Ukraine know well enough that if Putin gets anything from this war, the next one is just a few years away. If they were to ever give him the slightest bit of territory they'd get peace for a couple of years only. Why do people like you not understand this?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why have a peace blueprint in the first place? By your description, Ukraine has no reason whatsoever to ask for peace. Why propose a peace blueprint?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What the hell is a "peace blueprint"? Your russian translator not working correctly?

The comment you replied to also answers your question. If that answer isn't satisfactory, please spell out why.

[+] ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But why? Why would Russia invade again in a few years? What's the logic behind that? Just "putler bad", "russia bad". Or is there any actual reasoning on why?

[–] AzPsycho@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did we forget Russia invaded and captured Crimea and then said they had no further desires to expand or wage more war against Ukraine? GTFO

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because they won territory. If you win territory in a dispute, it's much easier to sell the whole conflict as a win to your population. If you come home empty-handed, it's much more difficult.

Tell me: if the war concludes and Russia gets territory, why wouldn't they do it again? Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist. If Russia sees that their previous invasion netted them territory, how is that not a confirmation that they can win territory by invading other countries?

[–] ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist

Then... they failed? You're saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can't win hard enough to actually get what they want.

You're also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn't a reason for them to invade again. Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don't have any reason to invade again.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist

Then… they failed? You’re saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can’t win hard enough to actually get what they want.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If, for example, one reason for the initial attack was enlarging their area for more natural resources, why would they fail even if they win? It's incredibly naive to think their goal is something boolean, that you either achieve or don't. If your goal is to get more land, you can win once - and then invade again. How is this not obvious to you?

You’re also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn’t a reason for them to invade again.

Then why didn't Russia make this offer after a couple of days? Why is Russia not indicating that this is any kind of option? They are the aggressor, they have the power to stop this, especially if they say what they want.

Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don’t have any reason to invade again.

How in the world do you believe an invasion into a neighbouring country to reduce the likelihood of "shelling eastern regions"?