What you believe about Putin's intentions is irrelevant. What matters is what Putin/Russia and Zelensky/Ukraine believe. Russia "occupied" Ukraine for literally centuries -- right up until the 1990's. Did you ever read Putin's essay he wrote last summer, in which he said that Ukraine historically/culturally is a part of Russia, and that there really isn't a Ukrainian identity at all? That was basically a manifesto that Ukraine shouldn't exist at all. Any fair-minded person reading that would conclude that Putin does not/did not believe as you do. Certainly, the Ukrainians aren't going to have the same faith you do that Russia considers Ukraine to be long-term independent.
The Ukrainians -- and all of us -- also have the uncontroverted evidence of the Russians battling bitterly on the outskirts of Kyiv itself. They lost, but it surely shows their intent. Or at least, a very reasonable fear on the part of Ukraine that Russia would gladly take the entire country if it thought it could.
And that's the entire problem with the Russian offer of a ceasefire. They want Ukraine to give up large chunks of the most industrialized parts of their country, likely including the entire Black Sea coast east to the Donbass to give the Russians that land bridge. That will unquestionably make Ukraine a weaker/poorer country moving forward. Even if they rebuild all of it, they'll be a rump version of the country they were prior to this war. And, what's left of Ukraine must promise not to join NATO, which means they'd be fighting alone once more.
So what's to prevent Russia from learning from this invasion, retooling their military, and then trying another blitzkrieg in the next year or two? Ukraine will be smaller, they'd have given up the more easily defended built-up areas in the Donbass, the Russians would have that even bigger foothold surrounding Crimea and the whole Mariupol area...and Ukraine again would have no allies to come to its aid. Even if you personally don't think that's likely, Ukraine can't afford the luxury of being wrong if it makes the same bet. They'd literally be betting their future as a nation on the good will of Vladimir Putin. And what kind of a moron would do that?
That's the entire problem with coming to a ceasefire. Russia is insisting on terms that will make Ukraine weaker and more vulnerable than it was before this war, and there is absolutely zero reason for them to believe any Russian promises that they won't try again. Ukraine cannot agree to that unless they literally are unable to fight any further, which is not the case.
No, what matters is America's national interests in Ukraine and our "obligation" to spend blood and treasure in defense of Ukraine, which has been a sovereign country for a little over 30 years. We have already spent billions of dollars arming Ukraine in an open-ended commitment to keep the flow of money and arms going indefinitely. We are more interested in keeping the war going than trying to stop the fighting and needless loss of life and property. And who foots the bill to rebuild Ukraine bearing in mind the government is rife with corruption. We are stuck in another endless war. Afghanistan is now in the rear view mirror save for the hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid we are still giving today.
Did you ever read Putin's essay he wrote last summer, in which he said that Ukraine historically/culturally is a part of Russia, and that there really isn't a Ukrainian identity at all? That was basically a manifesto that Ukraine shouldn't exist at all. Any fair-minded person reading that would conclude that Putin does not/did not believe as you do. Certainly, the Ukrainians aren't going to have the same faith you do that Russia considers Ukraine to be long-term independent.
I read it. I also read former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, career diplomat Jack Matlock's recent essay that puts the Ukrainian situation in an historical context. I recommend it highly as a former diplomat myself.
I would also refer you to George Kennan's observations on NATO expansion memorialized in the Congressional Record. Kennan is arguably our greatest diplomat who authored the famous "Long Telegram" that formed our policy of containment of the Soviet Union that eventually caused its downfall. In 1997 Kennan said "expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era." He then predicted the consequences that we are seeing played out today.
Again, no matter what Putin's putative future intentions may be, Russia is a country in decline economically and demographically. It is an aging nation with a declining population. Life expectancy at birth for males is 66.92 years. Russia's conventional military forces are not a threat to Europe. It is no where what it was in 1968-70 when I was a naval officer assigned to NATO at AFSOUTH in Naples. Nuclear weapons make Russia a global threat, but their use assures total destruction.
The US has provided the security umbrella for Europe that has allowed them to create a generous welfare state. Most NATO countries have not spent the agreed upon 2% of GDP on defense. Uncle Sap bears the brunt of the costs and manpower. As a result, there is little interoperability of the forces and the differences in capabilities are vast. So Europe seems unwilling to pay for its own defense and people like Macron are calling for a separate European army outside of NATO. It is time for the US to reevaluate its security arrangements.
The Ukrainians -- and all of us -- also have the uncontroverted evidence of the Russians battling bitterly on the outskirts of Kyiv itself. They lost, but it surely shows their intent. Or at least, a very reasonable fear on the part of Ukraine that Russia would gladly take the entire country if it thought it could.
I agree that the Russians miscalculated about Kyiv. IMO they wanted to take over the capital and then have the Ukrainians capitulate to their demands. It didn't work so the fall back position is to return to the status quo ante bellum, i.e., autonomy for the eastern provinces and continued control over Crimea. No matter what Russia may want in terms of control of Ukraine, they don't have ability to accomplish it. The current war should squelch any such ambitions.
And that's the entire problem with the Russian offer of a ceasefire. They want Ukraine to give up large chunks of the most industrialized parts of their country, likely including the entire Black Sea coast east to the Donbass to give the Russians that land bridge. That will unquestionably make Ukraine a weaker/poorer country moving forward. Even if they rebuild all of it, they'll be a rump version of the country they were prior to this war. And, what's left of Ukraine must promise not to join NATO, which means they'd be fighting alone once more.
Ukraine is in the unfortunate position of being in the Russian sphere of influence. It shares a 1,500 mile border with Russia. The US had the Monroe Doctrine to assert its control of the hemisphere. We almost triggered a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union blinked, but they did get some concessions on removing missiles from Turkey.
What is your solution? Perpetual war? Ukraine is being destroyed every day. More and more refugees are being created. Do you want the US to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty? Why didn't Ukraine implement the 2015 Minsk Agreement? There are limits to American involvement and an ability to control outcomes. Vietnam was my war. Was the great sacrifice and costs worth it?
That's the entire problem with coming to a ceasefire. Russia is insisting on terms that will make Ukraine weaker and more vulnerable than it was before this war, and there is absolutely zero reason for them to believe any Russian promises that they won't try again. Ukraine cannot agree to that unless they literally are unable to fight any further, which is not the case.
Is that the metric? When they are unable to fight any further? Sad.