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

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

So when do NATO troops start heading to Moscow then?

If history has been any teacher, these types of "intervening just enough to keep the war going, but not enough to end it" tend to lose public support over time.

We're already seeing that "tapering" of support happening here in the US among both major parties

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-public-support-declines-arming-ukraine-reutersipsos-2023-10-05/

(Reuters) - Support is falling among Americans of both major political parties for supplying Ukraine with weapons, a warning sign for Kyiv, which relies heavily on U.S. arms to fight against a Russian invasion, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The two-day poll, which closed on Wednesday, showed only 41% of respondents agreed with a statement that Washington "should provide weapons to Ukraine," compared to 35% who disagreed and the rest unsure.

While U.S. public backing for the arms shipments has persistently been stronger among Democrats since Russian troops invaded, the recent decline in overall support was driven by changing views among Democrats.
Some 52% of Democrats backed arming Ukraine in the most recent poll, down from 61% in May. Among Republicans, support for sending weapons to Kyiv fell to 35% from 39% in May.
Some 34% of Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that Ukraine's problems "are none of our business and we should not interfere," compared to 56% of Republicans.


So, as I noted, the course we're on isn't a long-term strategy.

Support among democrats fell from 61% to 52%. In another two years when that number drops to, say, 43% among democrats, are democratic candidates still going to push for it or make it a priority? Or will they quietly back off of the idea once it's no longer the "majority opinion" among their party?

 

[Nithavela]

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".

Russian propaganda is so prevalent and their people so willing to receive it that they could pretty much use anything to present to their people as a "win". They could just say "Okay, we're done, all the Nazis in Ukraine have been killed on the battlefield", and that would be enough for the Russian people.

It's not the need of saving face, it's the dream of imperium that keeps Russia on the battlefield.

 

[7thKeeper]

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

1) Then Ukraine would retain all territory from Russia as well. Funny how that isn't there.
2) Pointless, I suspect. I doubt that would blunt any future thoughts of trying again.
3) An immediate no-go. Any possible peace deal would need to say the exact opposite, if it were to have any chance of being agreed to or lasting any time.

 

[Arcangl86]

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.

I mean, his running mate did the same thing for Afghanistan, so it's not really surprising.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

1) Then Ukraine would retain all territory from Russia as well. Funny how that isn't there.
2) Pointless, I suspect. I doubt that would blunt any future thoughts of trying again.
3) An immediate no-go. Any possible peace deal would need to say the exact opposite, if it were to have any chance of being agreed to or lasting any time.

I don't know that #2 & #3 are pointless.

South Korea's been pretty protected from aggression since the establishment of their DMZ dividing line between them and N. Korea was established in 1953, despite not having NATO membership, correct?

 

[7thKeeper]

I don't know that #2 & #3 are pointless.

South Korea's been pretty protected from aggression since the establishment of their DMZ dividing line between them and N. Korea was established in 1953, despite not having NATO membership, correct?

They very much are in Ukraine's case. There's a few big differences in the case of the two Koreas. The power balance between the two states is vastly different from the one between Ukraine and Russia.
And especially regarding point 3.

3)Ukraine would promise never to join NATO nor any other type of agreement - guarantee of neutrality

South Korea has no such limitations placed on it. It is in fact in a mutual defence agreement (the Mutual Defence Treaty) with the USA, something that would be prevented in this case.

 

[mindlight]

So when do NATO troops start heading to Moscow then?

If history has been any teacher, these types of "intervening just enough to keep the war going, but not enough to end it" tend to lose public support over time.

We're already seeing that "tapering" of support happening here in the US among both major parties

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-public-support-declines-arming-ukraine-reutersipsos-2023-10-05/

(Reuters) - Support is falling among Americans of both major political parties for supplying Ukraine with weapons, a warning sign for Kyiv, which relies heavily on U.S. arms to fight against a Russian invasion, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The two-day poll, which closed on Wednesday, showed only 41% of respondents agreed with a statement that Washington "should provide weapons to Ukraine," compared to 35% who disagreed and the rest unsure.

While U.S. public backing for the arms shipments has persistently been stronger among Democrats since Russian troops invaded, the recent decline in overall support was driven by changing views among Democrats.
Some 52% of Democrats backed arming Ukraine in the most recent poll, down from 61% in May. Among Republicans, support for sending weapons to Kyiv fell to 35% from 39% in May.
Some 34% of Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that Ukraine's problems "are none of our business and we should not interfere," compared to 56% of Republicans.


So, as I noted, the course we're on isn't a long-term strategy.

Support among democrats fell from 61% to 52%. In another two years when that number drops to, say, 43% among democrats, are democratic candidates still going to push for it or make it a priority? Or will they quietly back off of the idea once it's no longer the "majority opinion" among their party?

People always grow tired of long running news events and often do not understand their significance measured against the ordinary everyday struggles they face. So this is an issue of leadership and choosing a leader that gets it. Trump just wants to let Russia win and the Democrats understand why that does not serve US interests nor those of its allies.

 

[wing2000]

I don't know that #2 & #3 are pointless.

South Korea's been pretty protected from aggression since the establishment of their DMZ dividing line between them and N. Korea was established in 1953, despite not having NATO membership, correct?

...which begs the question: Who would resource this "DMZ"? NATO?

Would it not be more efficient to simply integrate Ukraine into NATO?

 

[Larniavc]

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

Weak. That's what he makes America look like.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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)

Is that the "off ramp"? Territorial concessions? (I am getting confused about what you are proposing is the "off ramp". I thought it was presented as a way for Russia to withdraw rather than a way to get them to stop bombing.)

 

[Larniavc]

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

That is the same as negotiating with terrorists. The more you do it the more terrorism's utility increases in the eyes of rogue nations such a Russia.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is the same as negotiating with terrorists. The more you do it the more terrorism's utility increases in the eyes of rogue nations such a Russia.

How is giving Russia certain concessions to get them to reign in potential future aggression any different than the kind of deals we cut with certain Middle Eastern states (like Iran for example)?

The other signatories to the Iran deal offered Iran sanctions relief, agreed to lift weapons embargos, and unfreeze assets in exchange for them reducing their nuclear capabilities and agreeing to "limited inspections", for which we'd give them a 2-week heads-up (and that conveniently didn't include inspections of the key facility of Natanz)

Many of the same people who cringe at the thought of giving Russia concessions in the name of attempted diplomacy and damage mitigation are same people who were applauding the "bending over backwards" routine nations were doing for Iran.


"We'll give you a sweetheart deal that still even allows you to do some bad stuff...just so long as you don't do this other thing that's even worse"

Why was that approach cheered with regards to Iran, but not with regards to Russia? Both are examples of "giving in a little to the bad guys" are they not?


Heck, there's still people wanting to reimplement a deal with Iran while rejecting one with Russia, simultaneously, present-day.

 

[Larniavc]

How is giving Russia certain concessions to get them to reign in potential future aggression any different than the kind of deals we cut with certain Middle Eastern states (like Iran for example)?

In the last 60 years how many countries has Iran invaded? Same question to Russia? Russia will never keep it's word when it comes to expanding it's borders. It can't be bargained with. As soon as it's expedient it will reneged recommence it's hostilities. To think otherwise is to ignore history.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In the last 60 years how many countries has Iran invaded? Same question to Russia? Russia will never keep it's word when it comes to expanding it's borders. It can't be bargained with. As soon as it's expedient it will reneged recommence it's hostilities. To think otherwise is to ignore history.

The answer to your question is 3 if memory serves, but they've been a regular sponsor of puppet regimes and aggressive proxies on dozens of occasions.

List of wars involving Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you scroll down to the section titled:
Islamic Republic of Iran
(since 1979)

Iran, in many ways, has been to the Middle East, what the USSR was to Eastern Europe.


Per the Council on Foreign Relations, Iran has their sights on regional influence and control beyond their own official borders every bit as much as Russia currently does.

You don't sponsor, train, and arm 14 distinct different militia groups across 6 different countries without wanting to exercise certain levels of control and influence outside your own borders, correct?


Given that information, the concessions we were making to Iran involving giving them funds and lifting weapons embargos (knowing that they're providing money and weapons to 14 different puppet militias in the region) "Just as long as you scale back the nuclear", would seem like riskier concessions than the ones being discussed with regards to Russia.

 

[Larniavc]

The answer to your question is 3

I asked how many countries has Iran invaded.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think this discussion demonstrates how complicated international relations can be.

Giving up on Ukraine to keep the peace strikes me as a bit like feeding a crocodile. The crocodile eats what you give it and when you have no more too give it eats you. Crocodiles have no idea of reciprocation.

 

[Chesterton]

Giving up on Ukraine to keep the peace strikes me as a bit like feeding a crocodile. The crocodile eats what you give it and when you have no more too give it eats you. Crocodiles have no idea of reciprocation.

You've just described NATO.

 

[loveofourlord]

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

THEY seem quiet happy to do it, and it's not like Russia can keep this war going for ever, they are losing money every day this war goes on.

 

[7thKeeper]

You've just described NATO.

How so? Please elaborate.

 

[Chesterton]

How so? Please elaborate.

What's there to elaborate on? NATO's been eating up Europe for decades, inching closer to its imperialistic designs of eating Russia.