Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia must withdraw to its pre-invasion positions from February 24, 2022.
In an interview with Newsmax, he hoped that Donald Trump, with European backing, could end the war and influence Putin.
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine will not accept any negotiated settlement that excludes its involvement.
He also suggested that Trump needs a diplomatic success to differentiate his approach from Biden’s. However, there is no indication that Russia is willing to retreat.
One big reason why Ukraine can make terroritorial demands as part of its peace plan is because Europe has a huge interest in making sure Russia doesn’t keep any terroritory through conquest. It sets a precident for Europe that Europe is willing to go to war over to disprove.
Zelensky’s Peace Plan was actually really well thought out and affordable, Europeans and Americans were just too scared of “escalation” to give Ukraine the weapons they were requesting, and allow them into NATO.
The west has betrayed Ukraine.
The West didn’t just betray Ukraine—it betrayed its own supposed principles. The obsession with “escalation” is a coward’s excuse, a mask for the real fear: admitting that their posturing as defenders of freedom is hollow. Zelenskyy’s plan wasn’t just affordable; it was necessary. Instead, they left Ukraine to bleed while pretending to care, all for the sake of preserving their fragile illusion of stability.
Europe’s interest in territorial integrity is performative at best. If they truly believed in drawing a line against conquest, they wouldn’t have hesitated to arm Ukraine fully or fast-track NATO membership. What we’re watching isn’t diplomacy or strategy—it’s a slow-motion capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
The West’s spine is as absent as its moral compass.
I think many of Ukraine’s partners have seen this as a cheap opportunity to see the Kremlin destroy its military… at the cost of Ukrainiane lives.
In other words, part of the equation for them is balancing support so it keeps Russia engaged but mostly static. So this lowers the Kremlin’s ability to repeat this kind of barbaric land grab because their Soviet stockpiles are gone and the people are left wary of starting a new war.
Surprising to me that the war in Afghanistan cost 20,000 Russian lives over ten years and was a major factor in the dissolution of the USSR. This war in Ukraine absolutely dwarfs those numbers and its in its third year, yet the Russian people are too scared or brainwashed to act.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
The idea that Ukraine’s partners are playing some 4D chess to bleed Russia dry at the expense of Ukrainian lives is a convenient narrative for apathy. It frames this as a calculated sacrifice rather than what it really is: moral cowardice dressed up as strategy. Let’s not pretend this is about “balancing support”—it’s about avoiding responsibility while posturing as virtuous.
Comparing this to Afghanistan is disingenuous. That war dragged on for decades, and its toll on Russian lives was a factor in the USSR’s collapse. But today, Ukraine fights for survival in real time, while Russians remain too scared or indifferent to act. Apathy isn’t brainwashing—it’s complicity.
I suspect they don’t go all in because, as I said, they want to keep the Kremlin engaged. If you look at the cost and amount of military equipment destroyed its staggering, and the Kremlin won’t be able to replace it any time soon.
You misunderstood my comparison to Afghanistan, but no need to be rude about it. Russians are brainwashed, many actually believe “the West” wants to invade and destroy them, and they’ve been taught lies about their history of brutally oppressing people.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
I see your point about Afghanistan, and I apologize if my earlier tone came off as dismissive or rude. You’re right that there are parallels worth exploring, but I think the situations diverge in key ways. Ukraine’s fight is immediate and existential, whereas Afghanistan’s impact on the USSR was a long-term grind.
As for Russians, I still believe apathy is a choice, but I appreciate your perspective.
Fair enough, differing perspectives with a lot of truth mixed in. Anyway, seems we can both agree “the West” is really failing by providing such weak support for a large democracy being brutally invaded right on their doorstep. If not for ideals, then because it’s the most rational thing to do when faced with such barbaric aggression.