Some thoughts about where I disagree with Aaron about how compromise and negotiation logic apply to this situation.
Taking the comment in good faith because the underlying questions are interesting and many others share Aaron's view.
If there are ever peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine will not expect to get 100% of what it wants - but what it wants is A LOT more than all of its territory back.
It assumes that peace is something Russia has to 'offer' and be paid for.
I would argue, rather, that it reflects a commitment to SUSTAINED peace.
Last year, before the atrocities at Bucha and the November counterattacks, the Ukrainians were prepared to kick negotiations over Crimea down the road for example. Fudging somewhat the issue to secure peace.
Hypothetically, Ukraine could for example commit to not having US bases, on its soil or US troop numbers in excess of a certain number.
Note: It very clearly does not and it's silly to pretend it does.
I'd love to see that too, but that's an area where if there are talks, some negotiation will inevitably take place and Ukraine could choose to compromise.
For example: Russia very badly wants to start selling oil and gas to Europe again. That's something to negotiate.
Pushing Ukraine into talks over how much territory it's willing to let Russia keep in exchange for a ceasefire is:
a) Politically unfeasible in Ukraine
b) Handing Russia a huge win from the start
c) All but ensuring more war
Great thread on what Ukraine could negotiate with Russia (given that Russia is unlikely to surrender unconditionally). Let’s not have Minsk 3. This time it’s Russia that should be under pressure and forced to make meaningful concessions so Ukraine can be secure in future.