of thinking. Why would the death of putin lead to russia suddenly abandoning its interests + allow Russians in Donetsk to be eradicated?

Putin really isn't that big of a deal, politics/russian interest/russian state/russian culture/russian society does not exist or is directed by the whims of 1

This post was edited by ownyaah on Sep 22 2022 09:08am

my question was what HE considers a fair peace deal, not what russian propaganda is trying to sell as a "compromise", which is exactly what you're describing:

1&3 just makes those regions de facto russian controlled puppets, just waiting for a full integration at some later point in history
2 simply means that ukraine writes into its own constitution that it's no longer a sovereign nation, lol

see my edit, above.

TLDR: there is no such thing as a fair peace deal in the current situation.



one man can change the world if he puts his mind to it, or can have a lasting imprint on the world. its generally accepted that the prophet mohammad was the most influential person in history. Stepping aside from that fact the leader of a superpower, russia, china, america, does have a profound lasting impacting on society. ergo, the next leader of russia will have the power to choose how to proceed re: ukraine.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 22 2022 09:13am

"russia propaganda"

Ok mr. Basically what your saying is the russians should ignore all their political and security interests and let NATO build 500 bases with nuclear weapons 5km from Belgorod. Sounds legit as fuck.

While we are at it, we talking about constitutions and sovereignty how about i ask you a little question? Why doesn't russia give nuclear weapons to cuba again? Cuba would love to have some, they are sovereign right. This is the problem when arguing politics with literal maniacs, there is no level-headed discussion possible.

---

Here is the peace deal you think is resonable. Russia pulls out of all of ukraine, donetsk turns into a bloodbath of ukranians raping and pilaging them. And at the same time moscow becomes the 51th state of the US.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Sep 22 2022 09:14am

let's just ignore baseless speculations about what "the west" / the US want. let's abandon the lazy bothsidesisms for just a while. i'm curious to know what YOU, FERDIA think would be a FAIR solution.

if you got to decide, knowing both parties would be totally ok with it afterwards - WHO would get the regions in question? what about crimea? who would pay for rebuilding the war torn areas?

Won't the next leader just do whats in russian security interests either way? And ukraine isn't an issue that can just be ignored.

The only way that doesn't happen is if the next leader is eu-centric and allows russia to be divided into 50 sub-countries which is what the US/EU is hoping for, but possibility of that happening is <0.1%

Crimea belongs to ukraine, the 65% ethnic russians and 12% tartars need to be killed and eradicated.

really fender, you are a subhuman at best

This post was edited by ownyaah on Sep 22 2022 09:16am

your proposition is flawed on the basis both parties would not be totally ok with it afterwards. Also, you constantly use the expression bothsidesisms when in fact it is logical to view a position from all its sides. the term bothsidesisms does not belong in this thread or the PARD subforums. it is a crutch used to ignore real failings in people's arguments/positions and tries to simplify complex scenario's to which there is no simple solution.

However, unlike most people here I have no issue stating my view and accepting the stares.

A peace treaty (notice i did not use the word "fair") would be similar to what ownyaah had stated above. if it helps i will say it again:

1. Donetsk/luhansk become autonomous
2. Ukraine writes neutrality into its constitution

/edit, seeing the above

3. crimea remains as-is.
4. no reparations.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 22 2022 09:23am

I don't think Russia will forgo the land bridge to Crimea at this point in time. Ukraine will not accept any loss of territory. It's obvious that no compromise can be had unless the conditions change.