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.
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.
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.