[BostonCard]

We can agree that ending the bloodshed should be a priority, but a cease fire that merely postpones a repeat Russian invasion doesn’t do much.  Maybe if this were its first rodeo dealing with Russia, Ukraine might be willing to accept peace at whatever terms were offered, but having signed the Minsk agreement in 2014, only to see it collapse a year later, and then Minsk II which was not worth the paper it was printed on when Russia invaded in 2022.

Once (well, twice) bitten, thrice shy?  Can you blame Ukraine for pushing not just a cease fire at any cost, but a cease fire with credible security guarantees?  Add to that the fact that Russian demands have been for Ukraine to limit the size of its army, and the calculus goes something like does Ukraine give up territory slowly (Russia is thought to have captured 1,609 sq mi in all of 2024, which is a territory barely larger than Rhode Island), and hope they can survive a battle of attrition with a 1:2 casualty ratio long enough that its negotiating posture improves, or get a cease fire now, and hope that Russia doesn’t rebuild and attack again.  Add to that the fact that it is reasonable to expect Russian interference in any future election, and  I do not envy Zelensky’s position, as he is between a rock and a hard place.

We’ll see what sort of cease fire Putin is willing to accept.  I believe he feels that he can carry out the war indefinitely, even if it leads to capturing Ukraine 2000 sq miles a year (at that pace, it would take about 100 years to take the rest of Ukraine, though of course at some point well before that Ukrainian defense will crumble).  So he has little incentive to offer Ukraine a bargain they would be willing to accept.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can agree that ending the bloodshed should be a priority, but a cease fire that merely postpones a repeat Russian invasion doesn’t do much.  Maybe if this were its first rodeo dealing with Russia, Ukraine might be willing to accept peace at whatever terms were offered, but having signed the Minsk agreement in 2014, only to see it collapse a year later, and then Minsk II which was not worth the paper it was printed on when Russia invaded in 2022.

Once (well, twice) bitten, thrice shy?  Can you blame Ukraine for pushing not just a cease fire at any cost, but a cease fire with credible security guarantees?  Add to that the fact that Russian demands have been for Ukraine to limit the size of its army, and the calculus goes something like does Ukraine give up territory slowly (Russia is thought to have captured 1,609 sq mi in all of 2024, which is a territory barely larger than Rhode Island), and hope they can survive a battle of attrition with a 1:2 casualty ratio long enough that its negotiating posture improves, or get a cease fire now, and hope that Russia doesn’t rebuild and attack again.  Add to that the fact that it is reasonable to expect Russian interference in any future election, and  I do not envy Zelensky’s position, as he is between a rock and a hard place.

We’ll see what sort of cease fire Putin is willing to accept.  I believe he feels that he can carry out the war indefinitely, even if it leads to capturing Ukraine 2000 sq miles a year (at that pace, it would take about 100 years to take the rest of Ukraine, though of course at some point well before that Ukrainian defense will crumble).  So he has little incentive to offer Ukraine a bargain they would be willing to accept.

BC