Non productive mnegotiaties can lead to productive ones but sure and that's what ukraine is trying to change. Or says it is.

Create somethign putin needs.

Related:

if there is one thing the West is very concerned about it is torture camps, mass incarceration, and policing dissenting views.

until putin negotiates, ukraine isnt in a position where they can have a productive negotiation.


wow, thanks for telling us that.

Which, since Communists are only Red fascists, as the world has known since the Yezhov purges, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Katyn Massacre, is always a little surprising.

Vintage British journalistic joke:- Three old lefties sitting in a Fitzrovia pub in London on the night the Soviet tanks roll into Prague in 1968.
First old leftie, staring into his beer: 'I don't see how anyone can stay in the Party after this.'
Second old leftie: 'I didn't see how anyone could stay in the Party after Budapest.'
Third old leftie: 'I didn't see how anyone could stay in the Party after Kronstadt.' (If you know, you know.)

Ukraine hasn't yet diverted significant Russian troop numbers, but, if they can hold the Kurst salient, they have a bargaining counter.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ncursion-kursk

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c8dpgeq01n0t?page=2

given how much the election can change USA position i think Russia won't make a deal before novemeber anyway, so Ukraine has to keep Kursk till then at least, let's see if they manage

Seems like common sense doesn't it? Yet it's not well understood, including among several posters ITT who have insisted for over a year that Ukraine is warmongering by refusing to give in to Putin's ultimatum.

ever negotiated for huge stakes before? you start with something insane so they agree to something you like. Both sides have stated insane claims for peace. like what is Ukraine side? Crimea + donbas + luhansk 3 territorys they don't control or have much hope of ever controlling + putin charged with war crimes. + entire russian military charged with war crimes. + repartitions. + much more

Like i am not arguing they don't deserve that. but that's Russian Capitulation not a peace settlement. Both sides official statements are full Capitulation. Its just a starting point. There is always an aggressor in a war but that fact never matters in a peace settlement.

Both sides publicly state maximalist goals, that is no surprise and to be expected, as you said. What is a surprise is that after being defeated in their initial attempt to take over Ukraine, Russia went into negotiations (the part where the maximalist goals begin getting dropped so a negotiation can be met) and restated their maximalist goals as if they had not just been defeated at Kyiv and were holding precarious positions in Kherson and Kharkiv. After losing on the battlefield and failing at their military attempt to get Ukraine to capitulate, Russia just asked Ukraine to capitulate instead; it is no surprise that they said no.

The reason who the aggressor is matters is because they hold the power to just stop. No one is forcing Russia to continue launching its economic future at Ukraine's power grid, or to send its workers in meat assaults in order to grab some territory that is not decisive in any way, and no one is forcing Russia to engage in genocide. They can stop these things anytime they want. They can drop the maximalist goals and peace can happen. Ukraine does not have the power to do this: if they stop defending against Russia then Ukraine becomes a failed state, its people get killed or displaced, and they suffer a genocide or flee.

As the aggressor, Russia loses out on little if negotiating is misconstrued as weakness. They can just stop. You don't need to look any further than this thread for what happens if Ukraine shows weakness or if they do anything which can be attacked by Russia or useful idiots to suggest that they are tired or can't keep defending. They are reliant on their image and aid for survival.

Well Russia wants to keep the land they control. Even if they were to give back the two regions to get out of it would you accept letting them keep Crimea? May as well ask for belgorod while your at it that would be easier for Ukraine to capture. They obviously can't just stop without making a settlement your being a silly idealist. Sure they COULD JUST LEAVE ALL OF UKRAINE but why would they ever do that. Its not something that's going to happen.

There's nothing idealist about it, you're just being a silly Russian apologizer. Russia wanting to keep the land they stole is not as high a priority to anyone (Putin included) as wanting to live without genocide or being invaded is to Ukrainians. Ukraine would almost certainly let Russia keep Crimea, this has been discussed before. Ukraine would probably let Russia keep all of the territory Russia stole if Ukraine had actual assurances that Russia would never invade again.

I think the international community could accept Crimea in some fashion if everything else (including american bases in Ukraine) could get done.

But even this isn't obvious, too many international players can't accept land getting grabbed like that with international approval, it creates a disastrous precedent for many other situations.

Ukraine will keep invading Russias weak point until the occupation ends.

Russia can easily leave.

everyone is pretty ok with the West grabbing land

Their air defence seems to be good so far, they're well schooled in drone warfare by now and have 'drone detectors' that monitor the control channels, they've committed some of their best armour (Challenger 2 MBTs and Stryker combat vehicles) and it looks as if the Russians can only use green and unmotivated conscripts against the salient unless they withdraw hardened troops from the occupied areas -- so the Ukrainians may have reason to be confident, even though the whole thing looks so wacky and risky. It could all go horribly wrong, but it hasn't yet.

how am I being a Russian apologizer? I'm pro Ukraine as I have shown many times but I'm not living in a fantasy world.
Your the one who is thinking emotionally and not logically. I'm just giving facts of the situation. Saying the war wont end until Russia leaves is cool. but its not going to happen. I can sperate the emotional parts of it.

That's what you just don't get . There's things you want to happen. and there are things you can realistically achieve. or you know just be an idiot and cheer for a war to go on for 10+ years and wipe out your population.

What If I told you they had it in 2014 and no one cared. its not even part of the current invasion/land grab. Why would someone losing land in a current war ask for something back in the last one. If they had the advantage sure. The current lines have barely changed in two years this is where it likely ends up. Maybe russia trades back the kherson region for the rest of the donbas and luhansk

Man I did have hopes Ukraine would push them back after the 2022 offensive but its been two years and were 100k casualties later all the refugees making new lives and never coming back. They need to make something happen now with this current win

These desires are not equal, and treating them as equal is apologizing for Russia. It is absolutely ridiculous, and it is living in the fantasy land you are accusing me of living in. I have no idea how you claim to be pro-Ukraine except by occasionally stating it despite your actions. Denying Russian war crimes, downplaying them, and claiming that Ukraine should accept the Russian troops in its country is not pro-Ukraine, the vast majority of Ukrainians would look at your words itt and say you are a Russian sympathizer (if they were feeling generous).




I just said that Ukraine would probably not only accept Crimea staying with Russia, but all of the stolen lands, as long as Ukraine has guarantees that Russia could never invade again... so what you're saying is a moot point. You are attacking views you want me to hold, not views that I do hold. However, it is perfectly normal to want all stolen land back, and not just the stolen land taken in the most recent conflict, which is a continuation of the other conflict anyways.


Ukraine is not going to agree to a situation where they are likely to be invaded again unless they cannot fight on any longer. That is a fact, not accepting this is being emotional. You cannot just freeze the conflict here, and assume that war never happens again.

Russia could always invade again. cant trust Putin. or anyone really.

You can trust most people a lot more than Putin.

However anyone, even Putin, can be trusted if enough pressure is put on him; NATO for example. This is why one of his main demands is no NATO membership. Ukraine needs to figure out how to get the situation to be such that they can trust Putin. It is going to be very difficult.

well you cant trust the USA either.

along those lines, they finally admitted that they blew up the nord stream pipelines. well, not them directly, but ukraine, on their own (lol). story they're going with now is that lil z ordered the code red, but then changed his mind and couldn't stop it (lol). yanks say the cia found out about it before it happened, but couldn't stop it (lol). germany also seem to be blaming poland for it now rn.

anyway yanks are throwing this general valerii zaluzhnyi under the bus over this (who is now apparently the ambassador to the uk), and somewhat lil z.




but the main point is, the germans are massive cucks

You can definitely trust USA more than Putin. More importantly though, USA is not invading Ukraine. I don't know why we have to do this Putin apology every time this comes up. Sure your default trust level can be "don't trust anyone" and that's fine. You should definitely "not trust" Putin more than you "not trust" others.

Putin is worse than Biden is hardly a hot take