The worry for me is that Russia is free to do this again (and again) to Ukraine, until there is no more Ukraine.
As the West will never go up against it, what stops Russia from doing this sort of thing again in 5 years - when destabilisation of Ukrainian territory, next to the bits they will (likely) get now, becomes the justification for another special operation.
The options for Ukraine are bad or worse or even worse.
Thats where some form of guarantee of independence would work. It would need to be something cast iron that would force NATO militarily to defend Ukraine whilst also keeping Ukraine out of NATO so that there continues to be that buffer between Russia and the West.
Shouldn’t sovereignty (have been) be cast iron?
Stone said Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine. He know says the invasion was the result of NATO baiting and Ukranian aggression.
This is from his most recent Facebook post ;
"But we must wonder, how could Putin have saved the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk? No doubt his Government could’ve done a better job of showing the world the eight years of suffering of those people and their refugees — as well as highlighting the Ukrainian buildup of 110,000 soldiers on the Donetsk-Luhansk borders, which was occurring essentially before the Russian buildup. But the West has far stronger public relations than the Russians.
Or perhaps Putin should’ve surrendered the two holdout provinces and offered 1-3 million people help to relocate in Russia. The world might’ve understood better the aggression of the Ukrainian Government. But then again, I’m not sure.
But now, it’s too late. Putin has allowed himself to be baited and fallen into the trap set by the U.S. and has committed his military, empowering the worst conclusions the West can make. "
Oliver Stone should stick to what he’s good at … making shit films. His Putin fanboy routine is risible.
The point is that there clearly wasn’t any cast iron guarantees otherwise Russia wouldn’t have gone to war with them. Russia won’t pick a fight with NATO. That is clear. They know that no-one was protecting Ukraine militarily and went for it. A second time. That has to change. But it doesn’t need to be a full blown membership to NATO to get there.
What would constitute such a thing?
Great find Mackie, thanks for posting!
Putin, the great humanitarian.
Russia doesn’t need strong public relations when they’ve got Stone doing it for free.
I guess it would be similar to the British and French assurance of Polish independence in 1939.
My point really is that the difference between having independence assurances from NATO and being a member of NATO constitutes nothing more than a dick swinging contest: “nah we are going to stick it to Russia the fuckers. They aren’t going to come away from this as victors”.
The other point is that Russia certainly won’t go for either option. They’ve invaded Ukraine twice in 10 years. They’ve financed rebels for longer. They want to crush Ukraine. Whether that’s in months or decades that’s anybody’s guess. Any option that involves protection from the West to Ukraine will be dismissed out of hand by Russia. And those dismissals, for Ukraine negotiators, should be throwing up more red flags than a matador.
Actually, playing it out, let’s say this war ended, and in 5 years time Russia started again deploying significant forces along the Ukraine border. Would assurances simply mean that the West can only join once the invasion started? Would the West be able to mobilize within Ukrainian territory prior to the war or would that be breaking neutrality?
In principle I agree with you. The only hope is that they agree to the loss of some lands and hope that the cycle to the next “operation” is longer than the time Putin has left (to be alive) - I mean he will not live for ever so what ever agreement t they come to has to just last that long.
No one in the West wants to be remembered (though there won’t be many around) as the person responsible for starting the last war. The West is so scared to that, it will never engage those with the big bombs.
I see that some are advocating a repeat of the Munich Agreement with Czechoslovakia. 
Same place, one hour ago
What’s your realistic solution?
The parallels are alarming. You could substitute the countries as follows and you have an almost identical 1938-1940 playbook.
Russia is Germany.
China is Russia.
Crimea is Sudentenland.
Ukraine is Czechoslovakia.
Belarus is Austria.
If we keep going…
Poland is Poland.
Germany is France.
It’s not good.
I think the key player here is China (who is playing the part of Russia from WW2). If China tears up the equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that it made with Russia last month and formally sides against Russia then Russia’s cut off at the knees. That ought to be enough to force a total withdrawal of Russian forces and bringing them back into line. Ukraine joining the EU would be a less provocative step (than NATO expansion) towards providing Ukraine with formal protection of ‘the West’. Russia also ought to lose its seat as a permanent member of the SC or at the very least certain decisions ought to be made differently, with reference to the wider General Assembly.
only border countries numbers