That might be the thing they're wrong about. NATO doesn't allow new members to join who have active territorial disputes. That might be waivable in some fashion but a Ceasefire alone would almost certainly leave Russia in control Crimea.
What they're not wrong about is that while the US is pulling back in its fiscal commitment to Ukraine to boost its commitments to Israel and Taiwan; Europe is all talk about picking up the slack. Ukraine could find itself in a position where she runs out of shells and has to sue for peace at any price.
1.) Russia is not conceding any territory they currently control. And Crimea is about as much in play as St. Petersburg.
2.) Russia will not accept Ukraine being allowed into any military alliance with NATO, and will not accept them being a member.
Russia does not need to budge an inch on those two points because they are winning and outside of NATO getting involved and starting WW3, Russia will only be making gains, not losses.
Edit: want to add a comment about this comment
Europe is all talk about picking up the slack
This might be true in the very near term. The problem is the Euro population seems to be increasingly fed up with it all and I don’t see that trend reversing. If Le Pen wins the presidency in France on a campaign of ending support for Ukraine; and if AfD picks up a ton of seats on a similar platform; and various parties in smaller countries do likewise… how long do you think that support will last?
There's nothing I disagree with in your comment but I would be cautious on placing bets on the actions of fascists like Le Pen and AfD.
I think history shows that fascists are ideological windvanes and the absolute worst type of opportunists, so I'd keep an open mind about the potential for them back flipping on election platforms and policy because if an opportunity presents itself then they're likely to grasp it with both hands, even if it means contradicting themselves and breaking promises.
There's every chance that your assessment is correct but fascists can be surprisingly unpredictable, especially in their nascent form like we're seeing in Europe today.
Fuck I hope that we aren't going to see this play out either way though. I'd much prefer to live in a world where this discussion remains squarely in the realms of speculation.
fuck why do I keep forgetting that? They pretty much already function as one. I swear some NATO countries had existing disputes at time of joining. Turkey and Syria had cooled over Hatay at the time though so I guess that shouldn't count. Still Federal Germany was contesting Poland through half the cold war
....yeah I know. Federal Germany is the west one, Democratic is east. Federal Republic of Germany annexed the DDR, hence why the name remains the same. Also what are you saying? the FRG was contesting territory of Poland's for quite a while, also when NATO started there was no East Germany. Hell there was no Soviet Bloc. The FRD/G forms May 23rd 1949, the DDR forms October 7th 1949 in response. NATO forms April 4th 1949. So both the FRG and NATO predate the DDR, the DDR only existed in response. Importantly so did the Warsaw Pact, only forming in May 1955 in response to FRG joining NATO which had been a line in the sand as the Soviets had been pushing for a unified neutral Germany since day one.
Even when they formed the DDR the intent was unification and neutrality, but the west refused any terms that didn't allow a remilitarized Germany IN NATO.
These things did not just spring up fully formed and diametrically opposed like a western textbook will tell you.
Ukraine could find itself in a position where she runs out of shells and has to sue for peace at any price.
I don't see this playing out as anything less than catastrophic for the internal politics of the Ukraine.
I've mentioned this in another recent comment so excuse me if I'm sounding a bit one-note here but as I see it there are two broad camps in domestic Ukrainian politics which are relevant here (ignoring the Donbas and Crimea for simplicity's sake) - the average Ukrainian who isn't fully ideologically committed to a total Ukrainian victory, this is the type of person prone to war weariness and just wanting their sons to come home alive/wanting stability to be restored etc., and you have the hardliners who are fully ideologically committed to a total Ukrainian victory and nothing less will suffice, this is the type you see in the Azov Battalion and C14 and Right Sector etc. which also happened to be very well equipped, trained, and battle-hardened as well as commanding a disproportionately large influence over Ukrainian politics.
The average citizen would probably be somewhat disappointed in an outcome where there are territorial concessions made but that would be mixed with relief and a welcoming of stability being restored in the country.
Meanwhile the hardliners are basically positioned to stage a coup and everything points in the direction of them staging a coup or starting a civil war in the western parts of the Ukraine should the government agree to territorial concessions (and possibly even just brokering a ceasefire or a peace accord.) I don't see them fighting and dying on the frontlines like this for years just to have the government say "Okay, we're calling it off and we basically lost. Time to pack it in and go home with your tail between your legs, guys!" and for them to be totally cool with that arrangement. I think that most of them would see the government as traitorous if this were to happen.
The shells may run out but the bullets sure won't.
I'm going to defer on the internal politics. But a strong political faction committed to continuing the war could absolutely delay a ceasefire in an "out of supplies" situation.
Are they not wrong about the door being open for NATO membership?
That might be the thing they're wrong about. NATO doesn't allow new members to join who have active territorial disputes. That might be waivable in some fashion but a Ceasefire alone would almost certainly leave Russia in control Crimea.
What they're not wrong about is that while the US is pulling back in its fiscal commitment to Ukraine to boost its commitments to Israel and Taiwan; Europe is all talk about picking up the slack. Ukraine could find itself in a position where she runs out of shells and has to sue for peace at any price.
1.) Russia is not conceding any territory they currently control. And Crimea is about as much in play as St. Petersburg.
2.) Russia will not accept Ukraine being allowed into any military alliance with NATO, and will not accept them being a member.
Russia does not need to budge an inch on those two points because they are winning and outside of NATO getting involved and starting WW3, Russia will only be making gains, not losses.
Edit: want to add a comment about this comment
This might be true in the very near term. The problem is the Euro population seems to be increasingly fed up with it all and I don’t see that trend reversing. If Le Pen wins the presidency in France on a campaign of ending support for Ukraine; and if AfD picks up a ton of seats on a similar platform; and various parties in smaller countries do likewise… how long do you think that support will last?
Feels like everything could start world war 3 right now.
There's nothing I disagree with in your comment but I would be cautious on placing bets on the actions of fascists like Le Pen and AfD.
I think history shows that fascists are ideological windvanes and the absolute worst type of opportunists, so I'd keep an open mind about the potential for them back flipping on election platforms and policy because if an opportunity presents itself then they're likely to grasp it with both hands, even if it means contradicting themselves and breaking promises.
There's every chance that your assessment is correct but fascists can be surprisingly unpredictable, especially in their nascent form like we're seeing in Europe today.
Fuck I hope that we aren't going to see this play out either way though. I'd much prefer to live in a world where this discussion remains squarely in the realms of speculation.
Russia wasn't going to accept Finland and Sweeden's entries either. Russia doesn't get a choice in the matter.
Didn't Georgia join while having disputes over two different regions? Abkhaz and Ossetian
Georgia isn't in NATO, they're a close partner
fuck why do I keep forgetting that? They pretty much already function as one. I swear some NATO countries had existing disputes at time of joining. Turkey and Syria had cooled over Hatay at the time though so I guess that shouldn't count. Still Federal Germany was contesting Poland through half the cold war
When NATO started West Germany was the member and East Germany was part of the Soviet block.
....yeah I know. Federal Germany is the west one, Democratic is east. Federal Republic of Germany annexed the DDR, hence why the name remains the same. Also what are you saying? the FRG was contesting territory of Poland's for quite a while, also when NATO started there was no East Germany. Hell there was no Soviet Bloc. The FRD/G forms May 23rd 1949, the DDR forms October 7th 1949 in response. NATO forms April 4th 1949. So both the FRG and NATO predate the DDR, the DDR only existed in response. Importantly so did the Warsaw Pact, only forming in May 1955 in response to FRG joining NATO which had been a line in the sand as the Soviets had been pushing for a unified neutral Germany since day one.
Even when they formed the DDR the intent was unification and neutrality, but the west refused any terms that didn't allow a remilitarized Germany IN NATO.
These things did not just spring up fully formed and diametrically opposed like a western textbook will tell you.
I don't see this playing out as anything less than catastrophic for the internal politics of the Ukraine.
I've mentioned this in another recent comment so excuse me if I'm sounding a bit one-note here but as I see it there are two broad camps in domestic Ukrainian politics which are relevant here (ignoring the Donbas and Crimea for simplicity's sake) - the average Ukrainian who isn't fully ideologically committed to a total Ukrainian victory, this is the type of person prone to war weariness and just wanting their sons to come home alive/wanting stability to be restored etc., and you have the hardliners who are fully ideologically committed to a total Ukrainian victory and nothing less will suffice, this is the type you see in the Azov Battalion and C14 and Right Sector etc. which also happened to be very well equipped, trained, and battle-hardened as well as commanding a disproportionately large influence over Ukrainian politics.
The average citizen would probably be somewhat disappointed in an outcome where there are territorial concessions made but that would be mixed with relief and a welcoming of stability being restored in the country.
Meanwhile the hardliners are basically positioned to stage a coup and everything points in the direction of them staging a coup or starting a civil war in the western parts of the Ukraine should the government agree to territorial concessions (and possibly even just brokering a ceasefire or a peace accord.) I don't see them fighting and dying on the frontlines like this for years just to have the government say "Okay, we're calling it off and we basically lost. Time to pack it in and go home with your tail between your legs, guys!" and for them to be totally cool with that arrangement. I think that most of them would see the government as traitorous if this were to happen.
The shells may run out but the bullets sure won't.
I'm going to defer on the internal politics. But a strong political faction committed to continuing the war could absolutely delay a ceasefire in an "out of supplies" situation.