4 ms·

Negotiated peace was what Russia and Ukraine had before, and Russia unilaterally broke it. That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which the U.S.

Negotiated peace was what Russia and Ukraine had before, and Russia unilaterally broke it. That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which the U.S. is refusing so far. Without those, anything negotiated is a gift to Russia, specifically the gift of time to regroup and re-arm for another attack later on. Lasting peace is not created by concessions, it is created when instigators believe they have more to lose than to gain from further violence.

theGnuMe 2y ago
US security guarantees are probably not worth the paper they are written on.
jamiequint 2y ago
It is an absurd position that the US should be on the hook to indefinitely pay for any war anywhere in the world forever, and if they attempt to negotiate peace while pulling out of that war that they are siding with the opposition.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  The problem is not that the U.S. is trying to negotiate for peace, the problem is that the administration is doing a hilariously bad job of it by giving up all leverage right off the bat.
  - aparticulate 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - anon291 2y ago
    We don't have any leverage against Russia. America has no appetite to fight them directly. If Ukraine were more effective at hurting Russia where it counts, then we might have leverage but the last few years have shown that they are not capable of that.
- int_19h 2y ago
  US should be on the hook to indefinitely pay for a particular war that resulted out of a diplomatic agreement (Budapest memorandum) that effectively prevented Ukraine from defending itself by making it surrender its nukes in exchange for nebulous security guarantees that weren't honored by US.
aparticulate 2y ago
I think it's a fine rule of thumb but what does Putin have to gain from negotiating with Zelenskyy who he is seen as a Western puppet orchestrated as legacy of US intel agency involvement? (Which we admitted is true…) People in this thread are completely incapable of seeing any legitimacy in any Russian concerns about Ukraine.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Whether someone's concerns are legitimate is in the eye of the beholder, but actions can be directly observed. Unilateral violent invasion must not become a legitimate tactic again. It was the norm for centuries, and excluding it resulted in the fastest rise in global living standards in history--including in the U.S. and Russia.
  - aparticulate 2y ago
    Do you recommend violent 2014 coups instead? That is our position on Ukraine, officially.
    - snowwrestler 2y ago
      Yes, actually, that’s how a lot of modern states got founded.
      - aparticulate 2y ago
        legitimate is in the eye of the beholder is right!
    - run4yourlives2 2y ago
      The US was literally created the same way.
      - aparticulate 2y ago
        [flagged]
anon291 2y ago
> That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which the U.S. is refusing so far. This seems obvious to me, but is apparently not obvious to many here.... America (no country really) can guarantee Ukrainian security without risking WWIII, and frankly there's no reason to. At the end of the day, from a non-Ukrainian standpoint, it doesn't really matter who administers the land that today is Ukraine.

theGnuMe 2y ago

US security guarantees are probably not worth the paper they are written on.

jamiequint 2y ago

It is an absurd position that the US should be on the hook to indefinitely pay for any war anywhere in the world forever, and if they attempt to negotiate peace while pulling out of that war that they are siding with the opposition.

snowwrestler 2y ago
The problem is not that the U.S. is trying to negotiate for peace, the problem is that the administration is doing a hilariously bad job of it by giving up all leverage right off the bat.
- aparticulate 2y ago
  [flagged]
- anon291 2y ago
  We don't have any leverage against Russia. America has no appetite to fight them directly. If Ukraine were more effective at hurting Russia where it counts, then we might have leverage but the last few years have shown that they are not capable of that.
int_19h 2y ago
US should be on the hook to indefinitely pay for a particular war that resulted out of a diplomatic agreement (Budapest memorandum) that effectively prevented Ukraine from defending itself by making it surrender its nukes in exchange for nebulous security guarantees that weren't honored by US.

aparticulate 2y ago

I think it's a fine rule of thumb but what does Putin have to gain from negotiating with Zelenskyy who he is seen as a Western puppet orchestrated as legacy of US intel agency involvement? (Which we admitted is true…) People in this thread are completely incapable of seeing any legitimacy in any Russian concerns about Ukraine.

snowwrestler 2y ago
Whether someone's concerns are legitimate is in the eye of the beholder, but actions can be directly observed. Unilateral violent invasion must not become a legitimate tactic again. It was the norm for centuries, and excluding it resulted in the fastest rise in global living standards in history--including in the U.S. and Russia.
- aparticulate 2y ago
  Do you recommend violent 2014 coups instead? That is our position on Ukraine, officially.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Yes, actually, that’s how a lot of modern states got founded.
    - aparticulate 2y ago
      legitimate is in the eye of the beholder is right!
  - run4yourlives2 2y ago
    The US was literally created the same way.
    - aparticulate 2y ago
      [flagged]

anon291 2y ago

> That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which the U.S. is refusing so far. This seems obvious to me, but is apparently not obvious to many here.... America (no country really) can guarantee Ukrainian security without risking WWIII, and frankly there's no reason to. At the end of the day, from a non-Ukrainian standpoint, it doesn't really matter who administers the land that today is Ukraine.