When will it be acceptable to start negotiating for peace in Ukraine? Some want to give the Ukrainians more time to take back all of the territories Russia seized including Crimea before discussing options for peace. Or should we just end the bloodshed now and avoid a further escalation of the war, even if that means Russia permanently gains some of Ukraine's land? Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12 p.m. EST on YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at http://www.Majority.FM https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm #MajorityReport #politics SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: http://www.jointhemajorityreport.com/ Download TMR's FREE app: http://www.majorityapp.com TMR MERCH: http://www.shop.majorityreportradio.com OTHER LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Facebook: http://facebook.com/MajorityReport Twitter: http://twitter.com/MajorityFM Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/majorityreport.fm/ Matt's comments on Ukraine yesterday were interesting and I'm curious to hear more. Matt, were you just saying that you're okay with a peace agreement where Ukraine seeds land if that's what they want? That is, the U.S shouldn't pressure them to keep fighting if they're willing to give up land. stop the fighting. or that even if the Ukrainian people want to keep fighting and not give up any territory you'd be supportive of the West trying to coerce them to take a deal that requires giving up territory to avoid escalation? if it's the former I agree if it's the latter appeasement isn't the best strategy. What's the context of this? Because there was, I mean I know that there was, I saw a piece I think was in the nation I can't remember who wrote it, about the idea that the U.S should tie some of its military aid or all of its military aid to at least attempts to negotiate. yeah. I mean IT was responding to people calling Chomsky a tanky for saying that we should keep the door open for negotiation. not because we trust Putin but because escalation and War will be bad. and people responding saying well if Putin gets any sort of territory out of this it'll set a bad precedent. and I'll just say like I'm not that sort of setting precedent game I don't really think exists. I think if America wants to set precedence it could do a lot to account for its actions in invading countries. as opposed to just continuing to fund military engagement. and like I fully understand Ukrainians who want to fight Russia. but I also think that if it's dependent upon our military resources like we have to have some sort of say. and I don't see a whole lot of agitation at the highest levels for some kind of Peace outcome. well what what's the incentive there I mean there's a financial incentive for certain military-industrial complex types to keep funding this stuff. and there are people within the halls of government that feel like this is a good opportunity to weaken Vladimir Putin. and so it has to come from just an underlying desire for peace as opposed to these other factors. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqtVPUey5uU