Because Ukraine doesn’t really have much of a choice in the matter, the entire point of the war was to get to a point where that could be certified. If Ukraine refuses any peace deals, Russia will just continue the war.
If Ukraine doesn’t get any security assurances, then they’re effectively still at war. This war started after supposedly getting promises of security for ceding Crimea.
They’re not the ones pushing this negotiation. If they just wanted to stop the war and give Putin everything he wanted with no guarantees he won’t just regroup and invade again they could have done that at any time.
There’s also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.
It isn’t a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.
Just because Russia says something doesn’t mean it’s false. Calling something a “Russian talking point,” is not an argument, it’s a thought-terminating cliché.
What part of NATO encirclement is “ridiculous?” Even if I agreed with you that it is “ridiculous,” clearly Russia thinks it isn’t, which means the motives are still there for Russia to continue pursuing its goals until Ukraine gives in.
This feels more like you dodging having to grapple with that reality than anything else.
Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has borders with NATO and didn’t go to war to prevent them. The war pushed Finland to join, which is not exactly a surprising result from renewed Russian invasions of conquest.
The whole reason I subscribe to ml politics is because commenters here are less blindly credulous about the disconnect between the statements of American political actors and their actions, but then you just trade it for an infinite well of trust for foreign regimes that at least until recently were blatantly worse.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in UkraineFormer Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don’t trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn’t the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger’s Nazi past.
Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?
Because Ukraine doesn’t really have much of a choice in the matter, the entire point of the war was to get to a point where that could be certified. If Ukraine refuses any peace deals, Russia will just continue the war.
If Ukraine doesn’t get any security assurances, then they’re effectively still at war. This war started after supposedly getting promises of security for ceding Crimea.
They’re not the ones pushing this negotiation. If they just wanted to stop the war and give Putin everything he wanted with no guarantees he won’t just regroup and invade again they could have done that at any time.
There’s also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.
It isn’t a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.
Ohhh, gotcha. I thought this was a real conversation, not just blindly repeating ridiculous Russian talking points about NATO aggression.
Just because Russia says something doesn’t mean it’s false. Calling something a “Russian talking point,” is not an argument, it’s a thought-terminating cliché.
What part of NATO encirclement is “ridiculous?” Even if I agreed with you that it is “ridiculous,” clearly Russia thinks it isn’t, which means the motives are still there for Russia to continue pursuing its goals until Ukraine gives in.
This feels more like you dodging having to grapple with that reality than anything else.
Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has borders with NATO and didn’t go to war to prevent them. The war pushed Finland to join, which is not exactly a surprising result from renewed Russian invasions of conquest.
The whole reason I subscribe to ml politics is because commenters here are less blindly credulous about the disconnect between the statements of American political actors and their actions, but then you just trade it for an infinite well of trust for foreign regimes that at least until recently were blatantly worse.
have you heard of this little thing called geography? Like mountains and stuff? Have you ever actually looked at a map of the region?
NATO expansion:
.
NATO in general:
.
Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:
NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don’t trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn’t the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger’s Nazi past.
Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?