Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Murtaza Hussain
@mazmhussain
JD Vance is a Ukraine-skeptic in the sense of opposing the prosecution of the war as presently conducted and with current goals; but he has also said recently that it would be against America’s interest if Russia were to march on Kyiv or a similarly extreme outcome. So in a different framing one can say that he actually has a moderate position on the subject. He would likely lean on Ukraine to accept a loss of territory in exchange for a ceasefire but he would not facilitate an outright defeat that resulted in the dissolution of the country.
6 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
To me the big question is sustainable peace vs three-year interlude before round 2 (really, round 3). The "peace" proposed in Apr 2022 would have Ukraine's own army reduced to a tiny size, *and* banned security agreements with other countries, which was clearly totally unreasonable. Ukraine needs conditions where they have a reliable guarantee of Russia not attacking again, and people can confidently invest in the country (both funds investing their money, and citizens investing their time by returning/staying) without fear it will all be erased - or else it has no way to get economic growth. Political incentives always lean toward the photogenic short term handshake and narrativizing away medium term issues as "not our problem now".
2 replies
0 recast
20 reactions
kkonrad from peanut
@kkonrad
without dismantling moscow, it's going to be chechnya 1991, georgia 2008 and ukraine 2014-2022 -> 2024 again and again and again. let's not be afraid to be maximalists when talking about peace
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
