After the war?
@Perun, it’s late here, I must go to bed, just on the conclusion.
You're not obliged to answer right away. This thread will still be here tomorrow, though whether we are depends in part on Putin.
We basically agree in the main point. The difference is that you treat the right of each country to decide its future as nearly sacred whereas I take a pragmatic approach. This is why I brought the examples of Greece and Cyprus to show that even for my interests I wouldn’t go that far in the name of those rights to provoke Cassius Beli with my neighbor, let alone a major nuclear power.
I understand why you would support a pragmatic approach, and in many cases I would agree. The problem here is that the casus belli is the very existence of Ukraine. Putin wants this country to cease to exist, and he has said so numerous times. Anything Ukraine does is a provocation for Russia. This is a situation that we cannot and must not accept.
Sure everyone has the right to poke the bear but I’m talking about consequences here. And I expect responsibility from each country. A nuclear war will affect us all, so must be careful no matter our rights (enter the example of 12 miles etc)
This is why I judge Ukraine’s behavior to constitutionally commit to joining NATO as reckless and therefore I rather support a different approach i.e. negotiations than full escalation.
As I said earlier, the constitutional amendment was passed when Ukraine was already under threat, and this was one of the only ways it could have saved itself from Russian aggression. As we saw, even this was not enough.
I hear a lot about negotiations, but I don't understand what these negotiations are supposed to be. Ukraine didn't ask for this war, but Russia invading the country and then saying Ukraine should negotiate is... you know, it doesn't make sense. As I said, Putin wants the country of Ukraine to cease to exist.
To use an analogy: If a guy points a gun at me to get my wallet, I would give it to him so he would spare my life. We could call that a negotiation. But if the guy points the gun with the sole intent to kill me, what is there to negotiate about? And that's what this is about. Putin doesn't want Crimea - he already has it - or two cities in the Donbas - else why would he have attacked Kiev? - but he wants the country of Ukraine. What is there for Ukraine to negotiate about?
If the negotiations you ask for are however between Russia and the western countries about the future of Ukraine, then you have proven my original point because this is imperialist behaviour.