5 ms·

Putin was always willing to negotiate and there have been attempts at negotiation before and during the conflict, what matters are the pre-conditions to negotia

Putin was always willing to negotiate and there have been attempts at negotiation before and during the conflict, what matters are the pre-conditions to negotiations. If the pre-conditions are too strong then in effect it blocks negotiations and it means the overtures to negotiate are simply done for political reasons. We’re being told that only now Putin is ready to negotiate so I’m assuming that means the pre-conditions have weakened but I’m having a hard time finding out what that change is. Maybe they’ve given up their demand for a de-militarized Ukraine? The ban from entry to NATO? We’re also being told that this willingness to negotiate is a sign of weakness and eminent failure for the Russians so Ukraine shouldn’t negotiate and should instead press their advantage. In effect we should not negotiate with people who are not-willing to negotiate nor with people who are… which only makes sense if we never intend to negotiate - a position that’s much easier to hold when we’re not paying the price of the failure to negotiate.

danaris 4y ago
Putin's version of "negotiations" has always been "give me what I want, and I might not kill thousands of you." If Ukraine is "pressing its advantage", it's to take back the territory that Russia has illegally attempted to annex. Please stop spreading Russian propaganda.
- birdymcbird 4y ago
  Which part of ops statement is Russian propaganda? At the onset of the current war, Russia and Ukraine met in Turkey immediately to begin diplomatic talks. You do realize we intervened and told Ukraine to walk away? This whole narrative that Putin is irrational, that Russia is just plain evil, and any contrary perspective is “Russian propaganda” reminds me of 2003 when questioning the Iraq war effort would get you labeled as a terrorists sympathizer. This war is far more nuanced than the US government-backed narrative being pushed in the mainstream media. That itself is propaganda. And what’s truly embarrassing is people like yourself actively try to shut down any discussion or contrarian views. If it doesn’t conform to your view of the world, it’s propaganda.
  - nmfisher 4y ago
    Poland and Germany were in diplomatic talks prior to the 1939 invasion, too, and Britain told them not to make concessions and that they would back them militarily in the event of any invasion. "Give me your land and I won't kill you all" isn't much of a negotiation, is it.
    - birdymcbird 4y ago
      Russia isn’t Nazi Germany. > "Give me your land and I won't kill you all" isn't much of a negotiation, is it. And Russia isn’t trying to conquer Ukraine. Russia doesn’t want neighboring countries, particularly Ukraine to join NATO. They’ve been repeatedly vocal and warning about this for over a decade. NATO kept that door open and said last year Ukraine entering NATO was a certainty hence the war. Certainly, it’s easier to ignore the past two decades of context, how we got to where we are now, and just draw Nazi Germany comparisons. No one in their right mind would defend Nazis, and so you can use that tactic to ignore facts and quickly shutdown the debate. IMO you can decide not to put in the research and go with the distorted NYTimes propaganda, but the Nazi comparisons are just intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.
      - danaris 4y ago
        This is part of the propaganda. I've read multiple analyses, very cogent and well-sourced, that concluded that what Putin wants is not just to conquer Ukraine, but to reassemble the USSR, or the Tsarist Russian Empire before it, with him at its head. He sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a stain on Russia and on him personally, and he wants to restore his/its "dignity". As part of this, he believes that Ukraine is Russian, and that any Ukrainian who does not see themselves as Russian is wrong, and likely either an American-sympathizing traitor, or mentally ill. "He does't want Ukraine to join NATO" is true, of course, but in the same sense as "he doesn't want to lose his power." He wants to keep both of those things and gain much more. Making it all about NATO is 100% part of the propaganda he has been spreading.
        TuringNYC 4y ago
candiodari 4y ago
Of course both sides have preconditions: 1) Russia: for Ukraine to accept territorial concessions (Donbas + Crimea) 2) Ukraine: for Russia to retreat from all Ukrainian territory, (maybe) except Crimea (meaning they're willing to sit down at a negotiation table without the Russians agreeing to retreat from Crimea) So the two sides are far apart. Russia is judged weak because the prediction is that without negotiations they will lose all territory inside Ukraine. They are dependent on negotiations, and unwilling to accept the reality that they've lost the Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk), Kherson, and Zaporizhia, and are unlikely to be able to hold Crimea in the long term. Furthermore, Russia has consistently failed to demonstrate capabilities they threatened Ukraine with. They claimed to be able to take Ukraine "in 2 weeks, maybe less" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RReQj7PpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RReQj7PpY), they claimed they couldn't be stopped in the Donbas. They have been stopped. They have been claiming for 40 years to have the tightest air defense network on the planet. The air defense network couldn't stop drones (which are unmanned planes, designed to fly slowly), not even with 6 WEEKS warning. They have panicked and deployed additional air defense platforms around Moscow, in other words, they're afraid they cannot protect the Kremlin from Ukraine's military, 450km from the nearest Ukrainian border whilst they cannot (effectively) hit Kiev's presidential palace, at 200km from their borders, and less than 70 from their deployed soldiers in Belarus. This is not the way to show strength. They are known, even long before this conflict, to constantly lie about everything, to ignore agreements made before. So it's not even very clear what an agreement with Russia would even entail. If they say they won't attack, they can't be trusted to uphold the agreement. So what's the point? There must be a good military reason for them not to attack or there's no point. Or to put it in negotiation parlance: BATNA for Ukraine is better than the conditions Putin demands to even talk. Nevertheless, these aren't small organizations: whether or not they've agreed to talk high-level, they're constantly talking.
bee_rider 4y ago
The US of course isn’t in a position to negotiate, since we aren’t actually in the conflict. We’ll just keep sending weapons to Ukraine so they have as strong a position as they can get. Ukraine is defending so… I dunno, I guess they aren’t very motivated to make concessions. I guess the starting point for negotiations for them would be Russia leaves, and then the details of where on the spectrum from “huge” to “massive” the reparations are can be worked out.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  The US is funding the Ukraine defense and has a enormous influence on negotiation. They are effectively a first party. If people don’t want to negotiate that’s their prerogative. I’m more interested in the difference between what I’m told by media and reality, and more precisely if there has been a softening of Russias stance I want to see where.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    In order to negotiate, both parties need to be able to offer concessions. What concessions could Russia possibly offer the US, related to the Ukraine situation, that the US would be motivated to take? Our people aren’t dying and our territory isn’t threatened. Because we’re, as you pointed out, not paying the price for the conflict, we don’t have any incentive to try and stop it… we can’t negotiate in good faith because we don’t have any chips on the table. We can influence the Ukraine/Russia negotiation of course, by increasing or decreasing our support for Ukraine. But, since they seem to be willing to continue fighting, decreasing aid would be a pretty huge betrayal.
    - birdymcbird 4y ago
      > we don’t have any incentive to try and stop it Inaccurate. Russia is getting backed into a corner, where they believe the wests goal has been to destabilize and break Russia all along. The more desserts they get more likely they are to use a thermonuclear weapon in Ukraine. The increasing probability of nuclear war should be sufficient motivation for america to broker a peace deal. Instead we’re sending more weapons to Ukraine. The media narrative has removed the 20 decades of context on how we got here. Focusing only on what’s happening now, the narrative is that Russia is motivated by some strategy to conquer Europe and any different perspective means the person is stupid or a Putin shill.

danaris 4y ago

Putin's version of "negotiations" has always been "give me what I want, and I might not kill thousands of you." If Ukraine is "pressing its advantage", it's to take back the territory that Russia has illegally attempted to annex. Please stop spreading Russian propaganda.

birdymcbird 4y ago
Which part of ops statement is Russian propaganda? At the onset of the current war, Russia and Ukraine met in Turkey immediately to begin diplomatic talks. You do realize we intervened and told Ukraine to walk away? This whole narrative that Putin is irrational, that Russia is just plain evil, and any contrary perspective is “Russian propaganda” reminds me of 2003 when questioning the Iraq war effort would get you labeled as a terrorists sympathizer. This war is far more nuanced than the US government-backed narrative being pushed in the mainstream media. That itself is propaganda. And what’s truly embarrassing is people like yourself actively try to shut down any discussion or contrarian views. If it doesn’t conform to your view of the world, it’s propaganda.
- nmfisher 4y ago
  Poland and Germany were in diplomatic talks prior to the 1939 invasion, too, and Britain told them not to make concessions and that they would back them militarily in the event of any invasion. "Give me your land and I won't kill you all" isn't much of a negotiation, is it.
  - birdymcbird 4y ago
    Russia isn’t Nazi Germany. > "Give me your land and I won't kill you all" isn't much of a negotiation, is it. And Russia isn’t trying to conquer Ukraine. Russia doesn’t want neighboring countries, particularly Ukraine to join NATO. They’ve been repeatedly vocal and warning about this for over a decade. NATO kept that door open and said last year Ukraine entering NATO was a certainty hence the war. Certainly, it’s easier to ignore the past two decades of context, how we got to where we are now, and just draw Nazi Germany comparisons. No one in their right mind would defend Nazis, and so you can use that tactic to ignore facts and quickly shutdown the debate. IMO you can decide not to put in the research and go with the distorted NYTimes propaganda, but the Nazi comparisons are just intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.
    - danaris 4y ago
      This is part of the propaganda. I've read multiple analyses, very cogent and well-sourced, that concluded that what Putin wants is not just to conquer Ukraine, but to reassemble the USSR, or the Tsarist Russian Empire before it, with him at its head. He sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a stain on Russia and on him personally, and he wants to restore his/its "dignity". As part of this, he believes that Ukraine is Russian, and that any Ukrainian who does not see themselves as Russian is wrong, and likely either an American-sympathizing traitor, or mentally ill. "He does't want Ukraine to join NATO" is true, of course, but in the same sense as "he doesn't want to lose his power." He wants to keep both of those things and gain much more. Making it all about NATO is 100% part of the propaganda he has been spreading.
      - TuringNYC 4y ago

candiodari 4y ago

Of course both sides have preconditions: 1) Russia: for Ukraine to accept territorial concessions (Donbas + Crimea) 2) Ukraine: for Russia to retreat from all Ukrainian territory, (maybe) except Crimea (meaning they're willing to sit down at a negotiation table without the Russians agreeing to retreat from Crimea) So the two sides are far apart. Russia is judged weak because the prediction is that without negotiations they will lose all territory inside Ukraine. They are dependent on negotiations, and unwilling to accept the reality that they've lost the Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk), Kherson, and Zaporizhia, and are unlikely to be able to hold Crimea in the long term. Furthermore, Russia has consistently failed to demonstrate capabilities they threatened Ukraine with. They claimed to be able to take Ukraine "in 2 weeks, maybe less" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RReQj7PpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RReQj7PpY), they claimed they couldn't be stopped in the Donbas. They have been stopped. They have been claiming for 40 years to have the tightest air defense network on the planet. The air defense network couldn't stop drones (which are unmanned planes, designed to fly slowly), not even with 6 WEEKS warning. They have panicked and deployed additional air defense platforms around Moscow, in other words, they're afraid they cannot protect the Kremlin from Ukraine's military, 450km from the nearest Ukrainian border whilst they cannot (effectively) hit Kiev's presidential palace, at 200km from their borders, and less than 70 from their deployed soldiers in Belarus. This is not the way to show strength. They are known, even long before this conflict, to constantly lie about everything, to ignore agreements made before. So it's not even very clear what an agreement with Russia would even entail. If they say they won't attack, they can't be trusted to uphold the agreement. So what's the point? There must be a good military reason for them not to attack or there's no point. Or to put it in negotiation parlance: BATNA for Ukraine is better than the conditions Putin demands to even talk. Nevertheless, these aren't small organizations: whether or not they've agreed to talk high-level, they're constantly talking.

bee_rider 4y ago

The US of course isn’t in a position to negotiate, since we aren’t actually in the conflict. We’ll just keep sending weapons to Ukraine so they have as strong a position as they can get. Ukraine is defending so… I dunno, I guess they aren’t very motivated to make concessions. I guess the starting point for negotiations for them would be Russia leaves, and then the details of where on the spectrum from “huge” to “massive” the reparations are can be worked out.

cjbgkagh 4y ago
The US is funding the Ukraine defense and has a enormous influence on negotiation. They are effectively a first party. If people don’t want to negotiate that’s their prerogative. I’m more interested in the difference between what I’m told by media and reality, and more precisely if there has been a softening of Russias stance I want to see where.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  In order to negotiate, both parties need to be able to offer concessions. What concessions could Russia possibly offer the US, related to the Ukraine situation, that the US would be motivated to take? Our people aren’t dying and our territory isn’t threatened. Because we’re, as you pointed out, not paying the price for the conflict, we don’t have any incentive to try and stop it… we can’t negotiate in good faith because we don’t have any chips on the table. We can influence the Ukraine/Russia negotiation of course, by increasing or decreasing our support for Ukraine. But, since they seem to be willing to continue fighting, decreasing aid would be a pretty huge betrayal.
  - birdymcbird 4y ago
    > we don’t have any incentive to try and stop it Inaccurate. Russia is getting backed into a corner, where they believe the wests goal has been to destabilize and break Russia all along. The more desserts they get more likely they are to use a thermonuclear weapon in Ukraine. The increasing probability of nuclear war should be sufficient motivation for america to broker a peace deal. Instead we’re sending more weapons to Ukraine. The media narrative has removed the 20 decades of context on how we got here. Focusing only on what’s happening now, the narrative is that Russia is motivated by some strategy to conquer Europe and any different perspective means the person is stupid or a Putin shill.