JD Vance's version of a Ukraine / Russia Peace Deal: Surrender Ukrainian Territory

[wing2000]

JD Vance recently opined on what a Ukraine-Russia peace deal may entail:

1) Russia would retain all Ukrainian territory to date -- what he calls a "line of demarcation"
2) A fortified DMZ would be stablished
3) Ukraine would promise never to join NATO nor any other type of agreement - guarantee of neutrality

 

[FireDragon76]

God willing, the American people will reject this kind of quisling attitude.

It's not in America's strategic long-term interests to allow the Russians to annex Ukrainian territory. Russia has no natural right to any of Ukraine's territory.

 

[loveofourlord]

God willing, the American people will reject this kind of quisling attitude.

It's not in America's strategic long-term interests to allow the Russians to annex Ukrainian territory. Russia has no natural right to any of Ukraine's territory.

yeah, I suspect such a deal will end up being made, but it will be when Urkaine is ready not when other countries decide they are ready, if they do it will be as it already is, after it's made it hard for putin to go further by showing the damage will be done if he tries.

 

[eleos1954]

Ukraine was attacking Ukrainian/russian citizens in regions within Ukraine before this outright proxy war with Ukraine started. Started with Crimea and the people of Crimea voted to become under Russia rule because of these attacks by Ukraine so Putin took over Crimea ... the same thing happened with the Donbas region.

After/during that there was a peace deal made between Ukraine and Russia ... but the US stuck their big fat nose into the peace deal and then NATO got involved. The involvement of NATO escalated this into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ukraine was attacking Ukrainian/russian citizens in regions within Ukraine before this outright proxy war with Ukraine started. Started with Crimea and the people of Crimea voted to become under Russia rule because of these attacks by Ukraine so Putin took over Crimea ... the same thing happened with the Donbas region.

After/during that there was a peace deal made between Ukraine and Russia ... but the US stuck their big fat nose into the peace deal and then NATO got involved. The involvement of NATO escalated this into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

ahhh good job spreading russian propaganda.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ukraine was attacking Ukrainian/russian citizens in regions within Ukraine before this outright proxy war with Ukraine started. Started with Crimea and the people of Crimea voted to become under Russia rule because of these attacks by Ukraine so Putin took over Crimea ... the same thing happened with the Donbas region.

That vote in Crimea was run by a "break-awy" government that had already been captured by Russian troops pretending to be "spontaneously emergent" from the local population. The were actually Russian VDV (elite airborne troop) operating without insignia on their uniforms.

After/during that there was a peace deal made between Ukraine and Russia ... but the US stuck their big fat nose into the peace deal and then NATO got involved. The involvement of NATO escalated this into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

There were ceasefire agreements (Minsk agreements) between Ukraine and Russia after about a year of warfare. Russia invaded in full about 7 years later. NATO wasn't involved.

 

[wing2000]

I wonder how Americans would feel if another country proposed that America should give up it's territory after thousands of Americans died defending it?

 

[Arcangl86]

So JD's plan is to simply give Russia what they want?

 

[iluvatar5150]

So JD's plan is to simply give Russia what they want?

you misspelled "achieve peace" /s

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People can scoff at that assessment, but what other options are there short of other countries taking a more direct involvement in military operations against the kremlin?


The choices are either we put boots on the ground, or we give Russia some sort of "off-ramp" that lets them save face for propaganda spin to their own people. Them voluntarily stopping the aggression with absolutely nothing to show for it is a pipe dream.

Clearly the "sanction Russia; send money and weapons to Ukraine" isn't a successful approach for ending the conflict, only sustaining it.

I'd be interested in hearing some other people's ideas on how this conflict could be "ended" where Ukraine keeps all their territory, short of sending in some Marines and Army Rangers to lay the smackdown on some Russian troops.

For those who don't want territory surrendered, and don't want actual direct NATO involvement (boots on the ground):
If you don't have a plan beyond giving them a multi-billion dollar a year allowance to keep the conflict at a stalemate for the next 2 decades, then I'll assume you're not taking this seriously.

 

[Hans Blaster]

People can scoff at that assessment, but what other options are there short of other countries taking a more direct involvement in military operations against the kremlin?


The choices are either we put boots on the ground, or we give Russia some sort of "off-ramp" that lets them save face for propaganda spin to their own people. Them voluntarily stopping the aggression with absolutely nothing to show for it is a pipe dream.

What sort of off ramp for Russia?

Territory?
Cash?
Sanctions relief?
Waiver of war crimes tribunals?

Clearly the "sanction Russia; send money and weapons to Ukraine" isn't a successful approach for ending the conflict, only sustaining it.

Clearly Russia needs more incentives to give up.

I'd be interested in hearing some other people's ideas on how this conflict could be "ended" where Ukraine keeps all their territory, short of sending in some Marines and Army Rangers to lay the smackdown on some Russian troops.

Fully training and equipping the AFU.

For those who don't want territory surrendered, and don't want actual direct NATO involvement (boots on the ground):
If you don't have a plan beyond giving them a multi-billion dollar a year allowance to keep the conflict at a stalemate for the next 2 decades, then I'll assume you're not taking this seriously.

Needs to be more commitment of resources.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What sort of off ramp for Russia?

Territory?
Cash?
Sanctions relief?
Waiver of war crimes tribunals?



Clearly Russia needs more incentives to give up.

Fully training and equipping the AFU.

Needs to be more commitment of resources.

In terms of an off ramp, they're not going to give up until there's something they can take back to their people that they can brand as a "win".

What incentives would they have to "give up"?

Fully arming and training the AFU isn't going to matter. A) They're still vastly outnumbered, B) If their country is relying on conscription efforts (that's sending their men into hiding), clearly that's not going to work. They would appear to have the same mentality towards this conflict as the Afghan army (that caved to the Taliban the moment the help stopped). Is the plan to keep giving them money and weapons forever?


With regards to commitment of resources, I'll go back to the Afghan example again... we spent 20 years and billions and billions of dollars in resources giving them everything they needed to fight off the Taliban...the moment we left they said "nah", and bailed on it.


There's a similar dynamic here. Let's just be real, the only reason Ukraine has gotten the level of support they have from the US is because of the strange bedfellows relationship that's formed between the war hawks on the right (like Lindsey Graham), and the people on the left who support intervention because "How pro-Ukraine you are" has become a political amulet for "How anti-Trump you are" (due to the perception that the entity attacking Ukraine was instrumental in helping Trump win in 2016).

 

[rjs330]

JD Vance recently opined on what a Ukraine-Russia peace deal may entail:

1) Russia would retain all Ukrainian territory to date -- what he calls a "line of demarcation"
2) A fortified DMZ would be stablished
3) Ukraine would promise never to join NATO nor any other type of agreement - guarantee of neutrality

WE are not fighting this war. WE have nothing to offer Russia to entice them into.a peace deal. We can't even force them into a peace deal.

Our hand is a weak one. Russia has the upper hand. The goal is to end the war.

Russia wants more land. And they'll get it if we don't put a stop to it. The only way to do that is to either win a war, which we aren't in, but are spending a lot of money on or get an agreement out of Russia to stop.

The plan is perfectly acceptable is the goal is to stop war and end the dying.

If you want to continue to.spend money on a war we aren't fighting, what's the point? What's the end game if we cnat stop rhe war or the dying?

 

[wing2000]

WE are not fighting this war. WE have nothing to offer Russia to entice them into.a peace deal. We can't even force them into a peace deal.

True enough. We can't even force Israel into a peace deal, much less Russia.

The two countries will have to agree (and find it in their interest to do so).

I take issue with Vance floating a plan that simply hands over Uranian territory without consulting Ukraine.

 

[mindlight]

People can scoff at that assessment, but what other options are there short of other countries taking a more direct involvement in military operations against the kremlin?


The choices are either we put boots on the ground, or we give Russia some sort of "off-ramp" that lets them save face for propaganda spin to their own people. Them voluntarily stopping the aggression with absolutely nothing to show for it is a pipe dream.

Clearly the "sanction Russia; send money and weapons to Ukraine" isn't a successful approach for ending the conflict, only sustaining it.

I'd be interested in hearing some other people's ideas on how this conflict could be "ended" where Ukraine keeps all their territory, short of sending in some Marines and Army Rangers to lay the smackdown on some Russian troops.

For those who don't want territory surrendered, and don't want actual direct NATO involvement (boots on the ground):
If you don't have a plan beyond giving them a multi-billion dollar a year allowance to keep the conflict at a stalemate for the next 2 decades, then I'll assume you're not taking this seriously.

If there are territorial concessions e.g. of the Crimea and the Donbas then they need to be linked to NATO membership. Otherwise, Russia will simply do this all again in a few years. With settled borders, Ukraine can get back to functioning as a country. The Vance solution is simply to let Russia win.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In terms of an off ramp, they're not going to give up until there's something they can take back to their people that they can brand as a "win".

What incentives would they have to "give up"?

You want to provide Russia with an "off ramp". I don't know what that is other than capitulation.

Fully arming and training the AFU isn't going to matter. A) They're still vastly outnumbered, B) If their country is relying on conscription efforts (that's sending their men into hiding), clearly that's not going to work. They would appear to have the same mentality towards this conflict as the Afghan army (that caved to the Taliban the moment the help stopped). Is the plan to keep giving them money and weapons forever?

"Vastly outnumbered" is a bit of an exageration or at least it ignores the amount of Russia's military apparatus and economy maintaining their "global superpower" posture and other semi-hostile borders.

With regards to commitment of resources, I'll go back to the Afghan example again... we spent 20 years and billions and billions of dollars in resources giving them everything they needed to fight off the Taliban...the moment we left they said "nah", and bailed on it.

It is as much an error to think history repeats or is directly applicable as to ignore history. The only thing Afghanistan has of direct relevance is that the Russians *also* failed to control it.

Afghanistan was rapidly captured by the US military (as the Russian's assumed they would do in Feb 2022) with the help of an alliance of tribal warlords. The people of Afghanistan were *never* unified about a final state for their nation.

None of this is like Ukraine.

There's a similar dynamic here. Let's just be real, the only reason Ukraine has gotten the level of support they have from the US is because of the strange bedfellows relationship that's formed between the war hawks on the right (like Lindsey Graham), and the people on the left who support intervention because "How pro-Ukraine you are" has become a political amulet for "How anti-Trump you are" (due to the perception that the entity attacking Ukraine was instrumental in helping Trump win in 2016).

Oh good grief. If anything it is "how anti-Russia you are". Your example (Lindsey Graham) is a Trump bootlick (and general hawk). It is true that many of the "anti-Ukraine" people are Trump superfans, but given how much Russian propaganda is being pushed in the space it isn't that surprising.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I think Russian should retain Crimea and give back the other lands they've occupied from the Ukrainians.

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago?

In 1954 the Soviet Union transferred control of Crimea to Soviet Ukraine. Mark Kramer (Harvard) explains the reasons behind this surprising decision, one which has come back to haunt Ukraine today with tragic consequences.

www.wilsoncenter.org

Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR). The transfer was announced in the Soviet press in late February 1954, eight days after the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution authorizing the move on 19 February. The text of the resolution and some anodyne excerpts from the proceedings of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet meeting on 19 February were published along with the very brief announcement.[1] Nothing else about the transfer was disclosed at the time, and no further information was made available during the remainder of the Soviet era.

Kruschev was the one who "gave back" Crimea to the Ukrainians. As far as I'm concerned it was a sop to the Ukrainians for the Stalin's mass murder during the Holodomor in the 1930's.

All he did in the end was make matters worse.

Ukraine - Holodomor, Famine, 1932-33 | Britannica

Ukraine - Holodomor, Famine, 1932-33: The result of Stalin’s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated five million people who died in the Soviet Union, almost four million were Ukrainians. The famine was...

www.britannica.com

To end the war there is going to have to be compromise from both sides. The alternative is that a lot more people die in an unwinnable war, which is costing the West billions.

 

[Whyayeman]

To end the war there is going to have to be compromise from both sides.

It is difficult to see what compromises either of the protagonists could make. To compromise with an invader is capitulation to some degree. There is a strong sense in Ukraine that the currently occupied areas are intrinsic parts of historic Ukraine.

The current legally defined territory of Ukraine was agreed internationally, including by Russia. Russia is in breach of the treaty it signed. It is wrong to allow that to be ignored by the rest of the world. It reduces security everywhere.

 

[BPPLEE]

It is difficult to see what compromises either of the protagonists could make. To compromise with an invader is capitulation to some degree. There is a strong sense in Ukraine that the currently occupied areas are intrinsic parts of historic Ukraine.

The current legally defined territory of Ukraine was agreed internationally, including by Russia. Russia is in breach of the treaty it signed. It is wrong to allow that to be ignored by the rest of the world. It reduces security everywhere.

So keep fighting a war they cannot win and keep having people die for the cause.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You want to provide Russia with an "off ramp". I don't know what that is other than capitulation.

That's the choices, off-ramp, or we get more involved and end it.

Pouring billions and billions of dollars to preserve a relative stalemate for the next 20 years isn't a strategy.

There's no scenario in which Russia walks away voluntarily, with no additional territory, absent some serious force (the kind of force that Ukraine, alone, isn't capable of - even if we did give them defensive weapons)

Oh good grief. If anything it is "how anti-Russia you are". Your example (Lindsey Graham) is a Trump bootlick (and general hawk). It is true that many of the "anti-Ukraine" people are Trump superfans, but given how much Russian propaganda is being pushed in the space it isn't that surprising.

That's why I mentioned it was strange bedfellows relationship. There's a subset on the left who supports intervening in Ukraine for the reasons I mentioned (because it virtue signals how Democratic and anti-Trump they are), and the interventionism is supported by hawkish people like Lindsey Graham, merely because he's heavily backed by defense contractors and, as a result, never met a war he didn't like.