3 ms·
The word "seems" appears rather a lot in this essay. It's supposedly a strategic analysis but it reads more like a lazy New York Post op ed written by somebody
by pydry 5y ago
The word "seems" appears rather a lot in this essay. It's supposedly a strategic analysis but it reads more like a lazy New York Post op ed written by somebody who doesnt understand at all whats going on in Russia or North Korea and ascribes what he doesnt understand to "they be crazy".
Moreover, he outright ignores the brass tacks of what Putin actually he asks for in negotiations for he focuses on the flimsy pretext Putin came up with for justifying the war domestically.
Frankly, I dont think Putin is irrational. He's asked for three things in negotiations, the costs of which are minimal even compared to the cost of the war as it stands right now, and he'd probably be willing to give some ground even on those.
Would Kyiv be prepared to relinquish Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea and establish a Finland-like declaration of neutrality to avoid the complete demolition of the country? Not an inch on any of those right now but when the siege is in its third week and Kyiv has lost power, food and medicine he might change his mind. Notions of sovereignty and national pride can be galvanizing at the beginning but can seem awfully abstract when you start sufferint the true hell of war.
The most worrying part is that the west might try to force Zelensky's hand by threatening to withdraw help if he concedes to Russia. I can imagine that there are hawks in the pentagon right now who are excited that they now a way to collapse Russia from within if Ukraine can be convinced to sustain a half a million or so deaths in the coming onslaught.
- moring 5y ago> Would Kyiv be prepared to relinquish Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea and establish a Finland-like declaration of neutrality to avoid the widespread demolition of the country? Not an inch on any of those right now but when the siege is in its third week and Kyiv has lost power, food and medicine he might change his mind. I think I remember something in this direction coming from the Ukranian government already, though in the sense that Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea get an independent status from both Ukraine and Russia. The most interesting question to me is how an agreement between Ukraine and Russia can be trusted by both sides.
- pydry 5y agoRT said that Ukrainian negotiators softened their stance yesterday but I havent heard it corroborated by any other source so I'd consider it strictly hearsay right now. Putin wants the neutrality promise to be in the constitution. Presumably shelling would recommence if they tried to take it out again afterwards.
- mopsi 5y ago> Would Kyiv be prepared to relinquish Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea and establish a Finland-like declaration of neutrality to avoid the complete demolition of the country? Ironic that you mention Finland, considering that Finland is now looking to join NATO to secure them from Russian aggression.
- pydry 5y agoI adapted because last time I used the word "neutrality" on its own thinking that its meaning was fairly plain what that meant somebody interpreted it to mean "become a possession of Russia". If you've got a better suggestion for how to phrase it im all ears.
- mopsi 5y agoIt has become increasingly clear that reluctance to integrate with euro-atlantic security cooperation means exactly that: high risk of becoming a possession of Russia. Staying neutral and having greater freedom to pick and choose positions on issues is convenient, but not worth the price tag of Russian invasion. Now that Russia has shown the willingness to engage in conventional war in Europe, illusions of peaceful cooperation have been shattered and the cost/benefit calculus is against neutrality. Sweden has been neutral for 200 years and now they've seriously discussing joining NATO, simply because the cost of staying neutral has grown too large. Even eventual victory in conventional war would mean destroyed cities and unimaginable horror for civilian population.
- pydry 5y agoUkraine wasnt a possession of Russia before. Finland is not a posession of Russia either. It wouldnt be a possession by remaining neutral. In case it's not abundantly clear invasion is not the price of staying neutral. The invasion is the price of admission to NATO.
- mopsi 5y ago> invasion is not the price of staying neutral Pretty much every country in Europe has done the calculus and reached a different result. Even Ireland is reconsidering neutrality after the recent harassment. Acquiring nuclear weapons or at least allying with a nuclear power is looking like the best option to ensure peace in Europe.