There are several current lessons leaders world over have already learned from this conflict - eg. (1) never give up nuclear weapons as the security guarantees won't be honoured (2) the destructive power and accuracy of networked modern light weapons is so great that it is impossible to hold territory conventionally if the other side has access to these

> why would they do that

Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.

You claim we shouldn't listen to Kissinger because he "didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people".

Your logic being, don't listen to his calls for peace, what we need is war. Which would unavoidable result in "raining death on [..] innocent people"

But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.

In terms of world peace, I fear the best we can hope for is a prolonged stalemate, or something unexpectedly changing in Russian politics. In the past, I might have hoped that Ukraine would trade invaded land for NATO membership, but it seems this is untenable for both Russia and Europe (e.g. Hungary).

Also, leaving a country to die would surely cause mass political unrest across Europe.

With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon.

* mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.

(Cf https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1600551806429544452.html)

Let's continue to refuse to deny Russia at various world forums. And Russia just burns it's fossil fuels intensely. The damage from climate change is catestrophic and WE LOSE.

Let's say we continue to shun Russia economically bringing it to it's knees. How does it make money if no one will buy it's goods on the open market? It sells what it can on the black market moving oil is hard. What about selling DPRK and Iran nuclear and ballistic missile secrets? WE LOSE.

Let's say a nuclear attack is carried on on Russia and it's surrounded by a ballistic missile defense system. So it nuclears Siberia to oblivion with purposefully dirty nuclear weapons. WE LOSE.

Let's say we enter conventional war with Russia and it just blasts ITS OWN satillites out of space directly above it staring Kessler cascade that wiped out all satillites and ends the prospect of space travel for hundreds of years. WE LOSE.

How will we prevent all these things? They are all born of Russia considered themselves no longer part of the world community?

TL;DR Kissinger knows NATO can trounce Russia ina war maybe even a nuclear one. But he realises the cost would be too great even from a complete victory with civilization ending potentials.

Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on.

Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever.

A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action.

An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful.

This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with.

In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.

Where are the massive Russian peotests?

The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.

Ukraine fought off the initial Russian attack without US and NATO, do you think they would stop fighting now if support were withdrawn? How exactly do you think the US and NATO could force Ukraine and Russia to the table? Do you think that eastern European countries would withdraw support from Ukraine even absent the US and NATO when Russian incursions on neighbouring territory represent very real threats to them? The entire premise that the US can end this war feels like a hopelessly naive relic of a different era.

My own point of view is that the only way this will end peacefully is with the full withdraw of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The question of how this can be achieved without Russia becoming destabilized and fracturing, which I don't feel is desirable, is certainly a concern, although I fear that that may be the only thing that leads to their withdraw. (See Timothy Snyder's piece on the subject: How does the Russo-Ukrainian War end? [1])

1. https://snyder.substack.com/p/how-does-the-russo-ukrainian-w...

If this were a war between NATO and Russia, all those bases that Russian missiles are coming from would be gone. So would Russia's air force. And then the ground-attack planes would start in on all the Russian troops in Ukraine. And they'd feel free to go after every mass of troops that Russia brought anywhere near the border.

None of that is happening. That's how you know it's not a war between NATO and Russia.

To your larger point: You think Russia has the power to destroy the world, so we should let them have their way with Ukraine. You're like a business owner who doesn't interfere when the street gang rapes people outside, because they might burn your business if you did. Can't you see how morally bankrupt that is?