• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a pretty wild claim, but if it’s true then it’s the best argument for a treaty I’ve heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port

    Though I’ve repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don’t think anyone has any reason to believe they’d leave if they were just allowed to “protect their naval base”

    I’m getting the feeling this is more of a “vibes” conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So … sign a lease to the military that is invading them to keep a military base inside their borders. The military base Russia has been using to launch an invasion of Ukraine…

      There can’t be a treat with Russia because in 2014 Russia took crimea then after nearly a decade used it to invade the rest of Ukraine. They had exactly what you offer and Russia found it insufficient. Ukraine made no significant movement to crimea beyond diplomacy. This must be settled with a withdraw of Russia of a defeat. Anything else is just giving Russia time to invade again. Appeasement was tried by the west and fully failed