Security was already guarantee. The idiots screwed it up thinking Uncle Sam and EU is there to protect them with NATO membership.
Long story short, some idiots in Ukraine FAFO'ed
In regards to Trump's recent I want your rare earth and natural resources deal.
Let's put it this way, the Democrats wanted it too. But unlike Trump who is straight up, the weasels from the left are just doing the same thing with Extra Step.
They were just too greedy, they wanted Ukraine's resources plus showing Russia who has the bigger dxxk and wanted to demolish Russia once and for all.
Why? Because as pathetic as Russia's " conventional forces " may be... they still possess 4k Plus Nukes. Uncle Sam led by Neo Cons are the only ones that want WMD's that no one have so as to have a stick they can threaten " adversaries" in order to make them kneel.
I guess they realized that it is Heaven's will not allow you to subjugate and dominate the entire world.
Too greedy....
Security guarantie hasn't been there since Minsk II. Due to the collective west not honoring any security contract, Russia will push for a regime change prior to the westernization of Ukraine. They'll also decouple Ukraine from the EU.
Thinking Russia is going to standby is rather naive. The only language authoritarian states understand is power. Europe needs to reintroduce compulsory military service and arm itself to the teeth.
The most practical guarantee of security for western ukraine is for russia to have no reason to want to annex it. Once they've carved out the sweetbreads and left behind a welfare state, they don't need the rest.
The thing about "having western troops on the ground" is that its functionally identical to being a NATO member. If US/EU troops are (openly flagged) in Ukraine, then any continued war necessarily involves attacking US/EU troops which even if it doesn't invoke article V is still a direct conflict between nuclear powers. Its the same exchange. If the situation in Ukraine devolves, say a Nazi-led government takes over and seeks continued hostilities with Russia and resumes shelling Belgorod, how does that play out? Russia cannot let it go unanswered. Russia can't hit back without hitting US troops. The US cannot remain without being a direct party to a conflict. The US/EU troops could simply withdraw, sheepishly, looking like they are abandoning Ukraine and defeating the whole purpose of supposed peacekeepers.
Arming Ukraine to be a heavily weaponized state is even more moronic and less acceptable for Russia. Now instead of having US/EU forces trying to keep the borders stable and avoid conflict, you have a heavily militarized build-up on Russia's border posing a direct threat to them, with either an unstable regime or overt nazi radicals at the helm. FA pushes this like its a credible alternative. How many western weapons can be foisted on UA soldiers when they're all already dead, anyway? What, are we going to give them a nuclear deterrent, as if we don't all know how that ends.
Here's how you get peace in Ukraine: You sue for peace with Russia. You work out borders, you accept concessions, you put an end to the war. Russia will want Ukraine to be a non-threat to them, either demilitarized or not used as a NATO proxy or have NATO troops and weapons flooded into it anymore. Russia is willing to make a deal on those terms because its what they wanted. Its unpalatable for the west because it means we admit we lost a war, but guess what, we lost a war. Will that peace last forever? Who knows. Will any threat of Russian aggression in the future be ended? Nope. You don't get the guarantees a victor would demand when you lose the war. You ask the other side to agree to a peace, not force them to your terms.
Summed up nicely, troops on the ground = delayed war.
This post was edited by babun1024 on Feb 24 2025 06:09am