If Ukraine just allowed Russia to overtake their government.... ?

I thought about this too. Put who wants to live under a Russian dictatorship. It would be basically giving up hope. Better to die free than die horrible under some dictatorship for doing something very minute.

These are the final few tweets from the end of a very long and very interesting thread from last week.

If the Ukrainians had just immediately submitted to the Russians they would have saved many lives but at a great cost to their collective spirit and the future of their nation.

"In what way would their surrender have compromised the future of the nation?".

The notion of pride in a noble and refusal to surrender defeat is hardly a new concept to you? Fortress Masada, Spartans at Thermopalae, Braveheart, GPO1916, General Custer etc.

It's quite likely that the events of this month become an equivalent signature event and source of pride in the future Ukraine, even if they ultimately lose badly.

If you're in the schoolyard and a bully threatens to beat you unless you give him your new pair of shoes. You can choose to fight probably still lose the shoes, but give the bully a bloody nose, or become the target of that bully, and every other bully forever, because he knows he can take what he wants at no cost to himself.

In order to rise above the idea that the strong can always take what they want, you need people brave enough to fight for freedom from real oppression.

Not everything can be be accounted for in ledgers and casualty lists. Humans are emotional creatures. We thrive on myths and legends. There's a reason why tyrants often try and avoid making martyrs out of opposition figures - it's not because of empathy, no. It's because they fear the emotional reaction that this would create in those who oppose them. The 1916 Rising didn't have much popular support in this country up until the point at which the British foolishly decided to execute the leaders. The rage that that created resulted in the War of Independence and ultimately the independence of the 26 counties several years later.

Ukraine may lose this war but they will not be defeated as a nation. Not after the way that they have fought. This will always be enemy ground for Russian soldiers.

Not only that but the images of the atrocities that they have carried are resulting in far more punitive sanctions than would have resulted if they had taken Ukraine without a shot being fired. For example, in the first few days the EU couldn't agree to cut the Russians off from SWIFT but the guilt and disgust in watching the brave Ukrainians get slaughtered meant that that opposition dropped away country by country.

Brand new profile with all their posts posting 100% pro Russian content. Not suspicious at all.

On the topic at hand, the Ukrainians know what's in store for them if they surrender. At best, half the country will be carved off and subsumed into Russia (with 99% approval in a sham referendum held under Russian control). The remainder of Ukraine will become a Russian controlled puppet state. Ukrainian military, civic and political leaders will be killed. The Russians will seek to crush any political alternatives to the Moscow line.

This isn't even some far fetched hypothetical, we can see it in Russia now. There's no freedom of speech. No freedom of protest. No political opposition. Any legitimate political threats to Putin are barred from election. If that doesn't work they are arrested and if that doesn't work they are killed.

This will be replicated in Ukraine. Any pro Ukrainian media will be shut down. Any political party with a pro-Ukrainian stance will be banned. The same population currently laying down their lives to fight the Russians will apparently have an abrupt change of heart and vote 100% for pro-Russian candidates because all pro-Ukrainian candidates will be barred from standing.

In the extremely unlikely event a pro-Ukrainian movement started in this new Ukrainian puppet state, you'll see the Russian army step up to prop up their pro-Russian leaders, just like we saw in Belarus in 2020 and Kazakhstan in 2022. It would guarantee that there will never again be an independent, sovereign Ukraine.

The Ukrainians know this; they see what Russia is like, hence their choice to move closer to the EU. That's why they are willing to fight and die against the invaders. They have no chance of avoiding Russian control if they surrender. However, if they keep fighting they have a slim chance of making it an intolerable cost to Russia. The longer they fight, the more the west will row in behind them and isolate Russia. The longer they fight, the less "legitimacy" the Russian occupation has and the greater the likelihood that people in Russia will tire of the war.

• you are a disgrace to the proud russians who are risking 15years in prison to offer an ACTUAL opposition voice
• you pale in comparison to real opposition to this disgraceful war
• you are a coward, not to stand up for human rights and self determination- you are a keyboard coward IMHO
• you convince no one,

My view on the worst case scenario -

whether the Ukraine becomes

• a satellite state (deJure independent, defacto Russian Satellite)
• Partitioned/divided up
• incorporated into Putins Russia (i will not refer to it as the Russian Federation anymore)

The result will be the same. The Ukraine will cease to be an independent state. I believe the wests response should be

• Deny recognition to any new Satellite puppet
• deny recognition to any change in the border
• refuse diplomatic recognition of any kind for said Satellite state
• remain on diplomatic terms with the Ukraine as it exists today (no handing over of embassies to any Russian Satellite regime in Kiev)
• Should Free Ukraine continue to exist within the territory of Ukraine Proper, we remain on full diplomatic terms with said site. Should it continue to exist as a government in exile, that is who we remain on terms with
• at this point i would suggest breaking diplomatic terms with Putins Russia. seemingly we are waiting/in line with the rest of the EU in terms of breaking off relations. I suspect this would be the moment to pull the plug (see link below, my old IR lecturer interviewed in DCU)

It should be noted that the amphibious landing component (hasnt taken place yet but predicted on sky news and other medium) - this is the component of this invasion which was flagged in the picture of Lukasheno pointing at a war map. And it is supposedly from this place, that an intervention into Transnistria will take place

I really am starting to believe that Lukashenko did in fact, release genuine Battle plans for the sake of a PR Photo Op - incompetence among the allies of ones enemies, is always a hopeful development.

Why is this entire discussion being framed around two options -> That the Ukrainian government uncompromisingly fight to the end to uphold the right to join Nato or 2) That the government, having failed in this bloody fight, are overtaken/overthrown/replaced by some pro-Russian administration?

I mean the wise path for Ukraine here is to enter negotiations, pursue a cautious neutrality and accept Russian demands to abandon Nato membership and recognise Russian claims to Crimea. The Ukrainian government would come out of this "intact", while not necessarily being some pro-Russian autocracy or puppet state. If they did this at this exact moment, they would save the country a hell of a lot of destruction and death while still maintaining the current governmental regime - rather than having to flee or be replaced by the said puppet state or military administration.

The thrust of the arguments on this war seem to revolve around Ukraine upholding the right for a country to do what it wants irrespective of the wishes of a bullying power next door, and that this should be upheld in an all or nothing battle with that power.

Thats not how the world works unfortunately. Leaders need to take into account a cost-benefit analysis. Ukraine has nothing to gain from being obliterated and fighting to join a military alliance it will not be able to join by virtue of the situation. It has everything to gain now by compromise.

Israel routinely bombs Syria. There is a reason why Syria does not pursue military retribution to uphold some right to not be bombed by this nation. Because the cost-benefit analysis says it is better off not taking military retribution, however wrong Israel's actions are, as the consequences would be far worse. This is real-politic. Something Zelensky does not seem to understand.

1) Could you give me examples of what cases you refer to where Russia invaded a country around them on "flimsy grounds"?

2) As to whether it is trustworthy or not. Russia's actions appear relatively predictable and based upon understandable cost-benefit analysis. One can see its reasoning for its actions. I dont see the reasoning for the current Ukrainian government to fight a futile war that will destroy its own country and ultimately force it to flee without achieving its proclaimed objectives of joining Nato. Ukraine and its government have the most to lose here and their cost benefit analysis does not seem to make any sense. Maybe you could explain it to me?

3) You see it strange that I say that the wise approach for Ukraine would be to remain neutral and end this war? Russia appears to have already offered such conditions for peace the day after the invasion.

4) The point of my example was that governments take a cost benefit analysis as to whether upholding certain rights when faced with a bullying power are worth it. Syria could invade the Golan heights and take what is rightfully theirs. They could launch a futile war with Israel because of the constant Israeli bombing of their country. They dont. Because the risk and consequences outweigh the potential benefits. Likewise, the risks for Ukraine fighting a war that will obliterate their country to join Nato appears nothing short of reckless decision making by their government.