I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That's actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It'd likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn't like that, I'd love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn't lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There's a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Here is a map 200 yrs later.
So no Crimea for Ukraine.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this "historic border" talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn't come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
Well it does. Russia is a federation composed of states with they're historic borders.
I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine?
No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they're own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia.
Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn't it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don't see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You're right about that common fear on article 5, I'm hoping it will never be tested haha.
True, I dont want a nuclear war.
Historic borders are called like that because they are history, not current.
Well either keep those that are. Or kill more people to have em moved. Wich you like more?
I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That's actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It'd likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn't like that, I'd love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn't lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There's a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Here is a map 200 yrs later.
So no Crimea for Ukraine.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this "historic border" talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn't come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
Well it does. Russia is a federation composed of states with they're historic borders.
I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine? No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they're own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia. Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn't it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don't see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You're right about that common fear on article 5, I'm hoping it will never be tested haha.
True, I dont want a nuclear war.
Historic borders are called like that because they are history, not current.
Well either keep those that are. Or kill more people to have em moved. Wich you like more?