18 ms·

Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That

by jcadam 5y ago

Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That doesn't sound like things are going especially well for him.

ch4s3 5y ago
It's a lot better than the regime change that Russia was initially aiming for. Fighting a large neighboring power to a standstill and suing for peace is quite the success.
- otherme123 5y ago
  Basically what Finland achieved in the heroic Winter War. True, Finland lost some terrain, but I don't think anyone would find the aftermath as a soviet victory, when the original desire was to anexate the whole country.
  - tada131 5y ago
    But Soviet losses were incomparably bigger than Finland. Is this war the case?
    - otherme123 5y ago
      IMHO war isn't a scale of bodies. Each side has a strategic objective(s), and winning/losing should be measured against that. Case in point: Vietnam. uSA and allies lost between 1/3 and 1/2 lifes than the North. And the USA loses were small (60.000 in a total of 1.5 million deaths). But it was a total defeat of the USA because none of the strategic objectives were achieved. Ukraine: strategic objectives are being an independent country with a fairly working democracy. Russia: conquer and create a puppet state in Ukraine and keep pressing west againt NATO countries. In the end we should measure against that, not by body count. I don't like it either.
      - tada131 5y ago
        Perfectly valid standpoint, but USA and Vietnam is not Russia and Ukraine. Geography, culture, history - all of this. We can hardly guess what the hell is in Putin's head and what those plans really were aimed at. We are guessing thoroughly, though.
      - signatoremo 5y ago
        The most important objective was achieved — preventing the expansion of the communism block to other countries. Vietnam today is a market economy, the country is communist in name only. Also, please try to Vietnam. The US is very favorably perceived, more than China or Russia, although probably below European countries. In the sense, the US lost the war, but won in the end, at a very steep price, of course
        actuator 5y ago
        It wasn't the US's intervention that succeeded in making it a "non communist" state, so the US failed in its objectives. Just because eventually Vietnam itself decided what path it wants to take doesn't mean, it was because of US. US is perceived more favourably than China because their war with China was more recent and they have active disputes with PRC threatening island territories in South China sea. Moreover, US has massive influence in terms of their media and their brands, something which China still doesn't match. Same reason even South Korea has massive appeal in Vietnam.
        otherme123 5y ago
        Sure! USA won a lot of wars just by not fighting: spreading wealth and culture via commerce is a far more effective way to _conquer_ countries than obliterating them. And USA defeated the whole communist block using the same weapons. Also, don't dismiss tourism as a _weapon_: it's would be more effective to send millions of frienly tourists to Cuba than to embargoe them for decades. But that's disgressing. Vietnam was only used as a sample of strategic millitary defeat albeit losing less people. I don't think anyone in the Whitehouse has planned the vietnamese frienship ahead.
        NoboruWataya 5y ago
  - euroderf 5y ago
    And also like the Winter War, Soviet/Russian forces were shown up to be incompetent, or at least really really badly led. They had planned on cutting Finland in half in two weeks flat, so even that schedule was not as ambitious as the two-day decapitation planned in the current war. Anyways I can't see how the Soviet failure to flatten Finland didn't subsequently embolden Hitler.
bufferoverflow 5y ago
What are you talking about? Zelenski just declined such an offer from russia.
- jcadam 5y ago
  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-zelensky-is-open-to-compromise-on-russia-s-4-demands-to-end-war/ar-AAUNcrh https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-zelensky-is-open-... > Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO, Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics. Read between the lines.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Simply appearing to be more open to diplomatic resolution is a huge win on the international stage - I can't say whether he's genuine in his openness to diplomacy but appearing to be more open keeps western support on his side. So, cynically, Zelensky will want to be seen to be open to negotiating whether he is or not - openness to negotiation is, itself, a negotiation tactic... it's like telling your manager that you got a job offer floated from Microsoft to head up a new division and then just saying "Well, I didn't say no".
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Such is the interpretation by the Russian media of what Zelensky said in a recent interview with ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-muir-reporting-abc-news-exclusive-83309456 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-mu...
gremlinsinc 5y ago
I think Zelenskyy should take: No eu/Nato membership (face it, he's months or years from qualifying anyways), and he leaves Donbask, and Crimea (for now), but does NOT agree to disband any military, and is allowed to secure his own borders. In otherwords he can still ramp up, then the west simply continues squeezing Putin and Russia for a year, or 3... then he can either go take back Crimea/Donbask regions, or perhaps wage a coup inside Russia -- get the oligarchs to agree to a Democratic Merging of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia with Zelenskyy as President for the first two terms, and with a path towards NATO and EU membership - which would be a HUGE finger to China and a big win for Democracy. This essentially gives both sides a ceasefire but western pressure on Russia slowly strangles them to the point of collapse, and Zelenskyy can then basically take over, as he's basically a Hero for many in Ukraine and Russia and even Europe and USA. I mean a comedian turned President against Putin and he's holding his own pretty well - it's David vs Goliath. IMHO that's the best option. As for this war, whether Zelenskyy does this or not. Putin has lost Russia. It's a matter of time before he's deposed after this blunder. Russia will never win in Ukraine. Option B: Hold out a month, and basically Russia might be at the point they'd give him Crimea, Belarus, and Donbas if the west just eases up a tiny fraction on sanctions.
- axg11 5y ago
  You’re letting your imagination run a little too wild here. Depending on which polls you believe, 20-50% of Russians support this invasion. There is no end scenario where Russians are content being ruled by a non-Russian, even in a newly formed democratic state.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    The ones in Odessa seem fine with it.
- k__ 5y ago
  I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff. I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.
otherme123 5y ago
Maybe Zelenskyy doesn't like thousand of Ukraines dying for some inflated ego, potentially millions. That solution, and specially if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU, is a win for the country, and a pyrric victory for Putin: his credibility is gone forever, and all he got is a small piece of terrain. Enough to sell internally as a win, but hardly anywhere else.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU" Such guarantees are worthless. It's also clear that the rest of NATO is not willing to directly fight against Russia to save Ukraine, so NATO membership for Ukraine is just as worthless.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > if accompanied with guarantees of no further aggressions Which Russia cannot provide since they already promised not to invade.
  - otherme123 5y ago
    They can agree on a DMZ, like in Korea. Remember that Putin negated the invasion while amasing an army at the border. You can't invade if your troops cannot be piled up near the border.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      A DMZ is a good idea, but it doesn't address Russia's demand that no nukes be stationed in Ukraine (or other countries on its border) either. I'm not sure how much that matters in practice, since nukes can be delivered by submarine or through ICBMs, but regardless, that's what Russia wants and a DMZ won't address that demand.
  - dcposch 5y ago
    After how this one went, it seems very unlikely they'd try again unless Ukraine was somehow disarmed first. (Disarmament was one of the Russian asks during yesterday's negotiations. It was rejected ofc.)
bpodgursky 5y ago
I mean, this outcome would be pretty close to the status quo belle ante. It doesn't feel like a L for Ukraine.
tyrfing 5y ago
There's really never been a scenario where Ukraine wins unconditionally. Russia has started backing off on their terms - it's not going well for them either. What makes a negotiated settlement very likely at this point is that Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims.
- brimble 5y ago
  If Russia can get them to give up NATO and EU ambitions, and get them to start supplying water to Crimea, they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means (as they already tried once, and as Belarus has gone). Conceding on that, at this point, is just delaying the Russian takeover somewhat. If Russia can't get that out of them, I expect them to demand such large territorial concessions that what's left will have, at best, 1/2 the GDP it used to (not even counting damage from the war). That diminished state will go on to head toward EU and/or NATO membership, but it won't represent the kind of relief valve from European dependence on Russia that a free and prosperous united Ukraine might (which is a big part of why Russia wants to carve them up or conquer them to begin with).
  - blibble 5y ago
    > they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means when will this be exactly? Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports their military ambitions are now finished, permanently
    - brimble 5y ago
      Multilateral agreements as part of a peace settlement are their most likely way out of the economic pain they're in now—removal of sanctions and normalization of relations with the West part of the peace agreement. I agree that their long term prospects, having blundered so badly, are now dim, but I think if they can get the right concessions out of Ukraine they'll still have salvaged a lot of their immediate goals from launching the war (probably at far too high a cost for it to have been worth it, yes, but at least it won't be a complete failure) and be in a decent position to realize further expansion before the end of their fossil fuel fortunes arrives.
paxys 5y ago
Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war. Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  I don't see why NATO membership for Ukraine is so contentious, considering NATO has already made it crystal clear that they won't fight Russia directly over Ukraine.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    That changes if Ukraine becomes a treaty member. The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily." That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.
      - PankajGhosh 5y ago
        Yes, because Ukraine is not a NATO member. If it was, then as per treaty, the alliance would respond. How is that not clear?
        pmoriarty 5y ago
        There's no guarantee that anyone does anything. The proof is in actions, not words. Treaty or no. If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.
JimBlackwood 5y ago
I’m sure his interests are in ending a war that’s costing civilian lives. If the expectation is that Russia will increase the severity of their fight, you cannot keep fighting at all cost. I fully think Ukraine can outlast Putin, but at what cost? Like he said to NATO in regards to the no-fly zone “How many civilians need to die? Give me a number, I’ll start counting.” Similarly here; how many civilians are Crimea and the two eastern provinces worth? If you have a number we’ll start counting. We’ll get there before Putin falls.
kaitai 5y ago
As ch4s3 and otherme123 state in sibling/niece comments, it's not bad. There is a reality here that countries on Russia's border face, that can be hard to understand if you live elsewhere. All victory against/agreement with Russia is temporary. Neighbor countries need to negotiate a space that allows Russia to save face and also gives the neighbor country room to maneuver and live relatively freely. Parts of western Europe and the US preach an uninhibited national freedom, that every country should be free to do what they want without their neighbor nations interfering. This is not reality, and I speak as a citizen of a country neighboring Russia. It's like thinking on a family level that your parents should fully respect and accept you no matter how far you stray from their traditions -- sure, it's a nice modern idea, but it's not how it works unless you have an amazing relationship where you can talk through your position with respect. Russia is just not there yet. No little country next to Russia is going to talk through their national ideals and national hopes & dreams with Putin and receive his blessing, encouragement, support, unconditional acceptance. Nah, it's more negotiating an abusive relationship where you can't get out. It's nice that the whole world tells you "leave, it doesn't have to be that way, you can do better!" but geography is geography. There is no leaving. "Better a scanty agreement than a robust battle"
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That doesn't sound like things are going especially well for him. If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the West of the urgency of a radical step escalation in military assistance, I might want them to perceive me as starting to waver in the face of the assault. If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the Russians that good faith humanitarian corridors that weren't simply routes to captivity in Russia/Belarus and maybe even a general cease fire for negotiations while the Western sanctions continued to hollow out their war capacity were good ideas, I’d want to project the prospect of an acceptable resolution through negotiations.

by jcadam 5y ago

ch4s3 5y ago

It's a lot better than the regime change that Russia was initially aiming for. Fighting a large neighboring power to a standstill and suing for peace is quite the success.

otherme123 5y ago
Basically what Finland achieved in the heroic Winter War. True, Finland lost some terrain, but I don't think anyone would find the aftermath as a soviet victory, when the original desire was to anexate the whole country.
- tada131 5y ago
  But Soviet losses were incomparably bigger than Finland. Is this war the case?
  - otherme123 5y ago
    IMHO war isn't a scale of bodies. Each side has a strategic objective(s), and winning/losing should be measured against that. Case in point: Vietnam. uSA and allies lost between 1/3 and 1/2 lifes than the North. And the USA loses were small (60.000 in a total of 1.5 million deaths). But it was a total defeat of the USA because none of the strategic objectives were achieved. Ukraine: strategic objectives are being an independent country with a fairly working democracy. Russia: conquer and create a puppet state in Ukraine and keep pressing west againt NATO countries. In the end we should measure against that, not by body count. I don't like it either.
    - tada131 5y ago
      Perfectly valid standpoint, but USA and Vietnam is not Russia and Ukraine. Geography, culture, history - all of this. We can hardly guess what the hell is in Putin's head and what those plans really were aimed at. We are guessing thoroughly, though.
    - signatoremo 5y ago
      The most important objective was achieved — preventing the expansion of the communism block to other countries. Vietnam today is a market economy, the country is communist in name only. Also, please try to Vietnam. The US is very favorably perceived, more than China or Russia, although probably below European countries. In the sense, the US lost the war, but won in the end, at a very steep price, of course
      - actuator 5y ago
        It wasn't the US's intervention that succeeded in making it a "non communist" state, so the US failed in its objectives. Just because eventually Vietnam itself decided what path it wants to take doesn't mean, it was because of US. US is perceived more favourably than China because their war with China was more recent and they have active disputes with PRC threatening island territories in South China sea. Moreover, US has massive influence in terms of their media and their brands, something which China still doesn't match. Same reason even South Korea has massive appeal in Vietnam.
      - otherme123 5y ago
        Sure! USA won a lot of wars just by not fighting: spreading wealth and culture via commerce is a far more effective way to _conquer_ countries than obliterating them. And USA defeated the whole communist block using the same weapons. Also, don't dismiss tourism as a _weapon_: it's would be more effective to send millions of frienly tourists to Cuba than to embargoe them for decades. But that's disgressing. Vietnam was only used as a sample of strategic millitary defeat albeit losing less people. I don't think anyone in the Whitehouse has planned the vietnamese frienship ahead.
      - NoboruWataya 5y ago
- euroderf 5y ago
  And also like the Winter War, Soviet/Russian forces were shown up to be incompetent, or at least really really badly led. They had planned on cutting Finland in half in two weeks flat, so even that schedule was not as ambitious as the two-day decapitation planned in the current war. Anyways I can't see how the Soviet failure to flatten Finland didn't subsequently embolden Hitler.

bufferoverflow 5y ago

What are you talking about? Zelenski just declined such an offer from russia.

jcadam 5y ago
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-zelensky-is-open-to-compromise-on-russia-s-4-demands-to-end-war/ar-AAUNcrh https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-zelensky-is-open-... > Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO, Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics. Read between the lines.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Simply appearing to be more open to diplomatic resolution is a huge win on the international stage - I can't say whether he's genuine in his openness to diplomacy but appearing to be more open keeps western support on his side. So, cynically, Zelensky will want to be seen to be open to negotiating whether he is or not - openness to negotiation is, itself, a negotiation tactic... it's like telling your manager that you got a job offer floated from Microsoft to head up a new division and then just saying "Well, I didn't say no".
Koshkin 5y ago
Such is the interpretation by the Russian media of what Zelensky said in a recent interview with ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-muir-reporting-abc-news-exclusive-83309456 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-mu...

gremlinsinc 5y ago

I think Zelenskyy should take: No eu/Nato membership (face it, he's months or years from qualifying anyways), and he leaves Donbask, and Crimea (for now), but does NOT agree to disband any military, and is allowed to secure his own borders. In otherwords he can still ramp up, then the west simply continues squeezing Putin and Russia for a year, or 3... then he can either go take back Crimea/Donbask regions, or perhaps wage a coup inside Russia -- get the oligarchs to agree to a Democratic Merging of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia with Zelenskyy as President for the first two terms, and with a path towards NATO and EU membership - which would be a HUGE finger to China and a big win for Democracy. This essentially gives both sides a ceasefire but western pressure on Russia slowly strangles them to the point of collapse, and Zelenskyy can then basically take over, as he's basically a Hero for many in Ukraine and Russia and even Europe and USA. I mean a comedian turned President against Putin and he's holding his own pretty well - it's David vs Goliath. IMHO that's the best option. As for this war, whether Zelenskyy does this or not. Putin has lost Russia. It's a matter of time before he's deposed after this blunder. Russia will never win in Ukraine. Option B: Hold out a month, and basically Russia might be at the point they'd give him Crimea, Belarus, and Donbas if the west just eases up a tiny fraction on sanctions.

axg11 5y ago
You’re letting your imagination run a little too wild here. Depending on which polls you believe, 20-50% of Russians support this invasion. There is no end scenario where Russians are content being ruled by a non-Russian, even in a newly formed democratic state.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  The ones in Odessa seem fine with it.
k__ 5y ago
I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff. I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.

otherme123 5y ago

Maybe Zelenskyy doesn't like thousand of Ukraines dying for some inflated ego, potentially millions. That solution, and specially if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU, is a win for the country, and a pyrric victory for Putin: his credibility is gone forever, and all he got is a small piece of terrain. Enough to sell internally as a win, but hardly anywhere else.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU" Such guarantees are worthless. It's also clear that the rest of NATO is not willing to directly fight against Russia to save Ukraine, so NATO membership for Ukraine is just as worthless.
Chris2048 5y ago
> if accompanied with guarantees of no further aggressions Which Russia cannot provide since they already promised not to invade.
- otherme123 5y ago
  They can agree on a DMZ, like in Korea. Remember that Putin negated the invasion while amasing an army at the border. You can't invade if your troops cannot be piled up near the border.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    A DMZ is a good idea, but it doesn't address Russia's demand that no nukes be stationed in Ukraine (or other countries on its border) either. I'm not sure how much that matters in practice, since nukes can be delivered by submarine or through ICBMs, but regardless, that's what Russia wants and a DMZ won't address that demand.
- dcposch 5y ago
  After how this one went, it seems very unlikely they'd try again unless Ukraine was somehow disarmed first. (Disarmament was one of the Russian asks during yesterday's negotiations. It was rejected ofc.)

bpodgursky 5y ago

I mean, this outcome would be pretty close to the status quo belle ante. It doesn't feel like a L for Ukraine.

tyrfing 5y ago

There's really never been a scenario where Ukraine wins unconditionally. Russia has started backing off on their terms - it's not going well for them either. What makes a negotiated settlement very likely at this point is that Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims.

brimble 5y ago
If Russia can get them to give up NATO and EU ambitions, and get them to start supplying water to Crimea, they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means (as they already tried once, and as Belarus has gone). Conceding on that, at this point, is just delaying the Russian takeover somewhat. If Russia can't get that out of them, I expect them to demand such large territorial concessions that what's left will have, at best, 1/2 the GDP it used to (not even counting damage from the war). That diminished state will go on to head toward EU and/or NATO membership, but it won't represent the kind of relief valve from European dependence on Russia that a free and prosperous united Ukraine might (which is a big part of why Russia wants to carve them up or conquer them to begin with).
- blibble 5y ago
  > they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means when will this be exactly? Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports their military ambitions are now finished, permanently
  - brimble 5y ago
    Multilateral agreements as part of a peace settlement are their most likely way out of the economic pain they're in now—removal of sanctions and normalization of relations with the West part of the peace agreement. I agree that their long term prospects, having blundered so badly, are now dim, but I think if they can get the right concessions out of Ukraine they'll still have salvaged a lot of their immediate goals from launching the war (probably at far too high a cost for it to have been worth it, yes, but at least it won't be a complete failure) and be in a decent position to realize further expansion before the end of their fossil fuel fortunes arrives.

paxys 5y ago

Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war. Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.

pmoriarty 5y ago
I don't see why NATO membership for Ukraine is so contentious, considering NATO has already made it crystal clear that they won't fight Russia directly over Ukraine.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  That changes if Ukraine becomes a treaty member. The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily." That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.
    - PankajGhosh 5y ago
      Yes, because Ukraine is not a NATO member. If it was, then as per treaty, the alliance would respond. How is that not clear?
      - pmoriarty 5y ago
        There's no guarantee that anyone does anything. The proof is in actions, not words. Treaty or no. If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.

JimBlackwood 5y ago

I’m sure his interests are in ending a war that’s costing civilian lives. If the expectation is that Russia will increase the severity of their fight, you cannot keep fighting at all cost. I fully think Ukraine can outlast Putin, but at what cost? Like he said to NATO in regards to the no-fly zone “How many civilians need to die? Give me a number, I’ll start counting.” Similarly here; how many civilians are Crimea and the two eastern provinces worth? If you have a number we’ll start counting. We’ll get there before Putin falls.

kaitai 5y ago

As ch4s3 and otherme123 state in sibling/niece comments, it's not bad. There is a reality here that countries on Russia's border face, that can be hard to understand if you live elsewhere. All victory against/agreement with Russia is temporary. Neighbor countries need to negotiate a space that allows Russia to save face and also gives the neighbor country room to maneuver and live relatively freely. Parts of western Europe and the US preach an uninhibited national freedom, that every country should be free to do what they want without their neighbor nations interfering. This is not reality, and I speak as a citizen of a country neighboring Russia. It's like thinking on a family level that your parents should fully respect and accept you no matter how far you stray from their traditions -- sure, it's a nice modern idea, but it's not how it works unless you have an amazing relationship where you can talk through your position with respect. Russia is just not there yet. No little country next to Russia is going to talk through their national ideals and national hopes & dreams with Putin and receive his blessing, encouragement, support, unconditional acceptance. Nah, it's more negotiating an abusive relationship where you can't get out. It's nice that the whole world tells you "leave, it doesn't have to be that way, you can do better!" but geography is geography. There is no leaving. "Better a scanty agreement than a robust battle"

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That doesn't sound like things are going especially well for him. If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the West of the urgency of a radical step escalation in military assistance, I might want them to perceive me as starting to waver in the face of the assault. If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the Russians that good faith humanitarian corridors that weren't simply routes to captivity in Russia/Belarus and maybe even a general cease fire for negotiations while the Western sanctions continued to hollow out their war capacity were good ideas, I’d want to project the prospect of an acceptable resolution through negotiations.