According to WaPo, 'NATO doesn't want peace in Ukraine'... but why not?

"Even a Ukrainian vow not to join NATO — a concession that Zelensky has floated publicly — could be a concern to some neighbors. That leads to an awkward reality: For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.

“Many of us have, and it’s absolutely human, a willingness to see that the war ends as soon as possible, that people are not suffering, not dying, and that there are no bombings,” said a senior European diplomat who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about sensitive security issues. “There is an unfortunate dilemma. The problem is that if it ends now, there is a kind of time for Russia to regroup, and it will restart, under this or another pretext. Putin is not going to give up his goals.”
As NATO meets, U.S., Europe, say Ukraine must decide its own future with Russia - The Washington Post

Why doesn't NATO want peace? Why would anyone in NATO think peace comes too early? Aren't 'we' really just fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian?

Can anyone splain this better than WaPo?

 

If we do not see an end to Putin's Russia we will see the Ukraine invasion by Russia occur again in another bordering country. We need to see Putin brought down.

 

The authors already did. "The problem is that if it ends now, there is a kind of time for Russia to regroup, and it will restart, under this or another pretext. Putin is not going to give up his goals.” What's not to understand?

 

MP, I originally had the same impression that Lee did but I just was reading about this just now and wonder how they might be connected.

 

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say a couple camps likely to be hoping that peace is not premature would be strategic global think tank pols concerned about Russia getting too much for too little. Military equipment manufacturers, some NATO brass that want new toys, and some politicians keen on a pressure relief valve for domestic concerns.

 

Meaning peace is achieved at an appropriate cost when peace entails the russians going back to their territorial borders not keeping parts of Ukraine.
If you pay the danegeld, you never rid yourself of the dane.

 

Ukraine's best option is to join the SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It's an alliance with Russia, China and India. It sucks for them to be in an alliance with Russia, but they can ensure they their security this way.

 

Gosh, your humanity... You and Maddy Albright. Who cares if folks are dying.. we think.. therefor.... folks die. And that's what? "Sad" but tolerable, right?

 

Then they should support Ukraine to a greater extent to allow Ukraine to win the war.

 

This all just boils down to 'the west won't fight Russia, but Ukraine should keep doing it alone to hurt Russia more.'

...this also hurts Ukraine more, way more than it hurts Russia.

 

Ukraine capitulating to Russia and letting them keep their land grab and dictate foreign and domestic policy to Ukraine would hurt Ukraine the most.
We should be enforcing the Budapest accords.

 

This is first class kookery. You guys are willing to fight to the last Ukrainian because you want to get Putin. And it's almost a surety that you won't like whoever replaces Putin.

 

You mistook my quoting from the article with it being an expression of my opinion. IOW you got it wrong. Happens all the time.

 

See post #13.

 

Prolonging the war by throwing Ukraine little bite size support won't help. Either send in direct military support for Ukraine or get out of the conflict all together.

 

If it doesn't advocate for your own feelz, why post it? And since you didn't produce a counter argument, folks are left to believe that you also believe in the immorality of the citation you provided.

 

We should be enforcing the Budapest accords.
^ The **** you think that means?

 

What enforcement mechanism is proscribed in the "Budapest Accords?"

 

If Russia invades Ukraine, the other signatories of the Budapest accords agree to repel them by force.

 

That's not true.

 

We're supposed to assure their security. Russia, a signatory, was to respect their territorial sovereignty and current borders. They didn't do that. Ergo, we now kick them out to hold to that assurance we've provided.

 

You claimed falsely, that if "Russia invades Ukraine, the other signatories of the Budapest accords agree to repel them by force."

That's simply not part of the memorandum. Where are you getting this?

 

Budapest Accord mentions no use to force to repel invading army. It says if Ukraine is attacked US and Russia will talk to each other and meet with UN Security Counsel.

But even though the Budapest Accord doesn't say it, Biden should have kept the option tobuse force open.

 

Pretty much. Geographically and politically, NATO cannot accept a Ukrainian loss. But from the Ukrainian perspective, a quick peace and ceding land is not a good outcome either. This will definitely result in further Russian aggression down the road. They may as well capitulate now if they're going to do that. Expelling Russian troops from Ukrainian lands is about the only thing they can do to retain sovereignty. A peace brokered on a clear Russian loss would deter further Russian aggression.

The only way I can see a quick peace working for Ukraine long term is if they ceded land and are granted in exchange, if not NATO membership, a treaty requiring NATO military intervention in case of further hostilities.

 

As explained, we agree to assure their security. Their security is violated. Ergo we must assure it. How might we do so? By using our militaries, as we assure our own security and territorial sovereignty.