Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said a ceasefire with Russia without reclaiming lost territories would only prolong the war, according to an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
There is no path towards Ukraine getting any territory back. They’re losing between 9 and 10k people a month, this is not sustainable for any army. Geopolitics isn’t about trust, it’s about finding compromises that everyone can live with. This is what people in the west can’t get through their skulls. The west is no longer in a position where it can dictate what happens globally, and unless the west relearns how to do diplomacy we’ll be seeing a lot more conflicts happening going forward.
Russia claims to have attacked military targets in the harbour, while the agreement only forbids attacks on grain transport infrastructure. If such infrastructure were attacked by Russia, Ukraine would have shared pictures of the damage within hours, but there is nothing.
I’ve already explained this to you pretty clearly above, but let’s go through it once again. When you are unable to dictate to other people, you must negotiate with them. This appears to be a really difficult concept for you to wrap your head around, so let’s break it down a bit.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
The situation in Ukraine has escalated to the point where Russia decided that conflict is preferable to whatever terms the west offers. They are also winning this conflict, and the west has shown itself to be impotent to reverse the course here.
The situation is a perfect illustration of why avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Before the war started, nobody knew what the relative strengths of Russia and the west were. It was entirely possible that the economic war could’ve crashed Russian economy as the west gambled, It was possible that the rest of the world would’ve lined up behind the west instead of Russia, and that Ukrainian military would’ve stopped Russian invasion.
All of these were possible scenarios, and this gave the west leverage over Russia to negotiate terms. In fact, Russia was willing to do just that for 8 years when they kept waiting for Minks protocols to be implemented. The west chose to ignore Russia’s concerns and to continue escalating to the point where Russia decided that they are willing to take the risk of an open conflict.
Now that the conflict happened there are a lot less hypotheticals on the table. Russia now knows that they are able to win militarily. They see that the sanctions failed to affect their economy significantly, and that the blow back in the west is far more severe. And finally, they see that majority of the world is either neutral or actively supporting them.
At this point any leverage that the west had over Russia has evaporated. Now, Russia will continue taking Ukraine apart until they decide to stop, and they will be dictating terms to the west because it’s know clear that there is no alternative to Russian energy in Europe.
Please explain how are you going to go forward with diplomacy if the invader here is not to be trusted in even deals and negotiations like this?
Like this. Two sides claim the whole territory. One of them is a neocolonial power (🇺🇲) who bombed 20% of the local population in what was essentially a genocidal campaign that that country (🇰🇵) still hasn’t recovered from. The two sides still hate each other’s guts. But they established a DMZ where they felt comfortable in maintaining their own zone of influence.
(Also, NK is pretty analogous here in that, like Ukraine, they violated a border agreement when the conflict started, and spent a significant amount of time afterward on the defensive while waiting for Americans and their air superiority to run out of resources).
Additionally, Russia has been pretty forward that it desires a Ukranian DMZ that increases the distance between the missile emplacements of both Russia and NATO. This sort of guarantee would get them to take an armistice seriously.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
Negotiating with Russia does not guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Yet, negotiation is preferable to all out war because there is a chance of precluding it. One has to be a special kind of imbecile in order to not understand this.
And now Ukraine and Russia made a deal, which Russia immediately broke (they admitted it the bombing today). And this is the diplomacy which is needed in your opinion?
Read the rest of my reply where I explain in detail why Russia is now in the position to break the deal, and why negotiating BEFORE the war started had a much better chance of avoiding the current situation.
Please explain how are you going to go forward with diplomacy if the invader here is not to be trusted in even deals and negotiations like this? And you honestly expect after all this any military negotations are going to work any better?
Again, as I explained in my reply which you evidently did not read, we’re past the point where any meaningful negotiation is possible. Russia will now dictate its terms to Ukraine and to the west.
Then your understanding about diplomacy and negotations are purely fantasy. I’d prefer to use some other term for situations where the other side is just using force to get its way through.
My understanding of diplomacy and negotiations is based in realism. Using force to get its way through is precisely what the west has been doing for many decades. The reason the west has been able to do that was because nobody was willing to challenge the power of the west.
Such wet dreams directly from your propaganda team. We’ll see about that.
I’m stating a basic fact that western experts are now increasingly accepting. Here’s an assessment from the British military think tank you might want to read. As I said, I don’t need to convince you of anything. By the time winter comes the crisis in Europe will be impossible to ignore even for smooth brains such as yourself.
What path do you see forward for Ukraine? They are continuously losing men and territory. The longer this goes on the more they lose. Time is not Ukraine’s side.
This is not accurate. It was in the news report today that the casualties are around 30 soldiers per day. Or… did you count all the civilians to your numbers because you used the word “people”?
News reports clearly state that Ukraine is losing at least 200 soldiers every day. This is what Ukraine themselves says. This doesn’t include other casualties which result in additional troops being taken out of combat. If you’re going to lie, at least try to find something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds.
You are again claiming that geopolitics isn’t about trust, which is false.
Diplomacy can never be based on trust. If you really don’t understand why then I don’t know what else to tell you.
And how is that a compromise where bending the knee is the only options east provides?
That’s the option that the west has been providing for the past 30 years. Now you get to reap what you sowed. The west does not have the strength to challenge Russia. This means that the west has no hope to challenge China which has a far bigger industrial base. Either the west learns how to talk to countries it doesn’t like and to find compromises or it will bend the knee. You can keep screeching here all you like, but that won’t change the facts.
Diplomacy can never be based on geopolitics that happens without any trust. It doesn’t make any sense.
The only thing that doesn’t make sense is claiming that geopolitics can be based on trust. Countries that are adversaries inherently can’t trust each other. What you do is try to figure out the goals of your competitors, and find ways to find a compromise between their goals and your own.
Bending the knee is the last option available. Things have already gone too far for that to be possible. People are not gonna tolerate it.
And what are they going to do exactly. The west can’t match Russia in terms of military industrial production. Europe has no food and no fuel right now. If you seriously think that people are gonna tolerate starving and freezing to death to show off Russia, then what else is there to tell you.
Ukranian casualities are classified by the goverment, as well as the location of mobilized solder during his first 90 days of duty. That’s gives an possibility to the govement say literally any numbers of casualities.
There are indirect pointers of heavy casualities: introduced military duty on women, introduced mobilisation of infected with tuberculosis (non-officially), hard to leave the country by men, catch civilian attempts to mobilize on streets etc.
So you pasted a link that quotes an Ukrainian policitian about casualties, but then you don’t believe what Zelensky is saying?
Correct, Zelensky is known to lie constantly and he needs to keep up the narrative that things are going well in order to maintain support at home and from simpletons in the west. The official was admitting realistic numbers that every western intelligence agency agrees on. The second link I gave you is from yesterday. US intelligence officials directly contradict the absurd claim form Zelensky you linked.
Your opinion is uninformed and irrelevant. Sooner than later you will have to start adapting your views to the reality of the world.
I’ve already answered your question in my previous comment. You can keep believing whatever you want to believe, there is no point trying to convince you that the sky is in fact blue and that water is wet. Enjoy wallowing in your delusions while you can.
There is no path towards Ukraine getting any territory back. They’re losing between 9 and 10k people a month, this is not sustainable for any army. Geopolitics isn’t about trust, it’s about finding compromises that everyone can live with. This is what people in the west can’t get through their skulls. The west is no longer in a position where it can dictate what happens globally, and unless the west relearns how to do diplomacy we’ll be seeing a lot more conflicts happening going forward.
deleted by creator
Russia claims to have attacked military targets in the harbour, while the agreement only forbids attacks on grain transport infrastructure. If such infrastructure were attacked by Russia, Ukraine would have shared pictures of the damage within hours, but there is nothing.
I’ve already explained this to you pretty clearly above, but let’s go through it once again. When you are unable to dictate to other people, you must negotiate with them. This appears to be a really difficult concept for you to wrap your head around, so let’s break it down a bit.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
The situation in Ukraine has escalated to the point where Russia decided that conflict is preferable to whatever terms the west offers. They are also winning this conflict, and the west has shown itself to be impotent to reverse the course here.
The situation is a perfect illustration of why avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Before the war started, nobody knew what the relative strengths of Russia and the west were. It was entirely possible that the economic war could’ve crashed Russian economy as the west gambled, It was possible that the rest of the world would’ve lined up behind the west instead of Russia, and that Ukrainian military would’ve stopped Russian invasion.
All of these were possible scenarios, and this gave the west leverage over Russia to negotiate terms. In fact, Russia was willing to do just that for 8 years when they kept waiting for Minks protocols to be implemented. The west chose to ignore Russia’s concerns and to continue escalating to the point where Russia decided that they are willing to take the risk of an open conflict.
Now that the conflict happened there are a lot less hypotheticals on the table. Russia now knows that they are able to win militarily. They see that the sanctions failed to affect their economy significantly, and that the blow back in the west is far more severe. And finally, they see that majority of the world is either neutral or actively supporting them.
At this point any leverage that the west had over Russia has evaporated. Now, Russia will continue taking Ukraine apart until they decide to stop, and they will be dictating terms to the west because it’s know clear that there is no alternative to Russian energy in Europe.
deleted by creator
Like this. Two sides claim the whole territory. One of them is a neocolonial power (🇺🇲) who bombed 20% of the local population in what was essentially a genocidal campaign that that country (🇰🇵) still hasn’t recovered from. The two sides still hate each other’s guts. But they established a DMZ where they felt comfortable in maintaining their own zone of influence.
(Also, NK is pretty analogous here in that, like Ukraine, they violated a border agreement when the conflict started, and spent a significant amount of time afterward on the defensive while waiting for Americans and their air superiority to run out of resources).
Additionally, Russia has been pretty forward that it desires a Ukranian DMZ that increases the distance between the missile emplacements of both Russia and NATO. This sort of guarantee would get them to take an armistice seriously.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml
Great answer, people pretending that negotiations with an adversary aren’t possible are either ignorant or simply bad actors.
I answered your question in the second paragraph:
Negotiating with Russia does not guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Yet, negotiation is preferable to all out war because there is a chance of precluding it. One has to be a special kind of imbecile in order to not understand this.
Read the rest of my reply where I explain in detail why Russia is now in the position to break the deal, and why negotiating BEFORE the war started had a much better chance of avoiding the current situation.
Again, as I explained in my reply which you evidently did not read, we’re past the point where any meaningful negotiation is possible. Russia will now dictate its terms to Ukraine and to the west.
deleted by creator
My understanding of diplomacy and negotiations is based in realism. Using force to get its way through is precisely what the west has been doing for many decades. The reason the west has been able to do that was because nobody was willing to challenge the power of the west.
I’m stating a basic fact that western experts are now increasingly accepting. Here’s an assessment from the British military think tank you might want to read. As I said, I don’t need to convince you of anything. By the time winter comes the crisis in Europe will be impossible to ignore even for smooth brains such as yourself.
deleted by creator
What path do you see forward for Ukraine? They are continuously losing men and territory. The longer this goes on the more they lose. Time is not Ukraine’s side.
News reports clearly state that Ukraine is losing at least 200 soldiers every day. This is what Ukraine themselves says. This doesn’t include other casualties which result in additional troops being taken out of combat. If you’re going to lie, at least try to find something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds.
Diplomacy can never be based on trust. If you really don’t understand why then I don’t know what else to tell you.
That’s the option that the west has been providing for the past 30 years. Now you get to reap what you sowed. The west does not have the strength to challenge Russia. This means that the west has no hope to challenge China which has a far bigger industrial base. Either the west learns how to talk to countries it doesn’t like and to find compromises or it will bend the knee. You can keep screeching here all you like, but that won’t change the facts.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, because Zelensky has a long track record of telling it like it is. Just thinking here how gullible somebody has to be to believe that Ukraine went from losing hundreds of people a day to only 30 because 12 HIMARS have been shipped there. I’ll trust what US officials have to say on this one https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-taking-hundreds-casualties-daily-ukraine-war-us-official-2022-07-22/
The only thing that doesn’t make sense is claiming that geopolitics can be based on trust. Countries that are adversaries inherently can’t trust each other. What you do is try to figure out the goals of your competitors, and find ways to find a compromise between their goals and your own.
And what are they going to do exactly. The west can’t match Russia in terms of military industrial production. Europe has no food and no fuel right now. If you seriously think that people are gonna tolerate starving and freezing to death to show off Russia, then what else is there to tell you.
deleted by creator
Ukranian casualities are classified by the goverment, as well as the location of mobilized solder during his first 90 days of duty. That’s gives an possibility to the govement say literally any numbers of casualities.
There are indirect pointers of heavy casualities: introduced military duty on women, introduced mobilisation of infected with tuberculosis (non-officially), hard to leave the country by men, catch civilian attempts to mobilize on streets etc.
Correct, Zelensky is known to lie constantly and he needs to keep up the narrative that things are going well in order to maintain support at home and from simpletons in the west. The official was admitting realistic numbers that every western intelligence agency agrees on. The second link I gave you is from yesterday. US intelligence officials directly contradict the absurd claim form Zelensky you linked.
Your opinion is uninformed and irrelevant. Sooner than later you will have to start adapting your views to the reality of the world.
deleted by creator
I’ve already answered your question in my previous comment. You can keep believing whatever you want to believe, there is no point trying to convince you that the sky is in fact blue and that water is wet. Enjoy wallowing in your delusions while you can.