How much land should Russia lose to Ukraine as war reparations?

[nickqt]

Ukraine is in charge of how far and how long it wants to go, but I'd support Ukraine getting back to its borders as of January 1 2014.

 

[brandonbull]

1. Pre 2014 borders
2. No NATO membership for Ukraine
3. Russia fully pays for rebuilding war damages and death compensation
4. Continued sanctions until changes to Russian government

 

[rommelrommel]

1. Pre 2014 borders
2. No NATO membership for Ukraine
3. Russia fully pays for rebuilding war damages and death compensation
4. Continued sanctions until changes to Russian government

Why would you not allow Ukraine to join any organization that would have them? Especially one that seem to be pretty effective at detering Russian aggression.

 

[Drach]

1. Pre 2014 borders
2. No NATO membership for Ukraine
3. Russia fully pays for rebuilding war damages and death compensation
4. Continued sanctions until changes to Russian government

Go fuck your self!

 

[amenx]

Why would you not allow Ukraine to join any organization that would have them? Especially one that seem to be pretty effective at detering Russian aggression.

Probably from watching Tucker C claiming it would start WW3.

 

[zinfamous]

Henthforth all reference to Putin is changed to Poutine. That should be punishment enough.

but we love poutine!

 

[sdifox]

but we love poutine!

That's like the Quebecois' answer to Chop Suey. BTW 雜碎 has a meaning other than the American dish, it refers to the lowest rung thugs, which fits Vlad.

 

[cytg111]

1. Pre 2014 borders
2. No NATO membership for Ukraine
3. Russia fully pays for rebuilding war damages and death compensation
4. Continued sanctions until changes to Russian government

This is not that far off IMO? EU yes. NATO? .. I am not sure it matters much when EU will get its own united force.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

Only loss of land would be a long term deterrent to Russia. The oligarchs and leaders just don't care about money, (as long as they get their caviar, vodka, etc.) but loss of land would make EVERYONE in the country angry with them.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Only loss of land would be a long term deterrent to Russia. The oligarchs and leaders just don't care about money, (as long as they get their caviar, vodka, etc.) but loss of land would make EVERYONE in the country angry with them.

Theyre going to lose land regardless as some of the members of the "federation" realize Moscow isnt strong enough to keep them all under their thumb. The 'stans are getting frisky as we speak.

 

[JTsyo]

After their takeover, Russia began a large scale mass migration campaign to move Russians into Crimea.
Is it any wonder how Russians would vote?

Far as we know... Russia may have conscripted and thus moved out and or killed off the native Crimean people.
In this context, a vote makes no logical sense.

Everyone who wants to be Russians should be moved to Russia when Ukraine takes over. No need for them to be "occupied".

 

[JTsyo]

>>We ARE dealing with a nuclear country. And it is not certain that they will survive their own internal pressure after such a colossal failure.

I'm glad you mentioned the whole nuclear issue. Ukraine had nuclear weapons until the USA convinced it to give them up in return for promises of peace from Russia. Specifically, Ukraine had 176 ICBM missiles with between 6 and 10 warheads each. They had a full 1/3 of the nukes that had belonged to the Soviet Union prior to its breakup. In 1994, bowing to political pressure from the USA and others, Ukraine agreed to destroy their nuclear warheads in exchange for signed promises of peace.

Of course, you can see where THAT led to over the long term. In reality, peace would have been achieved by Ukraine holding onto their nuclear deterrent.

Because the U.S.A. brokered the whole "nukes for peace" program, we are ultimately to blame for this war happening. The idea that our leaders in the mid 90's thought that they could somehow ensure peace by removing nukes from Ukraine is counter intuitive. (If that's the case, why do WE still have nukes? Hmm?) So yes, I feel a sense of responsibility for every single murder and genocide that is happening in Ukraine, because I realize that they could have easily been prevented.

Back then, they didn't fear Russia. Otherwise the fix for any issues wouldn't have been the Security Council where Russia has a veto. Ukraine and Russia were thought to be allies at that point as post-Warsaw pact. It's only when Ukraine started moving more towards the West that the friction with Russia began. Russia took an ally and made them a victim.

 

[dainthomas]

After their takeover, Russia began a large scale mass migration campaign to move Russians into Crimea.
Is it any wonder how Russians would vote?

Far as we know... Russia may have conscripted and thus moved out and or killed off the native Crimean people.
In this context, a vote makes no logical sense.

This is what they're doing in Luhansk and Donetsk. The conscripts from there are the chief cannon fodder, so it's obvious the plan is to replace them with native Russians when they win the war. Their MO since forever.

Any vote wouldn't be valid for this point alone. I can't move people into your house and then vote you out.

 

[brycejones]

1. No NATO membership for Ukraine

Why would Ukraine ever agree to this? They have been continuously invaded by Russia for 8 years now. Russia has a problem with NATO because it can't seem to stop invading it's neighbors.

 

[amenx]

I think Putins ultimate goal was to take over the whole of the Ukraine. He may try to annex some territory to the east or south, but to use as a potential ever expanding foothold. Then the plan would have been to undermine the rest of Ukraine and eventually to install a puppet that would do his bidding. Russia would then have considerable leverage over the rest of the world by controlling much of its wheat, grain production. Of course now that he's getting his ass whipped, his plans are up in smoke.