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.
> Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain.
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.
All the more reason to help Ukraine smash Russia quickly. Ukraine is friendly to the West, and has its own gas and oil resources.
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.
No, its the same as with Weimar Germany, once the "we will be big again" sentiments wins over, compromise just gives the perpetrators results. The party was over the moment "greatness/stability" won over "quality of life/freedom/chaos" in the heads of the common man.
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.