[TrumpCard]

I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. 

If Ukraine can limit Russia to the territory you described, but retain Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson, why would Ukraine be non-viable?

IMHO, two reasons. Mariupol is a key port on the Sea of Azov. It exports a large percentage of Ukrainian grain and other products. It is the only port on the Sea of Azov with such large port facilities. It is also a major manufacturing center. If Russia keeps that strip of land, Ukraine can't use the M14 highway either. Odesa is just not a big enough port to supply Ukraine's needs. Historically it is the countries third choice, with Sevastopol and Mariupol ahead of it. Odesa is at the "far end" of the country. Lots of exports would have to go a long way.

The second reason is that Odesa is geographically just too easy for Russia to blockade. With the land corridor to Russia proper, Crimea can be supplied for sure. From there, Odesa is always at risk. The German navy tried to run a war out of Odesa. They gave up. Too hard to do. Ukraine can't constantly be at risk of being cut off. Nobody is going to invest with Putin sitting on such an advantage.

In a portion of this thread, folks also argued that the Baltics are indefensible and subject to being blockaded.  Let's assume that is correct.  In that case, why have people invested so heavily there and how have the Baltics achieved per capita GDPs that are 2-3 times that of Ukraine?  I would think that security guarantees, in particular NATO membership, are the key.  Now let's assume there is a cease fire in which Russia gets to keep the territory you described.  Presumably, Ukraine would insist on strong security guarantees.  I understand that Zelenskyy has offered neutrality as a way to resolve the conflict, but that seems backwards to me, and I think it's based on the assumption that Russia does NOT keep much new land.  Is there a principled reason that Ukraine should not be a member of the EU or NATO?  If Russia gets to keep the land bridge, but Ukraine gets to join Europe in a formal way, with all the associated security guarantees, I think that would make Ukraine quite viable as an ongoing entity.

[TrumpCard]

I agree that a Ukraine without Donbas and with a Russian land corridor cutting them off from the Sea of Azov is not a viable state. 

If Ukraine can limit Russia to the territory you described, but retain Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson, why would Ukraine be non-viable?

IMHO, two reasons. Mariupol is a key port on the Sea of Azov. It exports a large percentage of Ukrainian grain and other products. It is the only port on the Sea of Azov with such large port facilities. It is also a major manufacturing center. If Russia keeps that strip of land, Ukraine can't use the M14 highway either. Odesa is just not a big enough port to supply Ukraine's needs. Historically it is the countries third choice, with Sevastopol and Mariupol ahead of it. Odesa is at the "far end" of the country. Lots of exports would have to go a long way.

The second reason is that Odesa is geographically just too easy for Russia to blockade. With the land corridor to Russia proper, Crimea can be supplied for sure. From there, Odesa is always at risk. The German navy tried to run a war out of Odesa. They gave up. Too hard to do. Ukraine can't constantly be at risk of being cut off. Nobody is going to invest with Putin sitting on such an advantage.

In a portion of this thread, folks also argued that the Baltics are indefensible and subject to being blockaded.  Let's assume that is correct.  In that case, why have people invested so heavily there and how have the Baltics achieved per capita GDPs that are 2-3 times that of Ukraine?  I would think that security guarantees, in particular NATO membership, are the key.  Now let's assume there is a cease fire in which Russia gets to keep the territory you described.  Presumably, Ukraine would insist on strong security guarantees.  I understand that Zelenskyy has offered neutrality as a way to resolve the conflict, but that seems backwards to me, and I think it's based on the assumption that Russia does NOT keep much new land.  Is there a principled reason that Ukraine should not be a member of the EU or NATO?  If Russia gets to keep the land bridge, but Ukraine gets to join Europe in a formal way, with all the associated security guarantees, I think that would make Ukraine quite viable as an ongoing entity.