6 ms·

This is what happened in WW2. Nobody was willing to negotiate with Hitler because it was apparent that he was utterly untrustworthy, as evidenced by his repeat

This is what happened in WW2. Nobody was willing to negotiate with Hitler because it was apparent that he was utterly untrustworthy, as evidenced by his repeated aggressions through the 30s before WW2 finally broke out. It's the same situation here. Nobody can possibly trust Putin. He's utterly untrustworthy and any treaty would presumably just be breathing space and time for Russia to continue building up its forces for another invasion, just like Hitler with, for example, the Munich Agreement. The fact is that Russia has invaded Ukraine in an act of imperial conquest under the leadership of Putin, and as a result it's very difficult to negotiate with him.

engineer_22 4y ago
The person you replied to is saying that USA/NATO is untrustworthy, which I think is different from what you are saying.
- twixfel 4y ago
  Oh well anyone who argues USA and NATO more untrustworthy than Russia is not a remotely serious person.
fromseashore 4y ago
"nobody can trust Putin" - it was admitted both by Merkel, and by another high ranked politician whose name I do not remember at this moment that the goal of Minsk agreement was not to give autonomy to Donbass, which did not accept ukranian nationalism, but to buy time for Ukrainian army to rearm. So I think you are confusing things.
- yostrovs 4y ago
  Merkel was widely misquoted. Here's what she actually said. Note that she referred to Ukraine getting more time in order to mature enough to maybe join NATO, not to be able to fight Russia on its own: "I thought that the introduction of NATO accession of Ukraine and Georgia, discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor was it fully understood what the consequences of such a decision would have been, both with regard to Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine, as well as NATO and its rules of assistance. And the Minsk Agreement of 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. An illustrative example was the battle for Debaltseve. At the beginning of 2015, Putin could easily have overrun them at that time. And I very much doubt that the NATO countries could have done as much then as they do today to help Ukraine."
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Yes. You may dislike Merkel for her strategic decisions regarding fossil gas (I do), but there's no need to misquote her. That reads like a solid take to me.
    - girvo 4y ago
      I mean the simplest reason to misquote her is to muddy the waters and spread disinformation, so “no need” I don’t think quite holds. For some of the commenters here it seems they do have a need to do just that.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  Notably, she said this after the 2022 invasion and this narrative doesn't correspond to the fact that her foreign minister Steinmeier was heavily pushing for the Minsk implementation (that's not what you do when you're just trying to buy time). Furthermore, Minsk agreement was about much more than just Donbas. Implementing it would mean puppetization of the whole Ukraine - read a pretty damning analysis here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western...
duxup 4y ago
If someone in Russia could just remove Putin it would save a lot of Ukrainian and Russian lives.
- dmpk2k 4y ago
  There is the mistaken understanding that this is all just an artefact of Putin. It's not. Most of the Russian elite agree with this war, since they (collectively, including before Putin) have been warning that they will not allow Ukraine to join NATO since the 1990s. This is all well documented. All the bluster about "denazification and demilitarization" and helping the DNR/LPR aside, this war is entirely about NATO. It would make no difference were Putin replaced, in fact it may be worse since he is (surprisingly) one of the more moderate voices in Russia.
  - asimpletune 4y ago
    It doesn’t mean that they’d do anything about it. It’s Putin that’s eliminated anyone who can challenge him, so I assume when he goes so does the war and probably Russia as we know it.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      It depends. If Russia collapses, yes. If not, you will just get someone the system accepts, and that's a Hawk, probably a Russian Nationalist Hawk. Putin is a Soviet Empire Hawk.
  - yostrovs 4y ago
    The Russian public has proven that it can collectively switch to believing whatever needs to be believed in order to continue the war. NATO is simply an excuse to reintegrate Ukraine into the Russian empire that it was part of for very long. When Finland, also on the border with Russia, decided to join NATO, Putin said that there's no problem with that, that it was something for the Finns to decide. Fear of enemies closing in somehow doesn't play there. But Ukraine, where there are millions of ethnic Russians and a similar culture, abundant natural resources, and history that needs to be fixed, is an obvious target if you're restoring an empire.

engineer_22 4y ago

The person you replied to is saying that USA/NATO is untrustworthy, which I think is different from what you are saying.

twixfel 4y ago
Oh well anyone who argues USA and NATO more untrustworthy than Russia is not a remotely serious person.

fromseashore 4y ago

"nobody can trust Putin" - it was admitted both by Merkel, and by another high ranked politician whose name I do not remember at this moment that the goal of Minsk agreement was not to give autonomy to Donbass, which did not accept ukranian nationalism, but to buy time for Ukrainian army to rearm. So I think you are confusing things.

yostrovs 4y ago
Merkel was widely misquoted. Here's what she actually said. Note that she referred to Ukraine getting more time in order to mature enough to maybe join NATO, not to be able to fight Russia on its own: "I thought that the introduction of NATO accession of Ukraine and Georgia, discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor was it fully understood what the consequences of such a decision would have been, both with regard to Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine, as well as NATO and its rules of assistance. And the Minsk Agreement of 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. An illustrative example was the battle for Debaltseve. At the beginning of 2015, Putin could easily have overrun them at that time. And I very much doubt that the NATO countries could have done as much then as they do today to help Ukraine."
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Yes. You may dislike Merkel for her strategic decisions regarding fossil gas (I do), but there's no need to misquote her. That reads like a solid take to me.
  - girvo 4y ago
    I mean the simplest reason to misquote her is to muddy the waters and spread disinformation, so “no need” I don’t think quite holds. For some of the commenters here it seems they do have a need to do just that.
The_Colonel 4y ago
Notably, she said this after the 2022 invasion and this narrative doesn't correspond to the fact that her foreign minister Steinmeier was heavily pushing for the Minsk implementation (that's not what you do when you're just trying to buy time). Furthermore, Minsk agreement was about much more than just Donbas. Implementing it would mean puppetization of the whole Ukraine - read a pretty damning analysis here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western...

duxup 4y ago

If someone in Russia could just remove Putin it would save a lot of Ukrainian and Russian lives.

dmpk2k 4y ago
There is the mistaken understanding that this is all just an artefact of Putin. It's not. Most of the Russian elite agree with this war, since they (collectively, including before Putin) have been warning that they will not allow Ukraine to join NATO since the 1990s. This is all well documented. All the bluster about "denazification and demilitarization" and helping the DNR/LPR aside, this war is entirely about NATO. It would make no difference were Putin replaced, in fact it may be worse since he is (surprisingly) one of the more moderate voices in Russia.
- asimpletune 4y ago
  It doesn’t mean that they’d do anything about it. It’s Putin that’s eliminated anyone who can challenge him, so I assume when he goes so does the war and probably Russia as we know it.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    It depends. If Russia collapses, yes. If not, you will just get someone the system accepts, and that's a Hawk, probably a Russian Nationalist Hawk. Putin is a Soviet Empire Hawk.
- yostrovs 4y ago
  The Russian public has proven that it can collectively switch to believing whatever needs to be believed in order to continue the war. NATO is simply an excuse to reintegrate Ukraine into the Russian empire that it was part of for very long. When Finland, also on the border with Russia, decided to join NATO, Putin said that there's no problem with that, that it was something for the Finns to decide. Fear of enemies closing in somehow doesn't play there. But Ukraine, where there are millions of ethnic Russians and a similar culture, abundant natural resources, and history that needs to be fixed, is an obvious target if you're restoring an empire.