>

That's precisely what they tried to do at the start of this conflict.  The stated objective was bullshit, they wanted a total decapitation of the ukrainian government and a deletion of ukrainian identity as a people.  They won't get that in a negotiated settlement.
Therefore, Ukraine must begin the process of negotiation, which will include giving up the occupied territories.

This... isn't a negotiation or a compromise. This is a capitulation. Ukraine gains absolutely nothing, and in exchange gets a """peace treaty""" that's less than worthless. >

Semantics, Russia controls the territory they control, and Ukraine lacks the resources to recapture it, period.  I don't like it anymore than you probably do, but it is what it is, and we have to face the facts.  Ukraine is gaining something though, an end to this conflict and the survival of the Ukrainian Government and way of life (for what remains of their people).  They also might get back the people that were abducted and forced into Russia.  Ukraine could also arrange for China and a series of Governments to guarantee the integrity of the new border with Russia. >


Ukraine is gaining something though, an end to this conflict

Except they don't, literally nothing stops Russia from trying this again.

Ukraine might also arrange for China and a series of Governments to guarantee the integrity of the new border with Russia.

And why would Russia agree to that? >


And why would Russia agree to that?

Because Russia made a mistake starting this war, and if they can grasp something and call it a win and go home and lick their wounds, that is a good move for them too. >

Until they try again. >

Once the war is over we can provide Ukraine with many of the weapons we are afraid of providing for fear of nuclear escalation, but as long as fighting continues, we will never give them long range missiles or fighter jets ukraine needs to maintain their sovereignty in the long run. >

We really can't. Vast majority of Ukrainians are against territorial losses.
Their flat requirement so far has been all the land that they "annexed" which is about 15% of Ukraine.
Russian requirements for a peace treaty are-
- 15% of Ukraine
- Promising to never join NATO
- De-Nazification (it's quite obvious what this means, it means getting rid of Zelensky and instilling a pro-Russian president)
- De-Militarization 
Just to clarify. The requirement for promising to not invade again are that Ukraine give up land, promising to not join NATO, keeping a pro-Russian president, and getting rid of its military.
Getting rid of the military non-withstanding, any changes to these conditions are essentially a pretext for Russia to invade again, this time with a vaguely more concrete casus belli.
Russia has so far refused to budge on any of these. >

That's why we have elected representatives, so they can sometimes make decisions that the people disapprove of, and yet such people are entrusted with the sole authority.
Russia will not get all of their demands met in any treaty, that is for sure.  But Ukraine is unwilling to consider any territorial losses (they already lost them btw), so negotiated peace is impossible based on that one position alone.  Russia would likely budge on many points, including European Union membership if they were offered a way out of this war that doesn't include total defeat. >

In every communication so far that I've seen, the western countries want Ukraine to give up on some of their points, but it was Ukraine itself that refused.
Russia has explicitly stated that Ukraine joining the EU or NATO would be an existential crisis for them. This is why the war essentially started to begin with. Ukraine's previous pro-russian president was ousted by popular uprising. Now there is a staunchly pro-EU president who has popular support.
Ukraine would not be ok with Yanukovych being put back into power given his unpopularity and known corrupt policies. Russia would likely refuse any deal that doesn't see Yanukovych (or any pro-Russian leader) to be put into power. >

I have never seen that Ukraine joining the EU is absolutely a red line, NATO of course.  Russia thought this war would be easy, but it certainly is not.  Russia wants to find a peaceful settlement which allows them to keep the territory they have captured, but Ukraine cannot let them snatch victory like that at the negotiating table. >

Ukraine is an independent nation. If they said tomorrow that they wanted to give up part their territory to end the war their western allies would not stop them from doing so. They're being baited into nothing but supported in defending themselves against an unreasonable and unprovoked invasion as long as they have a desire to do so. >

I'm aware of this, which is why I'm saying Ukraine is getting baited by the drip of Western supplies, that do just enough to keep the Russians at bay and give some hope, but not enough to materially change the reality on the battlefield in Ukraine's favor so they can recapture Crimea and other territory.  You can't escape the fact Western supplies of weapons are simply insufficient to achieve total victory. >

Still their call. To bait somebody or something is to lure them into a situation they wouldn't voluntarily choose by trickery or taking advantage of a lack of ability or understanding. 
Ukraine knows, to the extent it's possible to know these things in a war, what resources are becoming available to them and what resources Russia is pitting against them. The nations providing aid are doing nothing wrong. >

Yes it is their call, which is why I'm saying as a friend of Ukraine, their people are getting baited into a forever conflict that will not end for like 10+ years or even a generation.  Ukraine is operating on emotion and hope, and that ultimately will be insufficient for total victory.  The nations providing aid are just prolonging the suffering by not giving them the weapons they need. >


Ukraine is operating on emotion and hope

You realise you're talking as if Ukraine were a child? They have an army, strategy, tactics, and independent thought. >

No, plenty of adults operate on emotion and hope too, basic human psychology.  They have all those things, and all those things at least appear insufficient to achieve total victory in any sort of reasonable timeframe. >

Why should I not just make the inverse comment, and have it make just as much (or little) sense? 
"CMV Russia is getting baited into a stalemate situation with horrific consequences and therefore must negotiate a peace treaty with Ukraine. 
Just to be clear, I think Russia can and should win this war decisively, but they can't win. The tanks they are producing are too few and too late to do any good when Russia had the momentum in this war. Furthermore, they are running out of range missiles they need to push the Ukrainians back. They have adapted to the our missile attacks an are repairing any damage in 24 hours. Now Ukraine is preparing a new offensive with western military hardware in the next 30-60 days, and at best we're looking at a long term stalemate situation. The human cost of this war is just going to keep escalating.
To be clear, Russia had good intentions against the west, but the the sanctions and and military aid is too strong for them to do the right thing needed to achieve victory in a reasonable timeframe. Whether they fully realize it or not, they're preparing to do more harm than good in the long run. Therefore, Russia must begin the process of negotiation, which will include giving up the occupied territories. Unfortunately, I fear some policymakers are only focused on continuing to punish and drain Ukraine and the west of resources instead of worrying about the broader scope of this war continuing too long.
Without you saying what you are basing all of this on and how it is different from Russia there is no sense in debating it.
All of these calls for peace always mysteriously results in Russia getting exactly what they want. It is almost uncanny. If you want peace then the fastest way is to get Russia out of Ukraine. Then there will be no more war. >

Ukraine doesn't occupy parts of Russia, so your reversal is pretty pointless and nonsensical. >

What is pointless and nonsensical is trying to frame a scenario on nothing but hunches and emotions in order to paint a picture of Ukraine having to submit to Russian insanity.
If you are distraught by the horrors of the war blame Russia. If you want a quick end for the war then call for Russia to leave Ukraine today. If you are afraid of the fate of the Ukrainian people then trust their will, which is fighting Russian agression. >

It's not hunches and emotions, many military experts agree ukraine needs more weapons, and they're not getting them.  This means we are sabotaging ukraine in the long run. >

Then show us these experts. Because none of those I read about gives Ukraine worse odds the longer the conflict goes on. 
On one hand you have Russia who are facing massive sanctions, freezing of assets and refusal to buy their resources from their main trade partners and the biggest players on the global market. 
On the other hand you have Ukraine where the same people are giving billions in aid, in financial packages and military hardware + training of troops.
And you think that in the long run the latter will come out on top? Why? What are you basing that on? It makes no sense. 
Russia basically has the same GDP as Spain. Saying that they can do this forever is laughable. >

General Ben Hodges says they need long range missiles to win this fight, but we are not giving them the missiles.  He is a real expert on such matters. >


and, properly supported, can—seize Crimea, argues Ben Hodges

Where does it say 140 tanks is proper support?  Ben Hodges has been saying for 6+ months that Ukraine needs LONG RANGE missiles to retake Crimea, but we are NOT providing such weapons, and we will not because we fear it will escalate the conflict.  So by General Hodges' own admission we are not giving them the 'proper support' they need. >

I read the whole article, nowhere does it say Ukraine can achieve total victory without ATACMS, period.  I've been listening to him consistently for 6 months, and I agree with his proposals, but our leaders do not agree with his proposals!

If the West moves quickly

We are not moving at all, not last year, and not this year.  This year the ploy is 140 fucking tanks.  That is not sufficient.  No credible military thought leader is suggesting total victory can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe without the ATACMS, period.
I do not agree with Hodges when he says no negotiation, because his proposals are too controversial to get through NATO leadership.  The HIMARS missiles ukraine has are not considered long range, they aren't capable of hitting crimea for example from where ukraine currently holds territory. >

If Ukraine wanted to completely avoid 'the human cost of the war', all they needed to do was surrender the instant Russia declared. The fact they are still fighting indicates they want to keep fighting. >

That isn't the issue.  Ukraine successfully defended when they had the advantage of being entrenched in a position, now Russia is successfully defending their entrenched positions where they have some advantage.  Ukraine lacks the capacity to project enough force to change that situation.  I see no evidence total victory is possible with the slow drip of western weapons that are inferior in capabilities. >

Shouldn't you be advocating for the west to bring in more, stronger weapons instead of just telling Ukraine to surrender? >

That is precisely what is being implied in my post, but we will not give them F-16s, long range missiles, and other advanced equipment they need, because we fear Putin's nuclear threats too much to do so. >

Feels real weird that you didn't just make this CMV about giving Ukraine more equipment, then. >

I think there's probably already a fuck ton of people who have done that.  It wouldn't be very controversial either to suggest they need more weapons, it's pretty fucking obvious to the simplest of minds they need much more, but we refuse to give it to them. >

Are those "200,000 fresh troops" soldiers who joined voluntarily or are these largely made up of conscripts? >

I think conscripts were used to buy time and keep the pressure up this winter while they trained and equipped the higher quality conscripts. 
Many of those in the hordes at Bakhmut are prisoners. It’s cruel, but Russia probably views their high casualty rates as a win, win. 
I am of the mind that one should always plan for the worst case scenario. I would expect that the Russian invasion that comes in the next month or two will be higher quality. Will they still have major issues? Yes lol this is Russian military they will suck. Will they employ the same cannon fodder tactics we are hearing so much about at Bakhmut? I’d be surprised. >

That's true, Russians don't care about human life like we do.  For us the losses they are taking are incomprehensible and intolerable, but for them it's an acceptable loss. >


Therefore, Ukraine must begin the process of negotiation, which will include giving up the occupied territories. 

The word you are looking for is surrender.
If Ukraine surrenders, it justifies this tactic. In 2033, or 2043, Russia will be back to take another bite. Ukrainians know this. Russia has to lose, and they have to know that they have lost in order for there to be anything approaching an actual peace process. >

Surrender would be Zelensky in jail, Kiev under Russian occupation, and the end of their society, completely. >

That was never the stated objective. They want the Donbass.