After Ireland was occupied by the British Army, they resisted, fought a war, negotiated peace. They agreed to give up 1/4 of the country, to stop the war and to guarantee freedom for the majority.
This has always been controversial, but most people then thought it was the right decision, as do most petiole now.
There are lots of differences between Irish and Ukrainian history. But even so, I think the Irish have a unique insight into their dilemma.
One obvious answer is to say they should negotiate and give up one defensible port city, or that the Irish should not have given away any part of Ireland, or that there is nothing to be learnt from the parallel.
Generations of Irish intellectuals have wrestled this question. We have a shared experience from living with the fallout of this decision. Maybe there is some useful insight that the Irish can share. Any ideas?
Yes the Irish had no option to avoid war, to negotiate a deal instead.
The more I think about this, it’s probably status quo bias. If the Irish had fought more years and won the while island, people would have said they were right to do so. If Ukraine had negotiated a peace early on people would have said they were right. If they fight for years until the country is rubble people with say that is right too.
One key thing was the Irish guaranteed the UK access to its ports. The UK was willing to fight for the shipping industry in Belfast and for the important ports. It was happy to give away the rest of the country. Everyone got what they wanted and the war ended (if I may ignore some huge details)
I think Russia is in the same position. It had always had access to Ukraine’s ports. The threat if losing that access is worth going to war for. If Ukraine signed something guaranteeing Russia access to its ports, Russia would have no need to keep fighting. But while Ukraine refuses to talk, we will never find out.
Maybe that is the thing the Ukrainians need to learn from history.