[timun]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't see Russia giving up control of Crimea. If there was anything that would lead to them using tactical nuclear weapons, it's probably that. And really, even pre-2014 there wasn't a whole lot of support there for the status quo, so I'm not sure it's really worth the downside risk to try to re-take control of a region that was already pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine.

I don't disagree that Russia won't give up Crimea. In fact at this point I don't see them giving up anything at all, including the Donbass, which is why negotiations would be at an impasse if they were occurring. And I also agree that losing Crimea would make Russia seriously consider the nuclear option.

I agree that the region was "pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine" in the first place, but it's the outfall of decades of ethnic cleansing and Russification. As I wrote before, it'll be the same excuse the Russians use to invade other countries with significant Russian minority populations unless you stop it now. (This is what terrifies the Latvians and Estonians more than anyone, as they have (proportionally) even bigger Russian minority populations than Ukraine does...)

If there is a negotiated settlement, I think it'll probably look something like this:

-status quo on Crimea (Ukraine doesn't recognize Russia's occupation, but doesn't demand it back as part of negotiations)
-large measure of autonomy/independence for the Donbas region, but the area is not absorbed into Russia.
-other occupied areas are returned to Ukraine
-Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and/or host NATO forces/bases
-Ukraine is free to join the EU
-strong security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO
-some sanctions on Russia removed (though I doubt all would be).

People may view that as a failure...

This is basically what the Minsk Agreements said; it would be pointless for the Ukrainians to agree to this, the essentially-same agreement was already violated. No reason to believe Russia wouldn't just restart the conflict. At best that would be a ceasefire, not a long-term peace agreement, so there's no point in agreeing to it: better to continue to bleed the Russians dry.

... I don't really see any other way out that doesn't either mean a significant risk of escalation or a protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now obviously Russia has to be willing to negotiate, so if they're not, they're not. But I do think there's a real lack of emphasis from NATO being placed on the importance of diplomacy.

A "protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths" is probably preferable to Russian occupation. I realize it's easy for me to say because I'm not the one facing down the choice, but if I was Ukrainian, Russian occupation would be a far worse proposition. Die fighting or die under the rule of the most notorious despot on the planet...

And as for encouraging Russia to do the same later or appeasing them, I don't see Russia being able to rebuild its military during peacetime at remotely the same pace that NATO-supported countries can. If Ukraine had a period of peace, they could fully transition their forces to NATO weapons and get some of the things that the US has been hesitant to supply during an active conflict (ATACMS, F-16s, tanks, etc.). Meanwhile Russia will be incapable of even replacing what they've lost, never mind strengthening their forces.

I have to believe that if NATO continues to supply Ukraine with weapons then the Russians will never come to the negotiating table, or they would immediately resume hostilities.