>

No NATO nation is going to send jets without the full permissions of nato, because if russia retaliates, they cannot be sure they will be protected.  Joe Biden just said NO to F-16 jets a day ago, so that is off the table a year into this conflict.  What is the likelihood that changes?  Not good.
Most military analysts that think Ukraine can retake crimea do so with the theory that ukraine needs long range missile capabilities, but we are not providing those either for the same fears.
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. >

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. >

They've gauged the west's willingness to act and have now have experience in modern warfare. The only reason their initial push failed was because they were not prepared. If the Ukrainians allow them time to prepare with this gained knowledge, they will be a more formidable enemy in the future. Granted they want to wipe out Ukraine, and granted it's not about the Donbass, what makes you think they wouldn't try again? >

What makes you think Ukraine has the capacity to achieve total victory without long range missile capabilities?  These are the weapons experts have been saying ukraine needs, but we have refused to provide them over and over again.  Every war ends with the risk of war coming again at some point in the future. >


Every war ends with the risk of war coming again at some point in the future.

Precisely, which is why they can't allow the Russian to claim the Donbass, because it would immediately put them closer to the capital when the next war starts. >

And no military expert I am aware of thinks they can achieve total victory without ATACMS with long range capabilities, which we will never provide, because it risks nuclear escalation.  So the situation is just going to persist forever, and ukraine will never be made whole or rebuilt. >

The west did not start this war, Russia did. The West did not make the decision to defend Ukraine, Ukrainians did. Ukraine has asked for support, which has been provided. If Ukraine wanted to negotiate, they would have. However, what trust could they have in any deal negotiated with Russia? The price would be territory and client state status, which is little better than annexation. 
Ukraine, and Ukrainians, gets to make the decision whether it wants to negotiate. I would argue Russia should just stop invading. >

We most definitely started this war. Joe, Biden did in 2014. And the rest of our corrupt politicians, who put Zelenskyy and the current regime in power >

Few things 
The tanks are to few and to late you said 
What do you mean by this ? Will talks at the border not help keep Russia from advancing? 
200k Russian troops fresh to deploy 
And the other 600k they already sent out thatbwere actually trained and not drafted did all of what? 
Lastly 
Giving up their territories isn't a compromise lmfao that's called losing the war
You're either badly misinformed or a Russian shill >


What do you mean by this ? Will talks at the border not help keep Russia from advancing?

Tanks are a useful tool, but they have not done amazing in this conflict. Artillery and infantry AT weapons have featured heavily, along with drones. I'm sure Ukraine welcomes the tanks and they will be useful, but they probably will not greatly affect the balance of power. 
War appears to be evolving back towards the infantry squad and artillery as the dominant force. This fight has probably as much of the DNA of WW1 in it as of WW2 or later. >

Well if you follow the conflict, you remember that the whole summer was a stalemate. Then suddenly Ukraine liberated Kharkiv oblast and then Kherson. Now Ukraine is on the defensive, and Russians gained (1 city?). This situation is also going to change. 
Regarding the number of tanks, I am not an expert. However, the number of himars that were sent was also small. Yet, it made all the difference.
Lastly, in my private opinion, you cannot get Putin a win. This will only lead to another conflict. >

Yeah, only because of the short range missiles we provided, but that isn't going to be sufficient to make further gains.  If Russia starts to make more material gains then hard choices may have to be made to save what can be saved of ukraine. >

That’s why tanks were provided and there are talks about planes as well. >

Biden just said a flat no to F-16s, it is never going to happen. >

He also said last March that if we gave Ukraine tanks it would be WWIII. Last week he announced we were giving tanks. I don't give his denials much credence at this point. 
(btw, I agree broadly with your view in the OP) >

Wars ebb and flow in intensity, and they can often last for years or even decades.
I am concerned that the war will end with a stalemate, the Ukrainians are too, but when they decide to call it they will. If one is gambling I’d say the peace that ends this war will likely include territory transfers to Russia, but that is far from certain.
I see you’ve cited 100+ tanks the Ukrainians are getting, but the number I’ve seen is 300+. These tanks are very high quality and will smash the Russian tanks. My biggest fear with tanks is that there isn’t actually enough infantry to cover them, which could leave them vulnerable to rpg attacks, but I’m not sure what kind of manpower numbers the Ukrainians can muster so I could be mistaken. It could also be the case that drone intelligence somewhat lessens the need for infantry cover, I won’t pretend to be an expert.
With that said, tanks are expensive to operate and require some kind of manpower cover to accompany them, and I’m not sure the Ukrainians could effectively incorporate a thousand or more tanks into their force. Either way, the goal is to break the Russian occupation in the east, and they have a lot more strength to pursue that aim today than yesterday. 
So with that said, here is my summary of why I would disagree with phrasing it as “baiting,” even while fully understanding and hoping you feel validated in your fear that this war could end in a stalemate.
1) Baiting implies the Western Allie’s of Ukraine want the war to drag out. I find this unlikely, as military support is a political risk, and an economic sacrifice. Furthermore, the wests military preparedness is waning by reducing stores of weapons and restocking will take an additional toll on western economies, potentially contributing to inflation over the next 1-3 years if the war continues.
2) The Ukrainians are being provided tools to win. They have proven they can put the intelligence and weapons to use to savage the Russian back ranks and devastate their logistics. In so doing they may not need an overwhelming advantage in manpower and material to make Russian positions in the East, and perhaps even in Crimea untenable for sustained Russian occupation. 
3) Russian occupation means poverty, kidnapping, rape, torture, and death for many of the Ukrainians. Even if the odds are long the Ukrainians will want to keep fighting to try to liberate their citizens suffering Russian occupation. Additionally, eastern Ukraine is important to their economy contributing agriculture, steel, shipping, salt, defense and many other key industries. Russia is unlikely to rebuild many of these, as they will be considered unstable borderlands, so the people there will suffer, potentially for several generations or more.
4) If Russia wins they will learn they can use their nuclear might to bully their way into victory. If they lose, nuclear powers will think twice about waging lunatic wars like this, knowing that nuclear might isn’t enough to win wars of territorial expansion. 
5) Fears of escalation are still very real, and supplying Kyiv with jets and long range missiles could holocaust several billion people. Though I agree that early fears of Russian nuclear attacks were overblown, I wouldn’t fault or dismiss anybody’s fear in this regard - human civilization is at stake. >


That means we are fucking ukraine 

It fundamentally does not. 
We do not owe Ukraine anything. We have no mutual defense pacts or the like. We have already given them a great deal, and no deception was involved. They were very happy to receive arms and funds from us. 
Yes, we did not give them everything they would ideally like. So what? That is how war works. You fight with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. 
We have helped Ukraine, not harmed them. Yes, we have done so largely because of the belief that it would be to our benefit, but they surely benefited. 
We do not owe them missiles, especially of the sort seen as a provocation to nuclear war. >

Ukraine is in an unfortunate position to say the least. They did not choose this war, it chose them. They are lucky the west is supplying them with logistics, intel, coms, and so many other types of support such as sanctions, or there would be no Ukraine now, even with Russias issues.
No one thought this war would go this poorly for the Russians. Conversely that means the Ukraine is kicking ass, and no one thought they would last 4 days.
Furthermore they are doing it with old equipment and captured Russian equipment.
The west has a strong interest in making sure Ukraine does not fall. In the beginning, assistance was slow to come because the belief was it was too late to assist Ukraine win a 3 day war.
Ukraine will go down in history for choking out that belief in the first round, and Russia will go down in history as the largest paper tiger ever assembled.
Now, more than 100 modern tanks are on the way. Some nations wont send jets but modern jets are next. These are game changers. A small number of old mobile rocket launchers changed the war drastically, imagine what modern tanks and jets will do.
The number of reasons the west has to make sure Ukraine wins this war is sufficient to be certain they will make it happen, given Russias poor performance. Everyone forgets a couple of years ago Russia was considered almost on par with the US Military. They have proven that completely false, but that is why aid was slow to come. The belief was it wouldn't get there in time.
Has there been foot dragging? Maybe some, however I would consider that may be due to restraint when dealing with a nation that can end the human race with a command from one odd and immature man.