[Goose]

We agree that more Western support would (or would have) helped Ukraine maintain territorial integrity (mostly).  We also agree that the West's unfortunate posture probably will prevent Ukraine from taking back the territory that Russia invaded.  The point of disagreement relates to what will happen if Russia were to sign a peace treaty in which it agrees to observe certain borders.  You raise two main problems, both of which are real, but, I think, surmountable.  

First, you say Ukraine already was the poorest country in Europe and it can't survive without better access to the sea.  I think Ukraine's ability to survive economically depends more on stability than it does on territorial integrity. Ukraine has suffered calamity after calamity throughout its history.  Invaded and sacked multiple times, multiple revolutions, famine, genocide, even a major nuclear accident.  If Ukraine were to sign a treaty that Russia actually observed, that would create a surge of optimism that hasn't existed for the vast majority of Ukraine's history.  There's enough land and access to the sea to support an economy.  No one is saying that Ukraine will ever be Poland or Hungary (which themselves still have plenty of problems).  But if people were to believe in a stable future without a high risk of further invasions, I don't think economic strife would cause the country to collapse.  It would just be another poor country with a difficult history of living in Russia's shadow. 

You are certainly correct that stability would be a big help. Unfortunately stability cannot overcome geography. During all those historical calamities mentioned above Ukraine had the Dnipro river to bring their bulk commodities from the central and northern areas to the Black Sea. They also had the ports along the Sea of Azov that could do the same thing. Even while they were a conquered nation ruled by outsiders, Ukraine had that. They now have neither. After the industrialization in Soviet times Ukraine also had a major steel and shipbuilding economy, most of which was either in the Donbas or supported by industries in the Donbas. The majority of the transportation system in Ukraine was built to service this south and eastern part of Ukraine. It was Ukraine's industrial heart. These industries were well into decline by 1990 but they at least still existed and made money. Ukraine no longer has any of that. So, what would Ukraine still have if a peace treaty is signed? They will have a second-class port that is not well connected to most of their remaining agricultural land by road or rail. Worse still the transport of bulk commodities by road or rail is much more expensive than doing so by river/sea. Ukraine will be at a massive financial disadvantage from the get-go against among others, Russia. The oil and gas assets Ukraine had available for exploitation are unfortunately mostly in the territory taken by Russia. AFAIK, that is it. Other than a bright and inventive populace, those are Ukraine's assets if the war ended today. Maybe that would allow them to get by as an economic basket case. However, under those circumstances the bright and inventive part of the population will emigrate very quickly. Besides stability, a reasonable path to prosperity is needed to successfully run a capitalistic economy. IMO Ukraine will not have that. 

Second, you say NATO would not put troops in Ukraine and Russia would not observe any peace treaty.  Maybe I should have put this first because, in my mind, it's the elephant in the room.  The economy and political system eventually will collapse if the people live in constant fear of another Russian invasion.  But I think it's important to set the stage.  In my view, everything else will fall into place (enough for Ukraine to survive as an independent nation) if people believe in the strength of the peace treaty.

I agree that is necessary. I don't agree it is sufficient :-). 

So, why would the U.S. or other Western nations put troops in Ukraine to solidify a peace treaty?  

(1) The U.S. already has ~$50,000 troops in Eastern Europe, and it could reposition some of those troops in Ukraine without substantially affecting the U.S. budget (which is a major consideration in light of our current political climate).

Possibly true. However the US military is already way overstretched in the world. The troops needed for Ukraine will exacerbate this situation. The truth is that our current situation is not sustainable even without another "hostage force" being required.

(2) The U.S. has shown a willingness to put a certain number of its troops in harm's way in the Baltics to show Russia that the U.S. is all-in on defending the East/West border.  There is proof of concept that it has worked so far in the Baltics, and the administration might well conclude that the same thing would be true in Ukraine.

The elephant in that room is that the Baltics are part of NATO. Even without troops in the country we are in theory on the hook to defend them. That means that no real "decision" is required to send troops there. It is part of our NATO commitment. In addition, there are bilateral agreements between the US and the Baltics. Ukraine OTOH has no NATO membership and no bilateral defense treaties with the US. The administration would have an impossible task justifying such a deployment without legislative consent. Good luck with that.

(3) Although NATO membership for Ukraine would be nice symbolism, the U.S.'s willingness to defend Ukraine is the only factor that really matters.

I agree. Every day we clearly demonstrate the limitations on our will to defend Ukraine. How does that change and even if we claimed it had would anybody (especially Russia and Ukraine) believe us?

Russia observed its treaty with Finland in part because it believed that the U.S. and other major western powers would defend Finland (even though Finland was not a NATO member at the time).

I can assure you the Finnish military didn't believe that for one second. Their plan was 1) to make it difficult enough for Russia to conquer Finland that it wouldn't be worth the effort and 2) do everything possible to accommodate Russia's desires, even if they didn't want to do so.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization. The Finnish military was also very well aware of the limitations of this strategy. They had lost part of their country despite their best efforts. What "saved" them during the cold war was that the Russian leadership was rational and realized taking Finland simply wasn't worth it. It also helped that Finland served both Russia and the US as a conduit for some trade that was otherwise forbidden. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronorgtechnica. One very large factor in Finland's decision to join NATO is that the government and the populace no longer believe that Russia under Putin will behave rationally.

(4) There is one decisive factor that would distinguish the U.S.'s decision whether to defend Ukraine pre-2022 with the U.S.'s decision whether to defend Ukraine after a potential peace treaty.  Pre-2021, Russia and Ukraine were engaged in active hostilities.  The U.S. would have been intervening in an active conflict in which Russia had recently taken territory and was obviously engaging in ongoing efforts to take more.  If the U.S. put troops in Ukraine and Russia just continued on its course, there would have been a direct conflict between U.S. troops and Russian troops (or Russian proxies at a minimum).  After a treaty, presumably there would be a fortified border like what we see in Korea (though not at the same density of troops due to the length of the Russian/Ukrainian border).  If Russia wanted to take more territory, it would have to initiate a new invasion directly into a "peacekeeping" force.  Russia has demonstrated in the past (e.g. Yalta, Finland) that it won't risk starting WWIII by violating a treaty that establishes a West/East border.

Indeed Russia has behaved relatively rationally during the cold war. Unfortunately they have recently demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of doing something stupid. Russia actually let both Belarus and Ukraine "go in peace" in the dissolution of the Soviet union. That certainly wouldn't happen under Putin and he is in the process of reversing it.

 Russia can do better by focusing any expansion efforts on geographic areas that are more under its sphere of influence (the Caucasus).

Not sure what you mean by "better". None of those countries have much to offer. I doubt Russia wants any of them, except Georgia. Any desire to take others over is minimal. They are Islamic in the main. Russia wants no part of a larger Islamic minority. 
<continued>

[Goose]

We agree that more Western support would (or would have) helped Ukraine maintain territorial integrity (mostly).  We also agree that the West's unfortunate posture probably will prevent Ukraine from taking back the territory that Russia invaded.  The point of disagreement relates to what will happen if Russia were to sign a peace treaty in which it agrees to observe certain borders.  You raise two main problems, both of which are real, but, I think, surmountable.  

First, you say Ukraine already was the poorest country in Europe and it can't survive without better access to the sea.  I think Ukraine's ability to survive economically depends more on stability than it does on territorial integrity. Ukraine has suffered calamity after calamity throughout its history.  Invaded and sacked multiple times, multiple revolutions, famine, genocide, even a major nuclear accident.  If Ukraine were to sign a treaty that Russia actually observed, that would create a surge of optimism that hasn't existed for the vast majority of Ukraine's history.  There's enough land and access to the sea to support an economy.  No one is saying that Ukraine will ever be Poland or Hungary (which themselves still have plenty of problems).  But if people were to believe in a stable future without a high risk of further invasions, I don't think economic strife would cause the country to collapse.  It would just be another poor country with a difficult history of living in Russia's shadow. 

You are certainly correct that stability would be a big help. Unfortunately stability cannot overcome geography. During all those historical calamities mentioned above Ukraine had the Dnipro river to bring their bulk commodities from the central and northern areas to the Black Sea. They also had the ports along the Sea of Azov that could do the same thing. Even while they were a conquered nation ruled by outsiders, Ukraine had that. They now have neither. After the industrialization in Soviet times Ukraine also had a major steel and shipbuilding economy, most of which was either in the Donbas or supported by industries in the Donbas. The majority of the transportation system in Ukraine was built to service this south and eastern part of Ukraine. It was Ukraine's industrial heart. These industries were well into decline by 1990 but they at least still existed and made money. Ukraine no longer has any of that. So, what would Ukraine still have if a peace treaty is signed? They will have a second-class port that is not well connected to most of their remaining agricultural land by road or rail. Worse still the transport of bulk commodities by road or rail is much more expensive than doing so by river/sea. Ukraine will be at a massive financial disadvantage from the get-go against among others, Russia. The oil and gas assets Ukraine had available for exploitation are unfortunately mostly in the territory taken by Russia. AFAIK, that is it. Other than a bright and inventive populace, those are Ukraine's assets if the war ended today. Maybe that would allow them to get by as an economic basket case. However, under those circumstances the bright and inventive part of the population will emigrate very quickly. Besides stability, a reasonable path to prosperity is needed to successfully run a capitalistic economy. IMO Ukraine will not have that. 

Second, you say NATO would not put troops in Ukraine and Russia would not observe any peace treaty.  Maybe I should have put this first because, in my mind, it's the elephant in the room.  The economy and political system eventually will collapse if the people live in constant fear of another Russian invasion.  But I think it's important to set the stage.  In my view, everything else will fall into place (enough for Ukraine to survive as an independent nation) if people believe in the strength of the peace treaty.

I agree that is necessary. I don't agree it is sufficient :-). 

So, why would the U.S. or other Western nations put troops in Ukraine to solidify a peace treaty?  

(1) The U.S. already has ~$50,000 troops in Eastern Europe, and it could reposition some of those troops in Ukraine without substantially affecting the U.S. budget (which is a major consideration in light of our current political climate).

Possibly true. However the US military is already way overstretched in the world. The troops needed for Ukraine will exacerbate this situation. The truth is that our current situation is not sustainable even without another "hostage force" being required.

(2) The U.S. has shown a willingness to put a certain number of its troops in harm's way in the Baltics to show Russia that the U.S. is all-in on defending the East/West border.  There is proof of concept that it has worked so far in the Baltics, and the administration might well conclude that the same thing would be true in Ukraine.

The elephant in that room is that the Baltics are part of NATO. Even without troops in the country we are in theory on the hook to defend them. That means that no real "decision" is required to send troops there. It is part of our NATO commitment. In addition, there are bilateral agreements between the US and the Baltics. Ukraine OTOH has no NATO membership and no bilateral defense treaties with the US. The administration would have an impossible task justifying such a deployment without legislative consent. Good luck with that.

(3) Although NATO membership for Ukraine would be nice symbolism, the U.S.'s willingness to defend Ukraine is the only factor that really matters.

I agree. Every day we clearly demonstrate the limitations on our will to defend Ukraine. How does that change and even if we claimed it had would anybody (especially Russia and Ukraine) believe us?

Russia observed its treaty with Finland in part because it believed that the U.S. and other major western powers would defend Finland (even though Finland was not a NATO member at the time).

I can assure you the Finnish military didn't believe that for one second. Their plan was 1) to make it difficult enough for Russia to conquer Finland that it wouldn't be worth the effort and 2) do everything possible to accommodate Russia's desires, even if they didn't want to do so.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization. The Finnish military was also very well aware of the limitations of this strategy. They had lost part of their country despite their best efforts. What "saved" them during the cold war was that the Russian leadership was rational and realized taking Finland simply wasn't worth it. It also helped that Finland served both Russia and the US as a conduit for some trade that was otherwise forbidden. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronorgtechnica. One very large factor in Finland's decision to join NATO is that the government and the populace no longer believe that Russia under Putin will behave rationally.

(4) There is one decisive factor that would distinguish the U.S.'s decision whether to defend Ukraine pre-2022 with the U.S.'s decision whether to defend Ukraine after a potential peace treaty.  Pre-2021, Russia and Ukraine were engaged in active hostilities.  The U.S. would have been intervening in an active conflict in which Russia had recently taken territory and was obviously engaging in ongoing efforts to take more.  If the U.S. put troops in Ukraine and Russia just continued on its course, there would have been a direct conflict between U.S. troops and Russian troops (or Russian proxies at a minimum).  After a treaty, presumably there would be a fortified border like what we see in Korea (though not at the same density of troops due to the length of the Russian/Ukrainian border).  If Russia wanted to take more territory, it would have to initiate a new invasion directly into a "peacekeeping" force.  Russia has demonstrated in the past (e.g. Yalta, Finland) that it won't risk starting WWIII by violating a treaty that establishes a West/East border.

Indeed Russia has behaved relatively rationally during the cold war. Unfortunately they have recently demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of doing something stupid. Russia actually let both Belarus and Ukraine "go in peace" in the dissolution of the Soviet union. That certainly wouldn't happen under Putin and he is in the process of reversing it.

 Russia can do better by focusing any expansion efforts on geographic areas that are more under its sphere of influence (the Caucasus).

Not sure what you mean by "better". None of those countries have much to offer. I doubt Russia wants any of them, except Georgia. Any desire to take others over is minimal. They are Islamic in the main. Russia wants no part of a larger Islamic minority. 
<continued>