Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Soloist]

I probably used the wrong term. I was thinking that Russia would likely agree to stop fighting in Ukraine if they would be allowed to occupy the area they already occupy and if extreme sanctions were put upon them and their allies. When I say no fly zone, I meant airspace. Russia has at times entered US airspace in the past, but the US did not shoot the planes down. Russia might not agree to stay out of the part of Ukraine that it does not currently control, but I think there is a good chance that it would if:
1. Extreme sanctions and tariffs were put on it and its allies. (something many in Congress are pushing for)
2. NATO would assure Russia that Ukraine will not join NATO. (individual countries can still make alliances with Ukraine without Ukraine joining NATO)

I don’t think Russia would be happy with that sort of agreement.

Russia considers the area they already control in Ukraine as theirs, and much of the rest of the world considers it Ukraine's.
I haven't heard any proposal yet from the West for allowing Russia to continue controlling its current occupied area (like they did with Crimea since 2014) without conceding the land to Russia.
The only proposals I've read about are...
1. Russia must fully withdrawal from Ukraine.
2. Ukraine might need to concede/ give some of its land to Russia

Why can't there be a middle ground for the time being until some future Russian ruler is more reasonable?

You all are correct that I am likely shortsighted, but I wonder why I am not hearing a middle-ground proposal.

I suspect that a lot of this is about politics. If there was a middle ground proposal being tossed around, they’re not going to publicly mention it because it looks like compromise, which is politically untenable.

[Ernie]

I probably used the wrong term. I was thinking that Russia would likely agree to stop fighting in Ukraine if they would be allowed to occupy the area they already occupy and if extreme sanctions were put upon them and their allies. When I say no fly zone, I meant airspace. Russia has at times entered US airspace in the past, but the US did not shoot the planes down. Russia might not agree to stay out of the part of Ukraine that it does not currently control, but I think there is a good chance that it would if:
1. Extreme sanctions and tariffs were put on it and its allies. (something many in Congress are pushing for)
2. NATO would assure Russia that Ukraine will not join NATO. (individual countries can still make alliances with Ukraine without Ukraine joining NATO)

I don’t think Russia would be happy with that sort of agreement.

I'm sure Russia would not be happy but I am thinking they might agree, at least on paper, if the consequences are severe enough. And this might stop the killing on both sides.

Russia considers the area they already control in Ukraine as theirs, and much of the rest of the world considers it Ukraine's.
I haven't heard any proposal yet from the West for allowing Russia to continue controlling its current occupied area (like they did with Crimea since 2014) without conceding the land to Russia.
The only proposals I've read about are...
1. Russia must fully withdrawal from Ukraine.
2. Ukraine might need to concede/ give some of its land to Russia

Why can't there be a middle ground for the time being until some future Russian ruler is more reasonable?

You all are correct that I am likely shortsighted, but I wonder why I am not hearing a middle-ground proposal.

I suspect that a lot of this is about politics. If there was a middle ground proposal being tossed around, they’re not going to publicly mention it because it looks like compromise, which is politically untenable.

This makes sense and answers my question.

[temporal1]

I suspect that a lot of this is about politics. If there was a middle ground proposal being tossed around, they’re not going to publicly mention it because it looks like compromise, which is politically untenable.

In the past, in the U.S., DIPLOMACY was valued and respected. That can be the hope.

Putin and Z have proven untrustworthy. Trump wants resolution anyway. That’s brave.

[mike]

Almost looks like Europe wants to drag USA into World War III with some of these demands.

[temporal1]

Marco Rubio / Alaska
i had no opinion of Marco Rubio before he was appointed Secretary of State.
i appreciate everything i’ve seen, i expect he is appreciated and respected by all who interact with him.
He is sober, thoughtful, balanced.

Rubio sets the record straight on where Trump stands with Putin's demands / 16min

Description:
“Secretary of State Marco Rubio discusses the core issues addressed at the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and working with European allies to end the Russia-Ukraine war on ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’ “

[mike]

This take on the state of things makes sense to me.

[mike]

Serious meetings occurring today. This seems like an absolutely crucial time to pray for world governments on behalf of Christians who have been suffering intensely in this war.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

[Ken]

Almost looks like Europe wants to drag USA into World War III with some of these demands.

There is only one European country dragging the world into war. And it isn't any of these.

[mike]

Almost looks like Europe wants to drag USA into World War III with some of these demands.

There is only one European country dragging the world into war. And it isn't any of these.

By stating that they want USA plus Europe security guarantees, aren’t they asking for the USA to be willing to enter an armed conflict? I mean, those kinds of guarantees exist already with NATO, but I assume they want the US to also enter some sort of security agreement with Ukraine. Maybe I am reading too much into that point, but I’m pretty sure that the EU wants the US to provide more security guarantees than what they are currently already in with NATO.

[Ken]

Almost looks like Europe wants to drag USA into World War III with some of these demands.

There is only one European country dragging the world into war. And it isn't any of these.

By stating that they want USA plus Europe security guarantees, aren’t they asking for the USA to be willing to enter an armed conflict? I mean, those kinds of guarantees exist already with NATO, but I assume they want the US to also enter some sort of security agreement with Ukraine. Maybe I am reading too much into that point, but I’m pretty sure that the EU wants the US to provide more security guarantees than what they are currently already in with NATO.

Security guarantees would be part and parcel of a peace agreement and not something agreed to in the middle of the conflict.

In other words, if you want a peace agreement in which Ukraine would make concessions and demobilize and transition to a civilian economy you need to provide some guarantee that they can safely do so, and aren't just opening themselves up to the next attack.

Every peace agreement entails compromise and conciliation of some sort. Both sides need to make concessions in order to reach some sort of stable peace. And it must be enforceable in some matter. Hence the call for security guarantees.

Everything I have heard to date involves demands for concessions on the part of Ukraine. What concessions have you heard demanded of Russia from say the Trump Administration? Any? What concessions is Russia willing to make to reach peace? Can you articulate any you have heard? I cannot. And without that side of the equation, none of this is particularly serious.