Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Szdfan]

So I haven't heard a proposal like this floated yet. Perhaps it is in the works and I haven't heard about it. Or perhaps it is not possible to do this. At the least it would stop the killing without Ukraine needing to cede territory.

Regarding a ceasefire in Ukraine.

Both sides agree to stop firing weapons at each other. Russia is allowed to maintain control of areas it currently controls. UN continues to acknowledge Ukraine's sovereignty. The stalemate is held until some future Russian leader agrees to recognize Ukraine's sovereignty.

Ukraine has stated they will not give up land and as far as I know, that includes what reality has already taken away.

Besides both sides, just believe the other would rearm for future aggression.
That also doesn’t provide any security guarantee that Ukraine is requesting and there’s no incentive for Russia to agree.

Russia is also demanding land they don't currently occupy. That's a total non-starter for Ukraine.

[Soloist]

Russia is also demanding land they don't currently occupy. That's a total non-starter for Ukraine.

Yeah, Russia is playing this great game the way I play civilization…

[JohnH]

Besides both sides, just believe the other would rearm for future aggression.

Unfortunately, the history of the ongoing conflict in the region does not provide much hope for cessation of hostilities.

Between 2014 and 2022 there were 29 ceasefires, each agreed to remain in force indefinitely. However, none of them lasted more than two weeks.

With that many ceasefires, it should be one of the most peaceful places in the world.

[mike]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

[Szdfan]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

[mike]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

Those parties have had years to put together a peace summit. For whatever reason, Trump is the one who is doing it.

That said, even Trump has said this is just the next step and that Putin and Zelensky need to meet also. That he is just trying to get the two sides to talk, and that he doesn't have the power to bargain away Ukraine's land holdings.

I mean, this meeting is potentially something, but at the same time, a lot of it is just for show.

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

[Soloist]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

Realistically though… if US support was cut off, Ukraine would fall faster.
As harsh as it sounds, Ukraine is a proxy.
War… war never changes. Just the people.

[Szdfan]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

Those parties have had years to put together a peace summit. For whatever reason, Trump is the one who is doing it.

That said, even Trump has said this is just the next step and that Putin and Zelensky need to meet also. That he is just trying to get the two sides to talk, and that he doesn't have the power to bargain away Ukraine's land holdings.

I mean, this meeting is potentially something, but at the same time, a lot of it is just for show.

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

Looks like the summit abruptly ended early without any kind of deal and you were right that it was performative.

I don’t think it’s just the Ukrainians who have unreasonable expectations. The Russians are demanding territory that they don’t currently occupy. That’s not reasonable.

[Bootstrap]

Trump has a B-2 and fighter jets fly over himself and Putin as they arrive for the peace talks. If only this meeting can get beyond this sort of performative nonsense and actually see something accomplished to end the war. I have no idea whether Trump can help end this, but nobody else has been able to. I feel very pessimistic about the situation ahead of hearing any results from the summit.

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

Realistically though… if US support was cut off, Ukraine would fall faster.
As harsh as it sounds, Ukraine is a proxy.
War… war never changes. Just the people.

Thanks for clarifying, Soloist — I’d like to understand your perspective better.

Even if a country needs outside help to defend itself, does that really make it “less real”? Historically, a lot of countries — even powerful ones — have depended on alliances at critical moments. NATO members, for example, are explicitly committed to defending one another. In World War II, much of Western Europe likely would have lost without U.S. and Allied intervention — does that make them “just proxies” in that conflict?

For Ukraine, there are examples of acting independently in ways the U.S. has not necessarily wanted:

• Ukrainian military operations that Washington reportedly advised against (e.g., certain deep strikes inside Russian territory).
• Public disagreements with U.S. officials over the pace and scale of military aid.
• Independent diplomatic outreach to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to build support.
• Kyiv’s own strategic objectives, which sometimes go beyond what Western backers are comfortable with.

Putin often says Ukraine is “just a proxy” and even claims it has no right to exist as an independent nation. That’s a very loaded statement — and one Ukrainians themselves obviously reject. Even your post could be read that way, though you probably don't intend that.

So I’m wondering:

• Is “proxy” always a lesser status, or can a country be both sovereign and heavily supported?
• Does calling Ukraine “just a proxy” risk oversimplifying their agency and national identity?
• How do you see Ukrainians themselves viewing their role in this war?

I’m interested in how you see it, and whether “proxy” is the really the best word for what’s going on.

[Szdfan]

It’s concerning that these talks don’t involve the Ukrainians and the Europeans. It’s like 19th Century imperial powers dividing the world up between them.

Realistically though… if US support was cut off, Ukraine would fall faster.
As harsh as it sounds, Ukraine is a proxy.
War… war never changes. Just the people.

Thanks for clarifying, Soloist — I’d like to understand your perspective better.

Even if a country needs outside help to defend itself, does that really make it “less real”? Historically, a lot of countries — even powerful ones — have depended on alliances at critical moments. NATO members, for example, are explicitly committed to defending one another. In World War II, much of Western Europe likely would have lost without U.S. and Allied intervention — does that make them “just proxies” in that conflict?

For Ukraine, there are examples of acting independently in ways the U.S. has not necessarily wanted:

• Ukrainian military operations that Washington reportedly advised against (e.g., certain deep strikes inside Russian territory).
• Public disagreements with U.S. officials over the pace and scale of military aid.
• Independent diplomatic outreach to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to build support.
• Kyiv’s own strategic objectives, which sometimes go beyond what Western backers are comfortable with.

Putin often says Ukraine is “just a proxy” and even claims it has no right to exist as an independent nation. That’s a very loaded statement — and one Ukrainians themselves obviously reject. Even your post could be read that way, though you probably don't intend that.

So I’m wondering:

• Is “proxy” always a lesser status, or can a country be both sovereign and heavily supported?
• Does calling Ukraine “just a proxy” risk oversimplifying their agency and national identity?
• How do you see Ukrainians themselves viewing their role in this war?

I’m interested in how you see it, and whether “proxy” is the really the best word for what’s going on.

My sense was that the word “proxy” meant that the war was really between the US and Russia. Ukraine is just doing the US’s bidding. I never bought that.