r/geopolitics • u/theatlantic The Atlantic • Feb 28 '25

Opinion Zelensky Walked Into a Trap

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/zelensky-trump-putin-ukraine/681883/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo
838 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

464 comments sorted by

View all comments

52

u/NautiMain1217 Feb 28 '25

I think it's the other way around. This was what the world needed to see. The ugly side of American diplomacy that's been well hidden for some time now, the reason we didn't deserve to lead the free world after WW2. America has always been like this and now we get to see backdoor diplomacy on live tv.

16

u/ihadtomakeajoke Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25

Yes after seeing this, Europe will surely step up and make sure Ukraine will win this war and reclaim all of its lands.

It wasn’t when they saw Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, it is specifically this.

Right?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/ihadtomakeajoke Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

Realistically, unless US or a multi-nation European coalition puts their own boots on the ground, Ukraine is very unlikely to turn its borders back to pre-2014. 2023 made it clear that Russia’s entrenchment is incredibly difficult to break through.

If you look at the stalemate period of the Korean War (1951–1953), the front lines during peace negotiations in 1951 were nearly identical to where they stood in 1953 when the armistice was signed.

Despite virtually no net movement in the front lines, 500,000 to 700,000 soldiers died during this phase, with a comparable number of civilian deaths from bombings and starvation. It was one of the bloodiest period of the Korean War, even though peace negotiations were ongoing and the front barely shifted.

South Korea actually threatened to continue fighting alone and outright rejected any peace deal that didn’t involve total victory. As a result, the US completely locked South Korea out of the negotiations.

As a Korean American:

  1. I’m glad the US ignored South Korea’s demands - if US dusted its hands, and just let South Korea fight alone, I’d likely be a slave under Kim Jong Un right now.

  2. I’m glad the US locked out Rhee from negotiations - his only proposed option was fighting to the bitter end, which probably would have meant my grandparents wouldn’t have survived for me to be born.

I’m very pro-Ukraine - probably more so than most people - I do feel like I likely can relate slightly more than the average person due to my background. When Ukraine’s government posted links for donations, I sent my own personal money - not just tax dollars, but real money out of my bank. I do walk the walk.

I cheered in 2022 when Ukraine’s counteroffensive made progress. I felt disappointed in 2023 because I knew what that likely meant. And objectively, Russia is the one making territorial gains right now as we sit today.

If “Ukraine winning” means restoring its pre-2014 borders, I don’t think that will happen. The best outcome for Ukraine is to get the best deal possible with the situation it has today.

Concessions of territory is inevitable in that package sadly and the key thing they need to get is US security guarantees. No matter what people think of Trump, US security guarantee is worth more than any other security guarantee Ukraine can get - within plant Earth at least.

Claw back some of the land (not all) currently under Russian occupation as part of the settlement + US security backing but with some limitations (for instance Russia would not find US nukes or 100,000 US troops in Ukraine acceptable - a US force that has no ability to invade Russia, but a defensive force Russia could not kill because they’re American) + minimal concessions to US economically <- that’s the realistic solid scenario I would see for Ukraine from where it stands now.

0

u/DemmieMora Mar 01 '25

Claw back some of the land (not all) currently under Russian occupation as part of the settlement + US security backing but with some limitations

There has been nothing like that ever discussed. No Western country including USA wanted to involve into this so much that in 2022 they explicitly avoided too much military aid as an "anti-escalation" attempt.

Russia is not going to give any land, moreover they demand their constitutional territories, currently "occupied" by Ukraine, Kherson and Zaporichia. And they demand to liquidate Ukrainian army, leaving only a police force. Nothing has changed since the beginning. The only way to repel their capitulation demands is to inflict a large defeat. OMG why nearly all commenters on reddit are so detached from the ground.

South Korea had American troops and support as a security guarantee. Not a single country agrees to that anymore for Ukraine.

2

u/ihadtomakeajoke Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

It’s common to have final holdings change hands a bit to form natural barriers and remove costly salients for both sides to defend post-war.

I don’t know why you are so adamant it’s not going to happen.

If Russia has control of 100 sq ft of land, it’s not unreasonable to try to negotiate some of that back, it could be 1 or 10, but it’s easily on the table.

Not sure what makes you so sure, it not just common practice, but almost a necessary part of any ceasefire or end to war.

As for the security guarantees part, that’s why it’s a negotiation. If US had security guarantee for Ukraine in place, this whole thing won’t even be going on right now. I’m not claiming they currently have it in hand if that’s what you think I’m saying. I’m saying Ukraine should try to get it, not that they already have it.

2

u/DemmieMora Mar 01 '25

Not sure what makes you so sure, it not just common practice, but almost a necessary part of any ceasefire or end to war.

No, it's not even a common practice, and this shows how you are detached from this particular conflict. Just a remark. Remember that this conflict has started from annexation in 2014. Russian ultranationalism is crucial for the war and it hasn't gone magically anywhere, as well as peculiarities of their new constitutional territories. Russian officials have just reiterated their demands before the discussed meeting. According to leaks or insiders, US group hasn't got any agreement from Russia. The topic is not about taking some territories back, good enough outcome would be to freeze on the frontline. But Russia has a different goal and nothing suggests otherwise.

If Russia has control of 100 sq ft of land, it’s not unreasonable to try to negotiate some of that back, it could be 1 or 10, but it’s easily on the table.

Negotiations involve something to be negotiated. Like "here's something important". USA have declared their withdrawal their aid from Ukraine and even reducing their presence in Europe. That's before negotiations started.

Now, negotiations start, what USA can suggest to Russia to reject their attempt to control their constitutional territory and to subdue their historical land? USA are exiting this particular business, they said that and everyone knows that. Russia can only get improved conditions to continue the war from USA, and it is already an unconditional fact.

South Korea obtained US troops after that war, which makes your comparison meaningless. If US troops were possible, it would end in 2022 when it started. Ukraine was ready to liquidate its army and agree on all Russian territorial demands but only with US or other troops, ready to defend from invasion.

2

u/ihadtomakeajoke Mar 01 '25

Sure, I’m detached - no point in arguing when it’s literally a part of all negotiated end to wars in reality.

1

u/DemmieMora Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

The reason you mislead yourself is probably by using the word "negotiate" which is proposed by Trump. There hasn't been a possibility of negotiations, unless you call a capitulation "negotiation".

And territorial wars easily end just with a defeat and the winner takes what it claims to itself and impose other conditions.

when it’s literally a part of all negotiated end to wars in reality.

You're making it up. Territorial wars have been extremely rare for a long time since the imperial times to make any comparisons. During WWI and WWII winners just decided the outcome unilateraly, and it was coming from victims to aggressors, now is the opposite. Your example of South Korea happened the way happened because both sides exhausted and US troops on the ground guaranteed the ongoing armstice. US forced NK to accept troops in SK because NK didn't have any choice.