Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death

A 'Treaty of Versailles' type solution is not a good idea for durable peace though, harsh reparations, despite any sense they might be 'fair', seldom lead to both countries returning to be prosperous democratic countries (and to be clear, neither is a capitulation by Ukraine - that would be seen by Putin as locking in its current gains, with no real incentive not to try again for more despite what the treaty might say).

The best outcome for everyone is if Russia ends up being a genuinely pluralistic democracy (i.e. anyone in Russia can have political views, and the public selects its leadership in free and fair elections). Then Ukraine can normalise relations with Russia, and Russia stops being a threat to democratic institutions across the world as a whole.

I think the best way of thinking about it is not that Ukraine has a Russia problem, but rather that Ukraine and Russia have an oligarch problem (with Putin chief amongst them). Therefore, in a fair world, the oligarchs, and not the Russian people, would pay. It is true that Russians (and indeed some Ukrainians in occupied regions) have been radicalised by the oligarchs, so some kind of deradicalisation would be needed even if the oligarchs disappeared.

Solutions that look to negotiate how to reduce corruption and authoritarianism in Russia from the top are therefore the most likely to succeed long term. Shorter term solutions could include a negotiated end to hostilities coupled with agreements for Ukraine to join a defensive alliance that the oligarchs wouldn't consider provoking - which could be followed up by a carrot approach to easing sanctions in exchange for progressive movements towards genuine Russian democracy. This might give oligarchs enough push to take off ramps to cash in what they have plundered already, and slowly be replaced by less corrupt alternatives going forward.

Recovery from oligarchy for Russia might also by costly for Russia though - essential assets plundered from the USSR are now in private hands through crony capitalism; the best solution would be for many of the major ones to go back to or be rebuilt under state ownership, under genuine democratic leadership. But that is likely easier said than done given the state of Russia.

Solutions that look to negotiate how to reduce corruption and authoritarianism in Russia from the top are therefore the most likely to succeed long term.
This may be true but the negotiations are with a dictator. It's not like Putin is going to step down so that the problem is resolved peacefully.
- Yep. The only way to make progress on that front is to serve Putin some polonium tea...
  
  That won't work, it's not just Putin doing this alone you know. You'd need a powerful (the most powerful, actually) faction inside the Russian state apparatus that want to just give up, and there's no real reason to think there is such a group. And no anti-war opposition has enough support to do a coup or win elections.
  No defeatist is getting into power. It's not going to happen unless Lenin rises from the dead.
  
  I bet if they had a real option, they'd love to stop sending their kids to die.
  Saying as much now gets you thrown in jail.
Socialism worked in Russia: it dragged hundreds of millions of people out of subsistence farming and turned the USSR into an economic powerhouse. Of course, the collapse of the USSR showed the failings of an aggressively socialist state, but the funny thing is that China already has the solution: a market-based economy with strong state control. Putin doesn't dare piss off the oligarchs though, so we're stuck with this crony bullshit.
- China's also showing the problem of that. The state control is too susceptible to corruption. That's how they have a whole industry if fake construction, fake goods etc... And why they're on the brink of a massive Construction bond related crash.
- | Socialism worked in Russia:
  Bullshit. Prosperity advanced much more in the west than in the Soviet Union, or anywhere in the soviet bloc. Corruption was rampant. Lying was rampant. People were miserable. Cultural genocide was the name of the game. Subjugated people hated it, and have fared significantly better since getting out. The only people who seem to be nostalgic about the USSR is the Russians, because they lost the ability to benefit from the slave labor of conquered vassal states.
  
  In what universe have corruption and lying not been rampant in "the west" over the last hundred years? Did you just pull this comment out of a book titled "Red Scare Propaganda?"
  
  Lol. Nice whataboutism. The USSR literally collapsed due to corruption.
  
  It shouldn't be surprising that prosperity advanced much more in the already advanced and industrialised west than in a former semi-feudal peasant economy country. The point is that that former semi-feudal peasant economy rose rapidly to become at least a perceived competitor to the west, even with the most destructive war ever waged on a large part of its most fertile and productive land.
  Also, corruption and lying? That isn't specific to the USSR. People are and were miserable in the west too, cultural genocide was and is happening in the west too. Comparing like for like, socialism worked well for the USSR. It was able to heavily industrialise, house populations, create a space program and compete with the USA on the international stage.
  
  | It shouldn’t be surprising that prosperity advanced much more in the already advanced and industrialised west than in a former semi-feudal peasant economy country.
  If the Russians wanted to industrialize, then good for them. But they did it off the back of the slave labor of other countries obtained through violent conquest.
  Many European countries were decimated in the aftermath of WWII, not just Russia. West Germany, case in point. The West Germans had it significantly better than the East Germans under socialism. France had it better than Poland under socialism. etc... Socialism made peoples lives miserable.
  To whit: 85% of Poles think positively of the change to a multiparty system and market economy. 85% and 83% (respectively) of East Germans. 82% and 76% of Czechs. 70% and 69% of Lithuanians. 74% and 71% of Slovaks. The only people who see it as a negative are the Russians. Go figure.
  | Also, corruption and lying? That isn’t specific to the USSR.
  True, but I never claimed it was. It's about degree. I've heard first hand stories from former soviet residents of how the only way to get a doctor to treat you with anything more than an asprin was to bribe them. That's an absolutely fucked level of corruption. The idea that that sort of corruption existed in the west at the same time is laughable.
  | People are and were miserable in the west too.
  Claiming that there are some miserable people in the west misses the point. There are miserable people everywhere, but what % of the population are they?
  Research (you know, data), shows that people in South Eastern Europe, Central Eastern Europe and the Baltic states are significantly happier than they were at the fall of the USSR. The only region where this is not true for all countries in the region is the former CIS, which surprise, surprise, includes Russia.
  | cultural genocide was and is happening in the west too
  Where? Show me a country in the west where your mother tongue is banned? Show me a country in the west where you can be sent to prison for practicing your cultural rituals (assuming you aren't hurting others ofc)? Don't compare the mixing of cultures due to increased levels of mobility and the internet to Russiafication, because that's bullshit.
  | socialism worked well for the USSR. It was able to heavily industrialize, house populations, create a space program and compete with the USA on the international stage.
  Socialism worked well for a small number of people and only compared to the rest of the soviet bloc. Gorbechev ordered his motorcade to stop at some random small supermarket in the USA to see what it was really like and was initially convinced it was some elaborate CIA setup because he couldn't believe that the average American had access to a wider range of high quality produce than the party elite in the USSR. American's weren't special in that regard. Everyone in the west had the same. Occupied countries would have been just fine with industrialization and housing their populations. All the USSR did from your list was create a space program which did almost nothing for the average person of the USSR, and it was so inept that Vladimir Komarov insisted on an open-casket funeral to force the point.
  
  Ok, so the West Germans and France, who received economic aid from the US who wasn't ravaged by war, fared better economically than those countries being supported by the Nazi devastated USSR.
  I've heard first hand accounts from people from the west who talk about the only way to avoid disproportionate targeting by police and other state actors was to be not black or other minority. Not to mention the institutionalised corruption of over the top corporate lobbying. That's an absolutely fucked level of corruption too.
  Of course people are happier now than at the fall of the USSR. The collapse of a nation has a massive and in this case negative instant impact on people's lives. The fact that things if gone up from there is not surprising.
  Black people and Native Americans are still dealing with past and current displacement and discrimination, including a push to eliminate their culture and language. Canada is currently dealing with the results of their very recent genocidal attempts on their First Nations people.
  That 'only a small number of people's argument really doesn't wash when you factor in the alternative that is capitalism. The very system that is increasing inequality faster and faster since the fall of its former main ideological enemy. It's true that light industry in the Soviet Union was underdeveloped, people didn't have as much choice in things like food products or consumer goods, but they were building from a completely different set of conditions. The ability of the west to produce so much that then gets wasted while still having starving, homeless, and undereducated people living in it is not a ringing endorsement of the system.
  
  | Ok, so the West Germans and France, who received economic aid from the US who wasn’t ravaged by war, fared better economically than those countries being supported by the Nazi devastated USSR.
  You seem to have forgotten that the point that I am disputing is that socialism worked in the USSR. The USSR was offered aid (the Marshall Plan) but refused it. That's on socialism.
  The simple truth is that the USSR failed its citizens. Non-russian slave nations would have been much better off being autonomous and free to pursue their own ideals and prosperity. Ethnic Russians....well who knows. It's a messed up culture and that's hard to break free from, but you could imagine a timeline where they dumped the idea that grinding others under your boot heel was the way to success.
  | I’ve heard first hand accounts from people from the west who talk about the only way to avoid disproportionate targeting by police and other state actors was to be not black or other minority. Not to mention the institutionalised corruption of over the top corporate lobbying. That’s an absolutely fucked level of corruption too.
  This is whataboutism and actually supports my point. Which was, again, was that socialism did not work in the USSR. If the west had all that 'fucked up level of corruption too', then it still out-performed socialism on pretty much all metrics. But regardless, selecting a disadvantaged minority in one country and then trying to create a false equivalence to the majority in the USSR is exactly that, a false equivalence.
  | Of course people are happier now than at the fall of the USSR. The collapse of a nation has a massive and in this case negative instant impact on people’s lives. The fact that things if gone up from there is not surprising.
  Oh, they were unhappy then! I have family who lived through it, and they HATED being part of the USSR. It was a miserable time of poverty, fear and suffering for them. The USSR was an authoritarian, totalitarian, one-party, state that had Orwellian propaganda, a cult of personality and in which the Russian ethic group had an overbearing sense of racial superiority. The state also carried out repression, torture and purges on scales that were genocidal. All of these traits are common with fascism, but the Russians claim to be anti-fascist. It's odd.
  Non-russians much prefer being free and out from the Russian fascist boot heel.
  | Black people and Native Americans are still dealing with past and current displacement and discrimination, including a push to eliminate their culture and language. Canada is currently dealing with the results of their very recent genocidal attempts on their First Nations people.
  I never claimed that other countries were perfect, I just did a comparison and found the USSR to be severely wanting in terms of whether it worked. I think it's a good thing that First Nations people are finally getting their language, culture and rights recognised and respected. Maybe Russia could contemplate doing the same and leaving the Ukrainians alone; as opposed to, for example, the Russian man who recently THREW A 10 YEAR OLD UKRAINIAN CHILD OFF A BRIDGE for speaking Ukrainian in Germany.
  | That 'only a small number of people’s argument really doesn’t wash when you factor in the alternative that is capitalism. The very system that is increasing inequality faster and faster since the fall of its former main ideological enemy. It’s true that light industry in the Soviet Union was underdeveloped, people didn’t have as much choice in things like food products or consumer goods, but they were building from a completely different set of conditions. The ability of the west to produce so much that then gets wasted while still having starving, homeless, and undereducated people living in it is not a ringing endorsement of the system.
  I'm not claiming capitalism is perfect, far from it and I think the USA goes too way far the other way. But the point (again!) is that Socialism did not work in the USSR. People suffered, literally starved by the millions, and did not have autonomy, the freedom to speak either their language or their thoughts. People were abducted by the state never to be seen or heard of again, connections to community and land were broken, and countries other than russia were worse off than if they had been free to pursue their own path under a democratically elected government.
  If you want to see a state where socialism has worked, look at Norway, not Russia.
  
  I appreciate your in depth responses, but I think we are talking past each other or perhaps differing on the understanding of our points. I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.
  The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel. It was not perfect, just as the USA is not perfect. However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.
  The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.
  I also differ in the opinion of whether Norway is socialist. I do not see it as such, instead I see it as a capitalist system with better welfare than some other states.
  
  I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.
  It's not about absence or presence of these failings, it's about the degree of them, and socialism (USSR style) has very serious levels of these failings. Western societies have failings too, but on balance, and on average, they represent a better outcome for the citizens.
  | The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel.
  It's not just about lack of products or the ability to have a holiday in France, it's about the freedom to disagree, the freedom to express your ideas, beliefs and ideals in whatever language you want, or through whatever culture you want, and to expect fairness from those around you. The USSR failed in this and killed, imprisoned or tortured those who did not comply with often toxic cultural norms. It was traumatic for those who had to live through it.
  | However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.
  Russia may have been a backwater of Europe, but other countries it conquered were flourishing and prospering nations (WWII damage notwithstanding). Just look at what those states have achieved since being freed from the USSR. The USSR wasn't some rising tide, it was a huge deadweight on the peoples conquered by the russians. The rush to join NATO demonstrates this. They weren't forced or tricked into joining NATO, they WANTED to join NATO. Think about why that might be? It's because they saw the USSR as such a horrific, traumatic period that they never wanted to be forced to participate in anything like it again. Ever. Period.
  | The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.
  It may have lifted the standards of living for peasant russians further than they might. have otherwise expected, but vassal states were actually held back by the USSR. I'm old enough to remember the USSR, which I suspect you are not. I've spoken with family who were forced to live in the USSR. They disagree with your perspective. Vehemently.
  
  Ok, I appreciate you taking the time to respond throughout this whole conversation. I think we disagree on a fundamental level about what difference socialism made to the former Russian Empire when taking into account the conditions of the country. I also think we disagree on how repressive western culture could and can be, and how damaging it can be to those who are not near the top of the pile, or to those who dare to challenge the status quo in any meaningful way, such as whistle blowers or groups like the Black Panthers.
  I don't feel that newly independent countries rushing to join a stable alliance straight after the political collapse of their former country is that shocking, especially when paired with the fact that the majority of people within the Soviet Union voted to keep it intact in a referendum before the dissolution. Russia also wanted to join NATO, that doesn't mean the USSR wouldn't have been the better option for them.
- Yeah China had the answer. 🙄
  Oppression of ethnic minorities, complete disregard for culture and individualism, zero tolerance for criticism and challenge, absolutely authority by a select few to do as they please.
  Yeah that's fucking tankie logic for you. Fuck off bootlicker. We don't want authoritative commie dictatorships. If you want it, FUCKING MOVE THERE.
  
  Is the "commie" in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.
  
  This guy is commenting all over this thread with low key support of the CCP, USSR and the Putin thug regime.
  So don't tell me it is unhinged anger. This guy is a tankie shill and a dirtbag who supports genocidal maniacs.
Ukraine itself is not a "genuinely pluralistic democracy" despite appearances, it's almost as corrupt and authoritarian as Russia.
It's not the case where only Russia has to become more democratic cause democracies usually don't fight each other.
But for Russia to stop being a threat it's sufficient to just lose this war finally. It won't recover its ability to attack anyone anytime soon, and when it will, the process of recovery itself is going to naturally ensure that it's not interested in attacking Ukraine.
So yes, you are right about oligarchs and the general structure of the societies.
Essential assets you are talking about are what exactly? If you mean factories and plants, then actual equipment in most of them was obsolete even in 1991, and through the 90s and 00s has mostly been scrapped.
There are some remaining and even functioning, yes, but whether state ownership is going to prevent those from slowly crumbling due to growing obsolescence, irrelevance and lack of expertise, I'm not sure.
Basically industrial capacities are something to be created from scratch mostly.
- But for Russia to stop being a threat it's sufficient to just lose this war finally
  What would be the definition of "losing" in this case? Countries tend use all the weapons at their disposal in order not to "lose", in the case of Russia that would include its nuclear arsenal.
  Sounds like a better outcome for everyone would be for Russia to get a civil war, and just "forget" about Ukraine.
  
  All weapons which make sense for Russia's leadership. Nukes are not that, they want to still rule over something when this ends.
  Chemical weapons are possible, I think.
  
  If we go far enough up the command chain, there are fallout shelters and ~~slaves~~ subordinates to rule over.
  But you're right, chemical and biological are likely lower on the "let's fuck every treaty" scale.
  
  I suspect they are getting second thoughts there about those fallout shelters and how different they are from wow hypersonic missiles and wow radioelectronic warfare and other kinds of wow they considered real.

And Russia Surrenders a 10km deep strip of its own land around Ukraine to act as a DMZ.

With what military do you plan on using to support this?

And a 3rd party enforced DMZ on the border.

If only you also were in the position to dictate this to Russia. Even the US isn't in this position, and will never be.

Give the native Americans back their territory. Nothing less.

I'm not sure Putin has any say in that, but I like the spirit!
Fucking whataboutism, how pathetic are you?
Just because something happened in the past doesn't excuse it in the present or future.
You filthy fucking tankie parasite.

do you live there

In what fantasy land do you think this is remotely achievable? Seriously? Do the lives of Ukrainians fighting and being caught in this conflict mean this little to you, that you are willing to accept continuation of fighting?

Ukraine surrendering is evidently not happening either. Given that Russia is indisputably in the wrong, maybe that's the side we should put pressure on. Just a thought.
- Put pressure we do, rest assured.
  But, just objectively, what's the endgame here? I saw a lot of people shit on Russian opposition for not stopping Putin. But, what can Ukraine and the entire world that supports it do? Russian state's position is simple, it wants Donbas and Luhansk IN Ukraine (=take over it) or there would not be Ukraine at all. What's the move here? Just supplying Ukraine with weapons won't do. Accepting Ukraine into NATO is impossible. Going all NATO against Russia is suicidal. Real talk, get some ideas, and quick, on how to get more troops on Ukrainian soil, and make them real. The comments just shitting on Russia and chanting the same words on twitter won't help - we've tried already.
- It's going to happen eventually, as they're going to run out of recruits before the Russians do. This is like playing a game of chess to the bitter end, only the pieces are real human beings. Hundreds of thousands of them.
  
  We don't live in a "1 soldier = 1 soldier" world, haven't for several millennia actually. There are weapons that multiply lethality by different amounts on both sides, so it's more of a question of who gets the better gadgets and manages to use them in better strategies.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe
  
  Except, at the end of the day, someone runs out of soldiers. If Ukraine keeps wasting resources in a futile counteroffensive, it's going to be Ukraine. Military doctrine going back centuries has told us that defending is far easier if your technological capability is even marginally close to equivalent.
  
  Ukraine is getting fully functional F-16s, Russia has already shown that they tape down Garmin GPSs to their fighter jet dashboards. That's... not "marginally close".
  Maybe Ukraine should regroup and stay on the defensive in the meantime, but I wouldn't bet on Russia in 2024.
  
  Except... It sort of is? GPS was first launched in 1978 (oh look, the year the F-16 was introduced). The F-16 is an ancient platform and Ukraine has already shown that CAS is rather challenging given how advanced modern munitions are. At the start of the war they were literally plucking planes out of the sky.
  Plus, NATO doctrine relies on complete battlefield superiority and complex logistics... Things that Ukraine lacks. How exactly is Ukraine supposed to turn the tides with F-16s when the Russians have stealth planes and hundreds of Su-35/34/30s?
  
  It's not about how old is the platform, it's about what you put into it. Is the F-35 still randomly rebooting mid flight? The F-16 hasn't had that problem for decades, and it can run modern hardware just fine.
  Stealth planes are irrelevant in a dogfight, or in defending ground assets, and all those Su-* have been shown to be lacking proper maintenance for decades. We'll see how they manage against a fully operational and updated bunch of F-16s.
  
  Dogfights are an outdated paradigm.
  If an Su-57 picks up your radar signature and gets a lock, you better pray to your countermeasures suite because you're not even going to get a glimpse of it. That's literally the entire modern US fighter paradigm.
  
  You're supporting my point: those F-16s are going to have the latest countermeasure suit.
  It doesn't matter how "invisible" is the plane (Ukraine already downed a Russian Su-57) or how "hypersonic" is the missile it launches (Ukrainian ground countermeasures are also taking care of those), what matters is whether it can hit you or not.
  A bunch of "old" F-16s equipped with the latest stuff, plus some decent ground support... we'll see how it goes, but since Russia hasn't been able to establish air superiority over Ukraine in all this time, with a little push Ukraine likely will.
  
  Why would the hastily trained Ukrainian recruits be any better than the Russian ones? Ukraine looks to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, since they're now also conscripting HIV positive and mentally ill men. It also looks like Ukraine has higher losses, especially now with the offensive, meaning that over time more experienced Russian soldiers are going to be fighting Ukrainian fresh recruits.
  Russia also has more equipment and ammunition. And don't start talking about quality: Most of the stuff that was sent to Ukraine is old stuff, and Russia also has a mix of old and new stuff. Even when you compare the numbers of roughly equivalent types of weapons, Russia comes out ahead in pretty much every category.
  These stories about the superior NATO weapons, superior NATO training and whatnot are propaganda. There are warhawks that use this story to dismiss the obvious quantitative difference, bigots that love to believe in Russian inferiority and incompetence, and weapons manufacturers trying to advertise their Wunderwaffen. It's all bunch of crap.
Of course, it's a grad user saying this bullshit. The end of fighting means Ruzzia has won. They captured territory, killed tens of thousands, raped women and children alike and you want them to get away with it. It's not about peace, because Ruzzia will never want piece. All it wants is subjugation of those they deem inferior. This conflict wont end if you end fighting. They will simply regroup and attack in a few years again. If you think ending the fight will end the war you are fucking delusional.
When you make an emotional plea like that, not based in reality, I think of when I was living with my aunt and uncle, and my aunt was so upset I was angering my uncle by not giving in to him.
He was going to abuse us regardless of what we did, I'd been in the situation for a few years by then and saw the patterns, and when you're in that situation and understand the history of how that individual acts, you don't fling yourself at the abuser's feet once again...you fight.
I fought and got free. Got bruises and my hair ripped out of my head for it...but I got out. My aunt put up with a few more years of abuse because she wasn't willing to put up with that bit, the dangerous bit when he popped off when someone defied him.
The situation in Ukraine is (writ large of course) similar to the dynamics of what goes on in an abusive home. The stakes are higher--more lives lost--but the dynamics underneath are still human dynamics. Which needs to be understood when it comes to negotiation and "civility" and such. It all comes back to the nature of the human animal.
You have a lying abuser at top (Russia) who tries to divert attention by tugging on heartstrings with pretty words while they are placing the blame for the war on the victims who "just won't stop fighting--don't they want to stop getting hurt?" as if fighting someone who is already hurting you is abusive, as if fighting back against them is irrational.
You don't play around with idealism with these people, because they've already shown they are not willing to hold up their side of that social contract. (Although they are cunning and know using it on YOU might get you to do things against your own interest.) It's NOT a given that stopping fighting will stop the loss of lives, that the abusers will keep their word once they've given it--with the Wagner dude as an example, who stopped what he was doing presumably because he was given promises if he did stop, then was blown up in an airplane shortly after.
Being civil only works if the other person is also being civil. When they're not, other methods of dealing with a threat have to be taken. In an individual home, like my situation, I was lucky enough that simply leaving was enough. It was wildly "uncivil"--everyone gets super upset when you say you ran away from home or don't talk to family...but it was effective to change the situation I was in. I didn't need to be violent myself, just physically remove myself.
Nations, unfortunately, can't pick up their borders and walk away to a place where their neighbors can't reach them, they are by their nature very land-bound. So you get war instead, when civility--diplomacy--doesn't get the result needed. (Just like talking to my uncle wouldn't stop him from doing things, it'd only cause more trouble because he'd get even angrier that you're "back talking" and not giving in.)
BTW, I'm not really responding to this guy, I doubt they'll read or understand what I'm saying as the wringing fingers appeasement is an emotional ploy meant to get people to stop thinking and start crying inside.
Even if he's real I'd be surprised if he understood. My aunt never did understand my point when I tried to explain what was wrong in our situation. There's a reason it takes X amount of years and X amount of tries for abused spouses to get free.
I hope this is interesting enough for lurkers, though.
- it is possible to understand something without agreeing with it
  with all due respect, using domestic abuse to explain geopolitical events is not a useful analytical approach
- wringing fingers appeasement is an emotional ploy meant to get people to stop thinking and start crying inside.
  Do you think it was acceptable for Texas to fight a war of independence against Mexico to join the U.S.?
  If so, why isn’t it acceptable for the Donbas to fight a war of independence against Ukraine to join Russia?
  
  If so, why isn’t it acceptable for the Donbas to fight a war of independence against Ukraine to join Russia?
  Is that what you think this current conflict is?
  
  Why shouldn’t I? Don’t the people want to join Russia?
  
  I'm pretty sure Ukrainians being bombed have no interest in joining Russia.
  
  You mean the Ukrainians that Ukraine was bombing before Russia even got involved at all?
  
  I mean the Ukrainians being bombed by Russia. I assume you're aware that thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russia.
  The problem you have with the Donbas genocide narrative is that, even if true, it doesn't justify an invasion, killing even more people.
  Why a supposed communist would even want to justify Russia's actions in this conflict remains a complete fucking mystery.
  
  Putin flooded the Donbas with Russian-born citizens and thousands of the Ukrainian citizens evacuated Donbas, so the elections were always going to be in Russia's favor, just a sham vote that most of the world laughed off, now we see new voting taking place, and again we already know the winner, I just wish the bookies were giving odds.
  
  Wait, you're telling me demographics change over time? No way!
  You've described a failing of democracy, but not of the result. Democracy is susceptible to the people and thus, like Bitcoin, is susceptible to a 50% attack. That doesn't make the election null and void unless you're arguing that democracy in general is a flawed concept in any country with open immigration.
- Ah yes, because geopolitics is basically child abuse.
It's not them dying, so why would you expect them to care?
- Maybe they do care? Maybe they realize agreeing to terms that give land to Russia means they will be back to take more?
  
  They only care enough to send more Ukrainians to die, I guess...
  
  Are you intentionally ignoring the point?
- Wine cave warriors love their murderous state department line of thinking don't they?

How? Ukraine's made like a few square kilometers of progress with hundreds of billions of dollars of funding while Russia has just fallen back from their low ground territorial gains to the more easily defensible high ground.

What leverage does Ukraine even have for those demands?

Russia's monetary system is in collapse and its economy is in free fall... the war took up 45% of its budget last year, its foreign exchange reserves have long since run dry and its first defensive line is slowly crumbling.
If it ends up being a war of endurance, Russia's going to be in a far worse position in a year than they are now.
- Russia's manufacturing PMI is at, what, 55.9 this month? In fact, the Russian Bank is literally worried about higher than expected inflation because their economic output has been too high.
  And of course, by slowly crumbling you mean that one salient near Robotyne? The one that's known to be in a region of low ground surrounded by defences on high ground? That line?
  Fact is, so long as India can keep buying Russian oil at whatever price OPEC dictates, Russia can keep financing the war. A lot of Russian industries can function entirely domestically (and thus don't really stress foreign exchange reserves) - the main limiting factor I'd expect is high-tech electronics coming from India and China. Russia's war economy has been remarkably resilient given the circumstances.
The reason for those small gains instead of hard ones is largely air support. The fighting on the ground is very reminiscent of world war I. That is not a good thing. They may seem like modest gains but in terms of that type of warfare they are pretty huge gains. The problem is that without air support it is going to be a long hard battle.
All that said, it is Ukraine's territory. Russia could pack up and leave at any time.
- How is Ukraine ever going to get air superiority? The West is basically trickle-feeding then equipment.
  
  Yes, that is exactly what I implied.

Okay then the war would go on and on until your government collapsed. A peace agreement is actually good here given that they just showed they were unable to reclaim much land with their counter offensive.

They've shown no such thing. Stop believing everything you hear in the media.
- I'm literally basing this on bloodthirsty weapon manufacturer adjacent media, who's interests are unaligned with saying things are going badly. Even they are getting cold feet on the war, or saying there never was an offensive or the offensive hasn't really started yet.