Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjfl | Hacker News Reader

That is a false premise. No one is negotiating complete surrender.

The entire point that Zelensky was making to Vance is that every instance of diplomacy Ukraine has had with Russia has been discarded when it's convenient by Russia. Trump wants what looks good on TV, which is a peace deal, but without any plan or security assurances Russia will simply invade again when they rebuild their army.

Ukraine needs to rebuild its army too, and would benefit more relative to Russia from a ceasefire, even if Russia reinvaded. You people are so wildly irrational.

That depends on what sanctions Russia remains under. If same as today, then Ukraine might benefit, otherwise probably not.

That's just not true, Russia is short on tanks, Ukraine is reaching artillery parity, and Ukraine has a permenant manpower crisis whereas Russia has deep reserves it can pull from for training if given time. Western countries would stop aid flows to Ukraine during a ceasefire while Russia would be free to rearm. A temp. ceasefire would not help Ukraine.

Moreover, why would Ukraine want to negotiate a temp ceasefire? If they can snag security guarantees they have better odds of a long term peace.

Fair and I agree with you, but do you agree that the only ways out of stalemate are ceasefire or west entering the conflict? Are you advocating for the west to enter the conflict?

No, I think the US should negotiate a ceasefire, signal more weapons aid to increase leverage on the peace deal terms, and then find a way to get Europe or the US to signal they will guarantee Ukraine's security. I don't think a transactional deal like the mineral deal is a bad idea, because it gives the US a stake and increases the credibility of their security deal, but Trump does not seem to care about actual lasting peace here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com