[Goose]

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?

Easy. The US and the EU, particularly Germany dumped truckloads of money into these states as soon as they declared independence. The commercial interests didn't have to take the risks. They aren't real big. A few truckloads go a long way. Also, at the time that happened Belarus was considered an "independent state", not a Russian client state. It was assumed Russia would have to invade Belarus first, giving time for the Baltics to be defended. Not that way today however.
Interestingly, Ukraine fully expected similar truckloads of money. Didn't happen. If it had, who knows what would have been different. Ukraine opted for independence at least partially (some say mostly) because they thought the West was going to massively aid them and invest there.

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.

This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.

[Goose]

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?

Easy. The US and the EU, particularly Germany dumped truckloads of money into these states as soon as they declared independence. The commercial interests didn't have to take the risks. They aren't real big. A few truckloads go a long way. Also, at the time that happened Belarus was considered an "independent state", not a Russian client state. It was assumed Russia would have to invade Belarus first, giving time for the Baltics to be defended. Not that way today however.
Interestingly, Ukraine fully expected similar truckloads of money. Didn't happen. If it had, who knows what would have been different. Ukraine opted for independence at least partially (some say mostly) because they thought the West was going to massively aid them and invest there.

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.

This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.