I’ll look through this in greater detail eventually, but the main things that jump out at on this post is the lack of engagement with two of the biggest issues at stake:
(1) Ukraine’s inability to join NATO so long as it has outstanding territorial disputes, and hence its susceptibility to future invasions and war crimes.
(2) Russia’s continued possession of Sevastopol and Crimea allowing it to threaten Black Sea shipping, blockade grain exports, and cause/threaten to cause global famine as political leverage as happened early last year.
These would likely be the determinative factors, along with the likelihood of the Crimeans being subject to abusive autocracy (improbable) or that nuclear war will result (highly improbable). Reasonable people can definitely disagree on how it all adds up on net, but I do think a comprehensive attempt to engage with the topic requires addressing (1) Ukraine’s top concern of future security, and (2) the absolutely critical issue of global famine.
(1) Ukraine’s inability to join NATO so long as it has outstanding territorial disputes, and hence its susceptibility to future invasions and war crimes.
I should have mentioned this, but it will only have an outstanding territorial dispute if it continues to claim sovereignty over Crimea, not if it makes a deal as described in the end section.
(2) Russia’s continued possession of Sevastopol and Crimea allowing it to threaten Black Sea shipping, blockade grain exports, and cause/threaten to cause global famine as political leverage as happened early last year.
To some extent this falls under the topic of weakening Russia. But making a peace deal with Russia would just as quickly solve this risk as taking Crimea, making this a reason to especially prioritize shortening the war. I didn’t mention it because it’s currently solved with a deal to allow the exports, and it presumably won’t be a problem in peacetime.
I’ll look through this in greater detail eventually, but the main things that jump out at on this post is the lack of engagement with two of the biggest issues at stake:
(1) Ukraine’s inability to join NATO so long as it has outstanding territorial disputes, and hence its susceptibility to future invasions and war crimes.
(2) Russia’s continued possession of Sevastopol and Crimea allowing it to threaten Black Sea shipping, blockade grain exports, and cause/threaten to cause global famine as political leverage as happened early last year.
These would likely be the determinative factors, along with the likelihood of the Crimeans being subject to abusive autocracy (improbable) or that nuclear war will result (highly improbable). Reasonable people can definitely disagree on how it all adds up on net, but I do think a comprehensive attempt to engage with the topic requires addressing (1) Ukraine’s top concern of future security, and (2) the absolutely critical issue of global famine.
I should have mentioned this, but it will only have an outstanding territorial dispute if it continues to claim sovereignty over Crimea, not if it makes a deal as described in the end section.
To some extent this falls under the topic of weakening Russia. But making a peace deal with Russia would just as quickly solve this risk as taking Crimea, making this a reason to especially prioritize shortening the war. I didn’t mention it because it’s currently solved with a deal to allow the exports, and it presumably won’t be a problem in peacetime.