The Hard Choice of Surrender to Stop Devastation and Casualties: Do We Have Today the Historic City Paris Without the Surrender of France in WWII?
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks/22/05/2022/0916
Published Date: 22 May 2022 at 09:16
Risks Timeline of Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Comments on Contemporary Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
From other Research Activities of Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher:
22 May 2022 at 09:16. When an invasion occurs without the ability to retreat the invader from the territory like in the case of Ukraine, there are two options to deal with it. The first option is to surrender to stop immediately the devastation and casualties, such as what Denmark, Netherlands and France did in WWII, still, after the surrender, either negotiation could be done to end the occupation, or resistance until the territory is liberated like the case of Norway in WWII. The second option is the carry out a negotiation to end the invasion under fighting like in the case of the Winter War between Russia and Finland. However, in both options, compromising must be done from the occupied-weak side like the compromising of Finland with the Moscow Peace Treaty to end the Winter War with Russia by ceding two Finish territories to Russia, still, an important question arises, which option is better, surrender and negotiation or fighting and negotiation? I think that the answer depends on the scope of the devastation and casualties, so in the case of Ukraine, as I mentioned in my previous comments on this subject, it is wiser for Ukraine to surrender to stop the devastation and casualties, and after that, to carry out negotiation to end the Russian occupation, still, Ukraine should be realistic about the need to compromise, in either options - surrender and negotiation or fighting and negotiation.
