Do you support the views put forward by Sabina Higgins that Ukraine and Russia must negotiate

Why did deeper Mark? Why oh why? What I said in full. It related to one point she made about our own history and the GFA which I seen happen in 'my lifetime'.

Now go away. I won't be allowing you embarass yourself more.

Fook me...did you see where I said 'my lifetime'?

In my lifetime and my experience of the GFA she is bang on about ceasefires and negotiations.

And did you see where she didn't reference WW2 at all?

Have you actually read the letter? I suspect now you haven't.

We all would.

Russia knows this. But don’t care one iota.

That’s the simple truth.

What's your take on the end game and how long will it take?

Problem is if one side doesn't want to talk or will only do so in bad faith. Then pressure for negotiations is only undermining the innocent party. One thing about all those previous 'fruitless' rounds of talks though is that the Ukranians know all the ground and will twig very quickly if and when the Russians are genuinely up for a deal.

Yeah fair enough. I have a feeling we'll still be talking about it this time next year.

I don't know (if they can win). If they don't get enough support (both military, and non military) they won't, that is certain I fear.

One problem with idea of a negotiated peace "sooner the better" leaving the situation as it stands now is it seems naive to think the violence and terror just stops in occupied parts of Ukraine once the war ends with a ceasefire.

The statements of Putin, the Russian internal propaganda about the war, (and if you doubt both of these) the very brutal way the Russians have waged the war, and Russian military actions in the areas they have occupied suggest otherwise.

So while there might be "peace", it may be very ugly and there could be alot of repression + violence continuing in areas Russia has control over. That must be a consideration & the larger this area is + the more people caught in it the worse that problem is.

Storm in a teacup, I dont think she even thought about what the peace negotiations would entail (she likely didnt even consider issues like land being given up).

I dont support her, but I also dont support the hype about it.

When I got around to reading her letter I genuinely thought I wasnt reading the right thing or something because there was so little in it.

Of course people are in doubt because you've offered zero evidence, you're just making assertions as far as anyone can tell.

Even though you may be 100% correct why should anyone believe you and can you tell us where is your information coming from?

How do you know Ukraine are going to reconquer Kherson, Donetsk and Lukhansk? When (roughly) do you expect this to happen?

Fair enough. Getting far beyond the thread subject now but...

I (as unimportant Irish joe bloggs) don't know what the odds are of victory. If US, UK or other Western countries military & intelligence feel they have a good gauge of how weak Russia may be now, and how capable Ukraine's military will be of driving them back towards the borders they won't be saying in detail. 

I think the Western countries supporting Ukraine should trust them for the moment. They appear to want to fight, think they have a chance to win given right support. My feeling now is give them all logistical support (necessary weapons, aid etc.) as quickly as possible, put aside fears of Putin bringing out the doomsday weapons in anger over failure in Ukraine. Putin is the one who started this war, and then also escalated again by giving almost free reign to the Russian military in how they conduct it. If that calculus (Ukraine's political and military will to fight, the public opinion on continuing the war there etc) changes, then the Western approach to it should change.

On final paragraph I think now Putin/Russia have failed, and there has been the time to provide alot of help to Ukraine, US + UK and the EU countries have an awful lot at stake. If it ever looks like Russia is going to advance rapidly again (seems unlikely as it stands) and achieve more of Putin's original aims, they may have to intervene imo. Perhaps not to push Russia back and not from desire to engage them directly in Ukraine, but to save the Ukrainian govt. and ensure it retains sovereignty over at least some territory free of Russian occupation. So unless Putin is really a madman and decides to attack a US led "peace keeping"/"peace enforcing" force sent by several NATO countries in to unoccupied Ukraine, the war would end with a N. Korea/S. Korea type of standoff. This is imo a scary scenario to think about though, probably done enough of that for one day!

Ah, I don't think you're post is really straying. what you say is relevant to how we all think about this dreadful war, and you make good points, some of which haven't occurred to me till you put them down in black and white.

If I'm reading you right, its not up to us to decide whether Ukraine should continue its resistance, its up to us to support it for as long as is necessary - and its up to THEM to make the call. Which makes Ms Higgins' or my suggestions of capitulation/negotiation somewhat, shall we say, conceited. Can't really argue against that. My own feeling is that I cannot feel comfortable with sending young men into a meat grinder, even with God on our side. I realise that evil people will quite happily exploit that sentiment..... not sure what to add to it.