All politics requires compromise.

How do you compromise when the other side believes you as a person shouldn't exist?
 

All sides believe that about their opponents in the loosest sense. Obviously compromise would be impossible if the other side want to kill you, but I doubt that is the case.
 

All three of the conflicts mentioned in this blog post have actors advocating for the deaths of folks on the other side. Obviously those sentiments can't be attached to everyone but they do exist.

Tolerating intolerance is the death of modern civil society.
 

If you study a bit of history, you will find that most wars did not end with the total victory of one side, but rather with some sort of peace agreement. And in the wars that ended with total victory, the victors rarely kill everybody on the losing side. So even if in war the purpose is to kill the person on the other side, ultimately some sort of compromise is needed.
 

Tobold: "Changes in government must happen regularly, so that the concerns of all citizens are eventually heard."
*Concerns of enough people to get a majority over the other party or to form a ruling coalition.
You don't need to get the approval of the majority of the voting populace but only those who chose to vote. Sure, you could say that it's their own fault when people don't vote, but if their concerns aren't addressed then people might just decide to not vote.

"[...] hoping that the end of the war could be achieved by an Ukrainian total victory."
Last I checked (arguably that was a long time ago), the declared goal wasn't the Ukrainian victory but to prevent the Russian victory.
No, those are not the same. If both sides lose or the war just continues by throwing some more supplies over the border but "No, we are totally not involved. You die to protect Western values please. Yes, yes, NATO membership (maybe)." - then that criteria is met.

I remember back in 2016 before the election a lot of colleagues viewed Trump as a publicity stunt without any chance of winning.
The next day people were flabbergasted and then immediately resentment kicked in. The media did their part of course in picking apart every small fart and looking for dog whistles left and right.
While I'm not really following the media, I don't recall seeing the same level of scrutiny and pettiness on a daily basis with previous presidents.
 

How does "prevent the other side from winning" ever end the war? Do we want the war to go on eternally? Or does anybody believe Putin will just grow bored one day and stop?
 

At the risk of sounding like I'm going into conspiracy territory I'll say I would not be surprised if some factions in western governments do want the Ukrainian war to go on as long as possible.

Each year the war drags on is another year the Russian economy is pushed towards collapse.
 

And the German one. The Germans had a nice setup, where they used cheap Russian energy to transform materials into machines, which they then sold to the Chinese. Without Russian gas and with China’s economy being down as well, Germany is doing pretty badly right now.
 

Americans on the internet, for a lack of the better word have become more fanatical in there views. Your not just incorrect, your totally wrong,dumb and stupid and your whole family needs to die in a fire. For stating something based on what has been frequently said in our non-american tv and press.

I compare to a conversation at a bus shelter 40 odd years ago about the an election in NZ, we disagreed but had a cordial conversation.

 

Disappointing take on the Russo-Ukrainian War. Ukraine tried negotiations in 2014 and were rewarded with loss of territory, a frozen conflict and a full invasion 8 years later.

The Ukrainians fully expect ceasefires or "peace" to mean a third war once the Russians get their forces back together. The West gives Ukraine just enough support to stay in the fight, but not nearly enough to win. It is a shameful sight to see North Korea as a better ally to Russia than Europe and the US is to the bulwark of democracy, Ukraine.

Peace is not always better than war. 60.000 Poles died during the 1939 invasion yet 6 million were killed in the "peaceful" years that followed.
To quote Churchill: ‘You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth’. Too many Chamberlains these days, unfortunately.
 

Negotiations don’t mean unconditional surrender. If you exclude negotiations, then what is your vision of how and when this war ends?
 

The Ukrainian soldiers and other pro-Ukrainians nickname Russian soldiers "Orcs" and Russia "Mordor" for a reason. Should Aragorn have accepted the terms given by (the Mouth of) Sauron at the Black Gate? No, he chose to continue the war.
This is a poor example of a valid democratic concern precisely because it is the most black and white war I have seen in my lifetime.

Ask Yevgeny Prigozhin what a promise from Putin is worth. The Russian preconditions for talks are tantamount to surrender and Putin is pursuing maximalist goals betting that the Western resolve will falter as it has done in the past. You could also ask the Chechens how much peace they got from their peace deal. Ukraine cannot trust any deal made with a serial dealbreaker like Russia. Google the Budapest Memorandum.

How and when will the war end? Too many variables to know. Putin could have a heart attack tomorrow. The Russian army could revolt again like 1905 or 1917. The Ukrainians could be starved for artillery shells again and the front collapses. Given the hesitancy of the West and the Russian resolve I predict the war will grind on for a few more years and then freeze again once Russia has burned through all their Soviet stockpiles. Which is the worst possible option.

My vision would have been for Europe to get its act together and be like the Arsenal of Democracy that the US was in WWII. If NATO had flooded Ukraine with arms from the start the war could have been over by 2023. People seem to forget that Ukraine had the Russians on the run in fall of 2022, but the West refused to provide tanks or warplanes. Any notion that Ukraine has territorial ambitions in Russia is beyond ridiculous. Once the last Russian is forced out, the war is over.
 

It is true that democracy is based on discussion and compromise, but I would argue only with other democratic forces. There is no moral obligation to discuss or compromise with anti-democratic forces. On the other hand, it is mandatory to listen AND answer to the preocupation of people voting for those anti-democratic party.
In War, peace negociation is the only way out. But accepting all conditions from the bombarding nation will only signal that War is a good way to obtain whatever they want, creating new wars in the future. So when a country or political power targets civilians you cannot concede at the risk of even more civilans deaths later.

What does it means for Ukranian or Gazah or Libanese wars, where recent history has shown us that all or some part of the war cannot be trust to hold the peace ? That the compromise need to find a way to enforce the peace, against the countries leader will.

In Ukraine, it means putting Ukraine under NATO nuclear shield, or a military defense strong enough to deter Russia for multiple decades.
For Israel/Gaza, I am not seeing any solution, as too much blood has been spilled.
 

Tobold: "How does "prevent the other side from winning" ever end the war?"

Of course does it not end then war. But do you see the West trying to end the war?
If not, then ask yourself why that could be the case. I see two possibilities:
a) they are unable to defeat Russia
b) they are unwilling to defeat Russia

a) Do you think that NATO is unable to send more troops and weapons to just crush the Russian forces on the military front? Or does NATO not have that firepower? What would that then mean in terms of the proclaimed goal of defending the West?
Do you think the West would be unable to end the war on a diplomatic level?

b) So when the goal were to end the war, why are we not seeing more effort being put in? It's being going on for 2.5 years now. At which point I think we should maybe ask if we are not mistaken about the goal.

c) Sure, there might also be other reasons as to why the war is still going on. It doesn't change that it's still going on and no real end being in sight.
 

Ettesiun: "There is no moral obligation to discuss or compromise with anti-democratic forces."

And what stops me from declaring you as an anti-democratic force?
By the virtue of that I'm no longer required to discuss or compromise with you and any attempt to convince me otherwise is obviously only meant to push your anti-democratic agenda.
Just by labelling you that, I have negated your agency.

As for putting Ukraine under the NATO nuclear shield, that is exactly the security issue Russia has with Ukraine joining the NATO. Remember when the Soviet Union tried to put Cuba under their nuclear shield? Washington wasn't too happy that nuclear missiles would be stationed under their noses - for defensive purposes only of course.
 

To my knowledge NATO has never planned or said they would place nuclear missiles in Ukraine so this comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not a good one.
 

The main issue is that once you are in the NATO, you can have NATO bases and then nuclear sharing could be expanded to that base. (Sure, that's rather simplified but they are still prerequisites.)

The country would still not be a nuclear power because they technically don't have nuclear weapons as those are still under control of the US troops - just that these troops happen to be stationed in a different country.