He’s gone on multiple Pro-Putin screeds in the past, and said in the past Ukraine should just give up and let Russia have the land they previously seized in the war in the interest of ‘peace’.
He’s very, very far from neutral in this.
He’s very, very far from neutral in this.
Is it really that wild of a take though? The argument as a I understood it was, there's almost no progress being made for Ukraine in taking back that territory. Prolonging the war causes suffering to the young men who have to fight it. So exchange land for peace while still in a strong position instead of current policy of no peace unless a return to original borders.
I don't really see a realistic argument that a Ukrainian counterattack will recover that land.
Surely they'll settle for that, and never push their borders again.
But no one ever seems to propose that there's still a possibility Ukraine can retake that land. I would definitely like to hear it, but for the most part the border has very slowly been moving in the wrong direction.
They’ll retake it at the current pace, but it takes time.
Part of the reason why it isn’t discussed though is 1) Russia gets really freaked out about it, and 2) it’s (somewhat) in Western interests for Ukraine to not ‘win’.
The longer this drags out, the more fucked Russia is. (Also Ukraine long term, but eggs need to be broken to make an omelette!). And from a western perspective, this is a remarkably cheap proxy war.
If we don’t count the damage Russia is doing to us through propaganda and social media manipulation anyway.
Putin has one tactic and one tactic only. Double or nothing and push painful consequences down the road. Well, there is an end to this road and it is mighty foggy.