3 ms·

Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have ch

by roenxi 2y ago

Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all. This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that. Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that Than what? I gave two scenarios. The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board. They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The US de-facto leaving NATO is a bigger concession than Russia asked for pre-war. Maybe do a little reset here to just one probable-case scenario? What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation? I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession. And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    More than half of the US nuclear arsenal is submarine based. Its central to US strategic deterrence and has been for decades.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    So we’re ignoring that multiple pre-war demands by Moscow are obvious non-starters. Including for Moscow? > don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus I didn’t. Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive. > requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I don't think any of them are non-starters, indeed I think one should have been given immediately without Moscow asking. But this is obviously going to be a long thread and that isn't the area that is most interesting to me about your opinions. > I didn’t. This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing. If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help. I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering. > Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.

by roenxi 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that Than what? I gave two scenarios. The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board. They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.

roenxi 2y ago
The US de-facto leaving NATO is a bigger concession than Russia asked for pre-war. Maybe do a little reset here to just one probable-case scenario? What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation? I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession. And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  More than half of the US nuclear arsenal is submarine based. Its central to US strategic deterrence and has been for decades.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  So we’re ignoring that multiple pre-war demands by Moscow are obvious non-starters. Including for Moscow? > don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus I didn’t. Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive. > requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I don't think any of them are non-starters, indeed I think one should have been given immediately without Moscow asking. But this is obviously going to be a long thread and that isn't the area that is most interesting to me about your opinions. > I didn’t. This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing. If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help. I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering. > Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.