That's not agreeing to make concessions. And a piece built on MAGA claims is not really an interesting read IMO.
If you want to make a point based on an article, quote the part you think support it.

if America pulls out.

America is in no way in Ukraine, so they can't "pull out".

[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From my link:

Of course, this means Russian President Vladimir Putin’s thuggishness will be rewarded, that there will be no accountability for the bestial nature of his army’s atrocious behavior or the unlawful, detestable deportations from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. The axis of autocrats will be emboldened in their determination to smash the old global order.

But there’s no other alternative. Short of a “forever war” or Western powers becoming combatants themselves — or at least putting their economies on a war footing to supply Ukraine with much more than they currently are — that’s the cold hard reality.

And according to a Republican foreign policy expert familiar with Zelenskyy and his circle, Kyiv understands this. Asking to remain anonymous in order to speak candidly, Kyiv now reckons Trump may well turn out to be a better option than Harris, he said.

Also:

After Trump’s win, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who’s being tipped as the new secretary of State, said that Russia’s war against Ukraine had reached a “stalemate” that’s costing lives and “needs to be brought to a conclusion.” He described Ukrainians as “incredibly brave and strong,” but also noted “the reality of the war.”

Zelenskyy understands that too — not that he’s going to shout it from the rooftops. As war-weariness mounts, public opinion in Ukraine has been changing, especially among the young, who are the most willing to accept limited outcomes. According to a poll conducted this summer, only 40 percent of those aged 18 to 25 think Ukraine should fight until it liberates all its territory.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's just hearsay, but even if true, it doesn't support your claim. "understanding" almost surely doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. And the part about 18-25 year olds are not "Ukrainian decision-makers".

Ukraine officials have been VERY clear, there can be no peace with concessions to Russia, because that will almost surely mean Russia will invade again, when they have gathered strength.

If Ukraine were to surrender territory, they would have to be allowed into NATO, to be secured from repeat attack from Russia. Otherwise Russia will just think they can take some piece of Ukraine now, and the rest later.

[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If Ukraine were to surrender territory, they would have to be allowed into NATO, to be secured from repeat attack from Russia.

I do think that's one of the more realistic scenarios expected under Trump, though I'm not sure about it having to rest specifically on NATO and not some other written security guarantees. However, in that scenario, Russia gets to keep its gains and the world returns to business as usual, as we saw after Russia's actions in Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine in 2014, etc (and that's just the military involvement, not to mention the countless influence and infiltration campaigns, isolated sabotage and killings in Europe, among other things). It could stop Russia from moving forward in Ukraine, but it wouldn't stop Russia from choosing another target as it always has.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

and not some other written security guarantees.

Ukraine was already guaranteed that Russia wouldn't attack them, when they gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia in the 90's. Something similar will not fly again.

[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago

I agree, but the part about not caring if it's NATO is something Zelensky said himself.