- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 8,621
- Reaction score
- 5,239
Best case scenario for Ukraine is to surrender now and negotiate terms, and that's exactly what their best option was 2 years ago as well, only it would have saved a lot of lives. My initial proposal for Ukraine would have seen them losing the Donbas region as well as Crimea, while also agreeing not to join NATO. That would have been enough for a peace deal at that time. I'm not saying this because I am pro-Russian, I am just looking at the best possible outcomes for Ukraine, and that was it. They didn't have better options.
I'm in charge of Ukraine now, and I make that deal 2+ years ago. I lose Donbas and Crimea. I still have much of my critical infrastructure at that time, and then I fortify defenses and prepare for another invasion, whether it comes or not. This is not a winnable war for Ukraine, so stall as much as you can, prepare defensively, procure weapons, spread awareness. I potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.
Despite what Americans think, I'm inclined to think Putin may not have continued the war had his initial terms been met. If it were to come at some point in the future, as some think a peace deal wouldn't last, then Ukraine would be in a better defensive position, having more time to prepare.
My plan potentially saves hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and not just human lives because I actually care just as much about the destruction of plant and animal life that has to suffer through this horrendous war as well.
Why is continuing the war 2+ years later, hundreds of thousands of lives later, entire regions delimitated, plant and animal life decimated, critical infrastructure destroyed, mass suffering, and still losing the war, while the war rages on with the escalation in nuclear rhetoric.
Tell me how this was ever a better plan?
