3 ms·

> the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal. The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ow

> the whole thing was a setup with trying to pressure Zelensky into a bad deal. The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ownership shares resulting from it) to a fund, rather than the government itself. If Russia had then taken over Ukraine, they'd have to expropriate the fund to gain any benefits, but that'd also mean expropriating the minority ownership of the US. > Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done. Sure, but he is, and that's a huge issue for any negotiations going forward. Ukrainian martial law only delays parliamentary elections, not presidential ones. If Zelensky doesn't either get a democratic mandate or recognized as an official negotiator by the Verkhovna Rada, any agreements made with him can later just be rejected by Ukraine.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
The deal was awful and Ukraine would get nothing but delayed destruction. he isn't a fool. Rebuilding is useless with security to not have it torn down in 5 years when Russia recovers. >Sure, but he is Oh, so we're not going to have a productive conversation, then. >"PACE President Tiny Kox: It is up to the Government, Parliament and the people of Ukraine to decide when and how to conduct elections" https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it-is-up-to-the-government-parliament-and-the-people-of-ukraine-to-decide-when-and-how-to-conduct-elections https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it... Pretty much every country has martial law rules. So disagree or not, to call someone a dictator while defending against a war is outright malicious in my mind.
- DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
  Not sure how to delete my previous comment but the claim that martial law extends only the power of the parliament is wrong. I've clearly relied on a bad source of information. There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them. The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances. It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated. . So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?
bjoli 2y ago
Without security guarantees against Putin, it is not a good deal. That was what Zelensky was there to secure.
- DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
  Kinda, but the US made clear that at this point they will only back Zelensky in the negotiations. Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace. Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best. I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this: 1. Cease and freeze the conflict 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia 2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations. 3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible) (4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations. 5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war 6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries 7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties 8. Sign peace deal. 9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    > 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia What do you mean rebuilding Russia? > The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations. Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia. The problem with negotiations is that Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal. Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming. The only peace deal Russia would accept is if: a) It just allows them to invade again as soon as possible. b) It tells them not to invade again, but the consequences are meaningless so they'll invade again and nothing happens, and the same thing repeats again. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Russia is. To simplify this, you need to think of it as a bot playing Civilization that is programmed to maximize its territory gains, while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading, and influence on other countries to have them approve of those invasions.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

The deal was awful and Ukraine would get nothing but delayed destruction. he isn't a fool. Rebuilding is useless with security to not have it torn down in 5 years when Russia recovers. >Sure, but he is Oh, so we're not going to have a productive conversation, then. >"PACE President Tiny Kox: It is up to the Government, Parliament and the people of Ukraine to decide when and how to conduct elections" https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it-is-up-to-the-government-parliament-and-the-people-of-ukraine-to-decide-when-and-how-to-conduct-elections https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pace-president-tiny-kox-it... Pretty much every country has martial law rules. So disagree or not, to call someone a dictator while defending against a war is outright malicious in my mind.

DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
Not sure how to delete my previous comment but the claim that martial law extends only the power of the parliament is wrong. I've clearly relied on a bad source of information. There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them. The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances. It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated. . So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?

bjoli 2y ago

Without security guarantees against Putin, it is not a good deal. That was what Zelensky was there to secure.

DeepSeaTortoise 2y ago
Kinda, but the US made clear that at this point they will only back Zelensky in the negotiations. Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace. Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best. I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this: 1. Cease and freeze the conflict 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia 2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations. 3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible) (4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations. 5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war 6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries 7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties 8. Sign peace deal. 9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  > 1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia What do you mean rebuilding Russia? > The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations. Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia. The problem with negotiations is that Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal. Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming. The only peace deal Russia would accept is if: a) It just allows them to invade again as soon as possible. b) It tells them not to invade again, but the consequences are meaningless so they'll invade again and nothing happens, and the same thing repeats again. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Russia is. To simplify this, you need to think of it as a bot playing Civilization that is programmed to maximize its territory gains, while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading, and influence on other countries to have them approve of those invasions.