…
Forcing Ukraine to relinquish the Donbas would dismantle its defensive shield, which together with the army, broader society considers an internal security guarantee. Rather than de-escalate the conflict, it would provide Russia with fortified ground, logistics hubs and forward operating depth, enabling it to regroup and prepare further offensives from a dramatically stronger position. A Russia that gains territory through coercion will use any pause not to reconcile, but to rearm.
It also violates a core principle of international law: borders cannot be changed by force. If conquest succeeds in Ukraine, other revisionist powers will conclude that war pays. Framing the Donbas as a bargaining chip also ignores the lived experience of Russian occupation. It treats territory as a bargaining chip while ignoring the people who live there.
…
Millions of Ukrainians live under Russian occupation across parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Sumy and Dnipropetrovsk, along with the areas of the Donbas and Crimea. Their experience of Russian rule offers a clear indication of what further territorial concessions would entail.
Human rights organisations have documented widespread abuses in Ukraine’s temporarily occupied territories, including mass repression, forced deportations, filtration camps, torture, disappearances and the systematic eradication of Ukrainian language and culture. The Kremlin is implementing a comprehensive campaign to erase Ukrainian statehood and identity – an ethnic cleansing in plain sight.
Russia’s coercive ‘passportisation’ policies deny access to employment, mortgages, home ownership, school enrollment and healthcare – including to critical medicine and other basic services – to anyone not holding Russian papers. Residents are also forcibly conscripted into the occupying Russian military, which is a war crime.
Education systems now impose the Russian curriculum, while Ukrainian language instruction has been banned. Tens of thousands of children have been deported to Russia or subjected to so-called ‘re-education’ programmes, including via ‘summer’ or ‘holiday’ camps. Disinformation is widespread on Telegram and other social media communities, which have become powerful tools to foster loyalty to Russia.
…
Territorial concessions do not bring lasting peace. They create temporary, unstable ceasefire lines which Russia transforms into militarised enclaves to exploit in future escalation.
There is also a question of democratic legitimacy. Ukrainians have endured extraordinary hardship since the start of the war, yet public opinion repeatedly shows strong resistance to trading land for so-called peace. This reflects a widely shared understanding that surrendering territory under military pressure would reward aggression and leave Ukraine permanently vulnerable. Pressuring Ukraine to hand over land undermines its sovereignty and agency.
Wars do not end simply because one side seeks peace. They end when aggression fails. Peace without justice and security is an illusion. When Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2014 was rewarded with limited consequences – it returned stronger. Rewarding further territory would only embolden an even more dangerous aggressor.
…
The only reason this is even a topic of discussion is because the US President is a traitor / russian asset.
While true, the EU is more directly impacted and should have done so much more
Wars do not end simply because one side seeks peace. They end when aggression fails.
I would think a lot of wars were ended by economic exhaustion, the inability to continue despite aggression still working.
I am still thinking this is the most likely outcome in this war. One of the two sides simply collapses economically. Ukraine has the financial backing of the EU, so I guess it’s Russia who has the shorter fuse. Even Trump’s Hail Mary pass with Iran can’t prolong the economic story of Russia’s downfall forever.
I would think a lot of wars were ended by economic exhaustion, the inability to continue despite aggression still working.
I would argue that when someone has been aggressive to the point of exhaustion, where they’re unable to continue, that aggression has failed. I think that’s what’s meant by the quote too. Wars don’t end when one side seeks peace, they end when both sides either seek peace or when the aggressor is unable to continue (aggression has failed).
With the oil price rises and trumpy dumpy looking to relax sanctions… it ain’t looking good long term…
If Iran loses the war, due to either a massive US ground invasion(will turn out bad for the US, but whatever) or them losing control of the country, would add Irans massive oil supply to the global market and lower oil prices a lot. If there is peace in the region, oil prices would also fall. If prices continue to be high, then EV adoption will lower oil consumption. Also shale takes like 3-6months to start a new project. So prices will fall. With $100 WTI, the oil price is also lower then the peak in 2022.
Also Ukraine can hit Russian oil exports as well and has done so as well.
That solves the income portion of the equation, for sure. But the spending part is out of whack, too. The main thing Russia is still building is weapons, and normal economic activity has its life sucked out by military spending.
