31
submitted 3 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

From one of the sources cited in the article: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en

Many Ukrainians may be open to negotiations in theory, but they overwhelmingly did not trust Russia to negotiate in good faith. Most Ukrainians (86 percent) believed that there is a medium or high risk that Russia will attack again even if there is a signed peace treaty, and even more (91 percent) believed that Russia’s motive to enter negotiations is to take time to prepare for a new attack. Even among those who supported negotiations with Russia, only 21 percent believed that signing a peace treaty would help Ukraine deter future Russian aggression.

Putin's problem is he burned all the trust the world had in him when he attacked Ukraine after saying he would not. If he is truly serious about peace, he first needs to rebuild that trust.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

The reality is that Russia is winning the war, and every day that goes by puts Ukraine and its western sponsors in a worse position. The terms will only get worse from here on out.

[-] sweng@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the fact that Putin has said he is open for negotiations, while doing absolutely nothing to actually get people to negotiate with him.

If he wants to negotiate, he needs to work on building trust, so he has someone to negotiate with. If he does not want to negotiate, then he should just say so. What Putin does now just makes people not take him seriously. You could practically hear the global eye-rolling when he made his latest proposal.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

I don't think you understand what's happening here. Either the west decides to start negotiating or there won't be an Ukraine left. Those are the options on the table.

[-] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

These libs are so used to having stopped caring about a war 8 years before it's lost that they don't even recognize what losing a war looks like. They think they can copium their way into Ukraine getting better terms.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Clearly, if they just keep repeating that Putin can end this war at any moment enough times then it will magically end.

[-] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Right, and Putin knows that the west and Ukraine will not negotiate since they don't trust him. So what is the point of making an offer you don't expect to be accepted? If you don't expect to negotiate, you are not being serious about it.

You can not claim to be for a diplomstic solution and at the same time do nothing to actually reach it.

Putin would rather kill millions of Ukrainians and Russians than make himself trustworthy (which could actually lead to a diplomatic solution)? What kind of person does that?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

The west of Ukraine has a choice to work with Russia to resolve this or to wait for Russia to win militarily and dictate terms. I'm still not sure what part of this you're struggling with.

[-] sweng@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

I'm struggling with Putin willing to kill millions instead of using basic diplomacy.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Putin is using basic diplomacy, and has been trying to do that for 8 whole years before the war started. That's what Minsk agreements were about. Then two months into the war Russia almost had a deal with Ukraine that the west tanked. Even NYT has publicly admitted to this https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

Now, Russia has put out another peace deal based on the realities on the ground today. The west immediately rejected it again. Yet, it turns out that it's Putin who is willing to kill millions instead of using basic diplomacy. Interesting logic you've got going there.

[-] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I guess we have to disagree then. To me making an offer you know does not stand a chance is not basic diplomacy. Threatening to murder the person you "want" to negotiate with is also not basic diplomacy IMHO.

But I guess I could try the Russian school of diplomacy the next time I want to ask for a raise. I'm not sure taking a shit in front of my boss' office and loudly proclaim I will beat him until I get a 1000% raise will be a great way to start the negotiations, but you've actually convinced me to give it a try.

load more comments (42 replies)
[-] Skua@kbin.earth 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What that link actually says:

To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker. Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.

With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Except Ukraine has already admitted that they were close to having a deal before Bojo visit. Then the stance changed to the quote you're giving.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 3 months ago

Maybe find an article that says that then. The one you linked says that yes, they were close to an agreement, but at the last minute Russia inserted a clause that was a dealbreaker

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago
[-] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 3 months ago

That is a very strange article. The headline is "How Boris Johnson Sabotaged Ukraine Russia Peace Deal In April" and the bulk of it is about how a former US National Security Council officer didn't say that.

Frankly the NYT one seems a lot more convincing to me. That addition to the security guarantee clause is obviously completely unworkable.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Obviously things you want to hear seem more convincing to you. There are however statements from Ukrainian negotiators where they confirm the change of direction in negotiations after western interventions. I've done enough looking things up for you here, but feel free to look them up on your own.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
31 points (77.2% liked)

World News

32215 readers
732 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS