P.S. I'm a Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

For Russia, no. For Putin specifically, maybe. Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Putin is in a position where backtracking is difficult and dangerous, so he probably won't until things become completely untenable.

For Ukraine it's very worth it because they're fighting for their own existence.

> Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction?

At this point, I do. Formerly, I'd tend towards "no", but I changed my mind. My reasoning:

* The war has already started. Crimea has a very strategic place in it, and a vulnerability for Ukraine.

* Strategically it's very desirable for Ukraine to own it, as well as for its allies.

* Strategically it hurts Russia a lot to lose it.

* From the long term point of view I think it's good for Russia to lose something significant in the conflict. It changes the calculus. Trying to take over Ukraine not only won't succeed, but will put them in a situation worse than before, and that hopefully is an additional reason to avoid a repeat. Russia can tolerate losing soldiers, tolerating losing a chunk of themselves is harder.

> It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace,

I don't think a compromise is really possible at this point. It might have been a possibility in the past, but it's too late.

Judging by how bad the inflation and energy poverty is in the West, as well as the continued loss of ground and billions in Western funds in this war whilst the ruble stays strong, I don't have the same optimism whatsoever.

But personally I don't mind that much, it's long been time for us to wean ourselves off gas and oil. It'll hurt a bit, but will be a huge benefit on the long term.

Wait, so are they just protecting Russian-speaking people of the east from bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis or they are waging aggressive war with intention to topple Ukrainian government and annex significant portion of Ukraine outside eastern regions and Crimea?

> But do you think this conflict is worth it?

Worth it for whom?

> Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea?

AFAIK returning to status quo of pre-Feb 24 was proposed multiple times by Ukrainian side. That would imply Russia retaining control over Crimea indefinitely. You make it sound like Ukraine attacked Crimea first and Russia is just defending or something.

> Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction?

Of course not! I would prefer Russians to just pack their bags, leave and happily continue selling resources to Europe! They could even invite Angela Merkel to Gazprom board for bonus points!

> It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace

Ukrainian side offered peace with concessions multiple times (including neutral status, which is another usual bogeyman of Russian propaganda "we are just afraid of NATO nuking us from Ukrainian territory!"), but Russia didn't want to have any of that. It is almost like Russia is actually interested in something else besides securing oppressed Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and ensuring that no evil NATO nukes are installed on Ukrainian territory...

If they considered it illegitimate, why did they sign a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity?

The answer is because at the time Ukraine was controlled by Russian stooges, and as long as Russia had control of Ukrainian politics it was all fine. What they couldn't stand is the idea of a genuinely free democratic Ukraine sat right next to an oppressive and kleptocratic Russia. The Russian regime sees all of Ukraine as their back yard, every last square inch of it. They have even said so many, many times. Putin wrote an essay about how Ukrainian sovereignty is "only possible in partnership with Russia", and if you think he means anything like an equal partnership I can't help you. Crimea and the Donbas are excuses, they're a foot in the door to Ukraine as a whole.

But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR).

Why can't we just be neutral? We didn't do this for Georgia's claim in Ossetia or Armenia's claim with Azerbaijan (both similar scenarios), or the Iraq-Iran war, etc.

Very weird to say those things

- Inflation isn't just caused by the invasion.

- Inflation is at ~9%, not enough for 25% purchasing power loss.

- The conflict has a lot of things to do with Europe. Since when is Ukraine not an european country? Even if you mean just the EU, both Ukraine and Russia border several EU countries, and Russia has threatened some of them.

- "Remaining neutral" doesn't mean "free of consequences".

That's a massive loss in purchasing power considering most things are sold in USD (including oil).

We didn't intervene in Armenia or Georgia, there's not much difference here.

Since the gulf war the west has become averse to foreign adventurism. I understand that and why, but it's misconceived. Washing our hands of the rest of the world and letting countries like Iran and Russia (and Iraq under Saddam Hussein) do whatever they like doesn't work. It comes back to bite us every single time.

Even if we say it's not our problem, it's not our responsibility, it always comes back and hurts us and our direct economic, political and humanitarian interests again and again. It leads to things like the rape of Kuwait and 9/11.

Being fully engaged internationally is expensive in money and lives, it's messy, it's morally compromising. It's also unavoidable. We are part of the world and can't deny responsibility for playing our part in it. Or rather we can, but at a heavy price to ourselves and others.

Intervened on which side in Georgia? That Georgian government was absolutely terrible, putting dissidents in prison, firing on protests, etc. - just because they're anti-Russia doesn't make them good.

We should just try to live in peace and focus on our own nations and stop making enemies.

I'm in no way supporting or justifying the Georgian government at the time, we shouldn't have been tolerating that either. The point is what happens in these places matters to us. It affects us, whether we like it or not.

>Why is it our responsibility?

Because we are moral beings that live in the world, we benefit from the things that world provides to us, and therefore have responsibility for the state of the world we live in.

Take your neutrality and what-abouts and stuff them.

I'd also recommend you to be careful with predictions on the outcome of wars.

This is so wrong. Where do you think all the disinformation comes from? The rise of far-right parties across Europe. The attacks on democracy. Putin has been waging war against us (albeit a new kind of war) for many years. It is time to fight back if we value democracy at all.

Disclaimer: Western troubles are features of capitalism, they provide the fuel, even if Putin is the one to throw the cigarette butt.

And of course the far-right existed before Putin.

But he is the head of a mafia organization that controls the world's largest supply of natural gas. So I think funding a few right-wing grifters/useful idiots like Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage is within their capabilities.

"a quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing.”

I think we all know how that ended up.

Come now, how can you say that?

After the fall of the USSR, Europe willingly got into bed with the 'new' Russia because it saw an opportunistic economic advantage to do so.

Even back then it was a gamble for Europe to put too many of its eggs into that Russian basket and now it is paying the price. ...And a hefty one at that.

Errors of the past are not a good way to go further.

Lack of any defense for Georgia was very sad (similarly for Chechnya, but Russians might look at it a bit more angry). Fortunatelly Ukraine is to close to EU borders to be ignored and handed over to Russian war mongering.

For someone who is not pro-Russian, you're performing a remarkably good impression of someone who is pro-Russian, mr "Coup".

Russia has no moral or any other claim over Crimea. Their actions in starving millions of people to death in Crimea in the 20s, the ethnic cleansing by evicting Tartars and Cosacks, replacing them with Russians - these all go to the long term drive of Russian imperial ambitions in the area.

Putin tried to take the whole of Ukraine and has tried several times to assasinate Zelensky, just like he has assasinated many others (and tried but failed to assassinate a previous Ukrainian president with poison).

The internal politics of Ukraine are just a pretext that Putin is using to realize his ambitions. They are not a reason in any way for the war crimes and attrocities he has committed.

Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region.

Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was weak and disorganization so puting took advantage then.

Wow, just wow. And how exactly were they supposed to do that?

The unity government was declared on 24th February and was formally convened on 27th February 2014.

How long did Russia wait to see if the new government would accept regional referendums?

Well, Russian forces seized control of key strategic sites across Crimea on, er, 27th February 2014. The same day the new government formed. The idea that genuine free and fair regional referendums were ever an option, or even something Russia had any interest in pursuing or allowing whatsoever, is pure fiction.

Suppose the regions did hold referendums and chose to stay part of Ukraine, do you think that would have been the end of it? Russia would have just backed off and respected Ukrainian sovereignty? That's just not how the Russian leadership thinks. Putin had no interest in allowing even the possibility of any such thing.

Peacekeepers should be sent to carry that out (e.g. from the UN directly).

But dragging out open war like this is just terrible for everyone.

In the first months of the war hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians returned to their country to sign up to fight. We either support them, or abandon them to their fate. I don't see how you can credibly claim that abandoning them, despite their appeals for support, is better for them and in their interests. It's clearly in the interests of the Russian government, but why should the west care about that?

Sending UN peace keepers is a nice idea, but unfortunately Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council, with a veto.

And how would that happen when Russia can just veto the UN action?

The internationally managed referendums Russia has never asked for and would never permit?

Arguments that "real issue" with Russia repeatedly invading its smaller neighbours is that one of the neighbours won't grant something never asked for are not made in good faith.

It's reasonable to assume if we fail to stop Russians in Ukraine, they continue restoring Russian empire with military force.

In the past, Baltic states and Poland were part of Russia, yet now all of them are NATO member states. A real opportunity to start a nuclear WW3.

Yes you are. If you really think you aren't, you are deluded.

But what do you do now? You can't just get the Tatars back, even if Crimea were made independent.

That's been going... Swimmingly for everyone involved. No violation of human rights, whatsoever.

And before Russification it was Tatars, so either way it is Russian like e.g. India or Japan.