Here's the kicker: Assuming Russia is willing to negotiate a deal, would it honor that deal? It did, after all, guarantee security in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons, and it broke that commitment.
Ukraine has very good reason to believe that Russia would only use a deal to stop the war as an opportunity to build its strength for another invasion, later. There's strong evidence that it's not the capture of separatist territories that is Putin's goal, but the denial of Ukrainian as a distinct cultural identity, and to prevent it from aligning culturally with the West (even leaving aside the issue of NATO).
If you think the enemy won't honor a deal, and won't stop its aggression long-term—and Ukranian leadership has said that that's exactly what they believe loudly and often—what's the incentive to negotiate for a ceasefire?
On your first point: Russia's argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn't expand NATO east of Germany... The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine's application to join the EU... So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.
Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO... it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive... if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement... This isn't based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war... In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can't be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.
I’ve been following the history of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and NATO’s involvement for decades, so I hear what you’re saying. I just think it’s irrelevant to the prospect of peace talks now. Ukraine now has a people and government who do not want to be part Russia. Whatever good reasons Putin feels he had to launch a pre-emptive invasion are irrelevant. Dubya thought he had a good reason to attack Iraq. I called that, and him, evil. I’m applying the same standards to Putin: The other side’s bad behavior does not excuse his response.
Ukraine is now facing invasion by an enemy that’s made it clear by its actions and rhetoric that the goal is cultural extinction of Ukraine, that’s proved itself faithless in past agreements (whatever its internal reasoning), and that shows no sign of willingness to negotiate. They have the support of the West now; who knows about the future? What is their incentive to sue for peace?
(Withdrawing Western support from Ukraine now to force them to the negotiating table has a high likelihood of resulting in a genocide, given the evidence. The thing that might bring Putin to the negotiation table for actual peace at this point is threats backed more directly by Europe and NATO, and that seems like bad news.)
That is your prerogative to doubt, but as for my understanding, not only has Putin himself said explicitly that there is no Ukrainian identity, but that motive best explains Russian military actions. Other possible motives, e.g. countering NATO or protecting civilians in separatist regions, don’t hold up under critical analysis. (Assuming that Putin is a rational actor.)
The Soviets weren't removed from Afghanistan any more than we were -- they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I'm sure that type of blowback won't come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It's not the same scenario.
Even your best case scenario is "fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops," which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won't, because the smaller country that can't just sit back behind extensive defenses isn't going to win a bloody stalemate.
Russia has won, though. They have taken the separatist parts of Ukraine and cannot be removed. So the choices are:
Here's the kicker: Assuming Russia is willing to negotiate a deal, would it honor that deal? It did, after all, guarantee security in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons, and it broke that commitment.
Ukraine has very good reason to believe that Russia would only use a deal to stop the war as an opportunity to build its strength for another invasion, later. There's strong evidence that it's not the capture of separatist territories that is Putin's goal, but the denial of Ukrainian as a distinct cultural identity, and to prevent it from aligning culturally with the West (even leaving aside the issue of NATO).
If you think the enemy won't honor a deal, and won't stop its aggression long-term—and Ukranian leadership has said that that's exactly what they believe loudly and often—what's the incentive to negotiate for a ceasefire?
On your first point: Russia's argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn't expand NATO east of Germany... The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine's application to join the EU... So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.
Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO... it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive... if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement... This isn't based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war... In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can't be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.
I’ve been following the history of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and NATO’s involvement for decades, so I hear what you’re saying. I just think it’s irrelevant to the prospect of peace talks now. Ukraine now has a people and government who do not want to be part Russia. Whatever good reasons Putin feels he had to launch a pre-emptive invasion are irrelevant. Dubya thought he had a good reason to attack Iraq. I called that, and him, evil. I’m applying the same standards to Putin: The other side’s bad behavior does not excuse his response.
Ukraine is now facing invasion by an enemy that’s made it clear by its actions and rhetoric that the goal is cultural extinction of Ukraine, that’s proved itself faithless in past agreements (whatever its internal reasoning), and that shows no sign of willingness to negotiate. They have the support of the West now; who knows about the future? What is their incentive to sue for peace?
(Withdrawing Western support from Ukraine now to force them to the negotiating table has a high likelihood of resulting in a genocide, given the evidence. The thing that might bring Putin to the negotiation table for actual peace at this point is threats backed more directly by Europe and NATO, and that seems like bad news.)
That is your prerogative to doubt, but as for my understanding, not only has Putin himself said explicitly that there is no Ukrainian identity, but that motive best explains Russian military actions. Other possible motives, e.g. countering NATO or protecting civilians in separatist regions, don’t hold up under critical analysis. (Assuming that Putin is a rational actor.)
If you want an explanation for Russia's military actions that makes sense, read the article from the Marine Corps Gazette in this comment. Unfortunately I can't find a PDF link.
They could not be removed from Afganistan either. Until they were.
Ukraine can grind up Russian conscripts and free their country inch by inch if they have to.
Meanwhile the rest of the world can help continuing to destroy the Russian economy as best as we can
The Soviets weren't removed from Afghanistan any more than we were -- they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I'm sure that type of blowback won't come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It's not the same scenario.
Even your best case scenario is "fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops," which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won't, because the smaller country that can't just sit back behind extensive defenses isn't going to win a bloody stalemate.
The soviets lost the popular support they had in parts of Afghanistan after 10 years of war. They never 'ran out of troops'.
The US never 'ran of troops' in Vietnam.