Originally Posted by
NutLoose
I don't know, but can you see any other way of ending the conflict?, if Russia is allowed to retain those post 2014 lands then they will have the ability to relaunch an attack when they have suitably rearmed and at the time of their choosing. .....
A military victory with Ukranian's
"ejecting the Russian forces" seems far over the horizon: Mark Miley - chairman of Joint Chief of Staff said just a few days ago that it would be
"very, very difficult" for Ukraine to take back control of all occupied territory this year. Next year then? The year after? I don't think Ukraine will enjoy indefinite and unconditional support, so its in backers interest that the conflict ends quickly;
in timescales that may be incompatible with a military victory. And even if that eventuated, would it guarantee no future Russian aggression, or just continued low(er) intensity conflict around restored borders?
Another option is a obviously a negotiated settlement ... that isn't a Russian ruse to pause and rebuild. For a good-faith negotiation the core demands of one side have to materially change. Current prospects for that seem rather thin. Unless ....
.... there is a Russian implosion; social and/or economic, and with the "consent" of Putin's associate, who see more to gain from letting it pan-out than trying to stop it.
This last option is - IMHO - the most likely end to the conflict, as it
could meet the pre-conditions for that negotiated settlement mentioned above, depending on what the immediate post-Putin Russia looks like. Whether this could lead to Crimea returning to Ukranian control I have no idea. I do however think that
lasting peace will
only come with some security guarantees for Ukraine, if not NATO membership. But as always, trying to foresee politically driven decisions is a fools errand...