International Putin signs mutual defence pact with North Korea, heralds 'New World Order' in meeting with Iranian president

[Rod1]

want the fighting to stop because I don't think a military victory is achievable.

So you want Ukraine to lose? yes or no?

Its kind of hard when you imply some stuff but refuse to say it out loud.

If US and the West cuts Ukraine aid, Russia will see it as an opportunity to take the entire country and will not be willing to negotiate anything but Ukraine's unconditional surrender.

 

[Rod1]

Nope. American academics working in the most mainstream universities. John Mearsheimer, Jeff Sachs, and Hal Brands just in this thread.

Ok, but neither of them are policy makers in Moscow.

Yeah, that's how negotiations work, both sides ask for an unrealistic amount and then they work out a compromise somewhere in the middle.

Show me one instance of Russia even remotely suggesting anything about meeting Ukraine in the middle?

Ukraine has already implied it would be willing to give some territorial concessions in exchange for hard security guarantees, Russia keeps asking for total demilitarization of Ukraine (AKA surrender).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So you want Ukraine to lose? yes or no?

Its kind of hard when you imply some stuff but refuse to say it out loud.

If US and the West cuts Ukraine aid, Russia will see it as an opportunity to take the entire country and will not be willing to negotiate anything but Ukraine's unconditional surrender.

Whether the US cuts off aid completely, tapers it down, or continues giving while sitting down and negotiating is unimportant.

A better comparison is, continue with the military victory option vs negotiation. I think the US/Ukraine should negotiate because a military victory is unlikely unless there's NATO boots on the ground or hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians are sacrificed.

Ok, but neither of them are policy makers in Moscow.

Yeah, but they're extremely knowledgeable and many have personal contacts with politicians both here and there. They know way more than you or me.

Ukraine has already implied it would be willing to give some territorial concessions in exchange for hard security guarantees, Russia keeps asking for total demilitarization of Ukraine (AKA surrender).

Again, that's how negotiations work. Ask for a lot, then work your way to an agreement. Of course you're going to think that what Russia asks for is excessive and what Ukraine asks is totally reasonable.

If either side was truly unwilling to sit and talk, we'd have heard about it. This is why Hal Brands brought up the next US president potentially "forcing both sides to negotiate." BOTH is the key word.

 

[Rod1]

Whether the US cuts off aid completely, tapers it down, or continues giving while sitting down and negotiating is unimportant.

It takes two to negotiate, you have failed to provide how does Ukraine/NATO brings Russia to the table.

A better comparison is, continue with the military victory option vs negotiation. I think the US/Ukraine should negotiate because a military victory is unlikely unless there's NATO boots on the ground or hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians are sacrificed.

Again, as long as Russia keeps attacking Ukraine needs to be defending. The military option is just an option for Russia, for Ukraine is not an option they either fight or surrender.

You talk as if Zelensky had the ball and could end the war tomorrow.

Yeah, but they're extremely knowledgeable and many have personal contacts with politicians both here and there. They know way more than you or me.

We are talking about Moscow, which of the people you quoted has any insight of what goes on in the Kremlin? which one knows what are Russian goals and demands?

Again, that's how negotiations work. Ask for a lot, then work your way to an agreement. Of course you're going to think that what Russia asks for is excessive and what Ukraine asks is totally reasonable.

Only if you are Donald Trump or the UK during Brexit, that's not how negotiation works.

When people negotiate they state both things that are set in stone and then things that can be negotiated.

For example when Brexit happen the EU said "We either have the 4 freedoms or we have none" and the UK said the exact same stupid shit "Oh they are playing hardballs, they are demanding maximalist goal but they will cave" 2 years later the EU just had the same fucking point "We won't accept EU membership light" and the UK had to accept that.

If either side was truly unwilling to sit and talk, we'd have heard about it. This is why Hal Brands brought up the next US president potentially "forcing both sides to negotiate." BOTH is the key word.

What is Hal Brands "knowledgeable solution" to bring Russia to the table?

Ukraine BTW has already shown willingness to negotiate as long as there are hard security guarantees, we saw that in Istanbul, where they were ready to accept a deal but fell through when no country was willing to be guarantor of it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Also consider that even a "negotiation" isn't really a negotiation... because Russia's actual goal is to take the entire country, and that isn't going to change. They obviously can't succeed in that goal now, so a delay of years only gives them exactly what they want in the long run: time to regroup for further invasion. There is literally no security guarantee they will respect unless they have to through force.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Pretty sure this is not a good thing.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

It takes two to negotiate, you have failed to provide how does Ukraine/NATO brings Russia to the table.

Lol. I'm not applying for a diplomatic position so I can't tell you how to bring Russia to the table. There is no indication that bringing Russia to the table is being attempted but failing though.

We are talking about Moscow, which of the people you quoted has any insight of what goes on in the Kremlin? which one knows what are Russian goals and demands?

Probably all of them given that they've been consultants to various governments and institutions like the UN.

Only if you are Donald Trump or the UK during Brexit, that's not how negotiation works.

When people negotiate they state both things that are set in stone and then things that can be negotiated.

For example when Brexit happen the EU said "We either have the 4 freedoms or we have none" and the UK said the exact same stupid shit "Oh they are playing hardballs, they are demanding maximalist goal but they will cave" 2 years later the EU just had the same fucking point "We won't accept EU membership light" and the UK had to accept that.

The EU wasn't a state involved in a military conflict with Britain so bad comparison. In peace negotiations between two warring states, each is going to make grand demands and then they get whittled down with time.

What is Hal Brands "knowledgeable solution" to bring Russia to the table?

Ukraine BTW has already shown willingness to negotiate as long as there are hard security guarantees, we saw that in Istanbul, where they were ready to accept a deal but fell through when no country was willing to be guarantor of it.

I haven't read any details about it but he certainly hasn't mentioned that it's a massive task or that it's being attempted but Russia isn't listening.

And 5 seconds of googling shows that Russia has attempted negotiations a few months ago

Putin offers cease-fire if Ukraine exits Russian-claimed areas and drops NATO bid. Kyiv calls proposal 'absurd'

Putin's remarks came as leaders of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations met in Italy and as Switzerland prepared to host scores of world leaders -- but not Russia -- this weekend to try to map out first steps toward peace in Ukraine.

www.pbs.org

Notice how there's no mention of the pre-1997 NATO member military withdrawal which was their initial demand way back before the invasion. So Russia is already scaling back their demands.

Not surprisingly, the West thought it was excessive. And of course, whatever the West counters with is gonna be seen as excessive by Russia. The point is, negotiations are taking place.

 

[Cid]

Lol. I'm not applying for a diplomatic position so I can't tell you how to bring Russia to the table. There is no indication that bringing Russia to the table is being attempted but failing though.


Probably all of them given that they've been consultants to various governments and institutions like the UN.



The EU wasn't a state involved in a military conflict with Britain so bad comparison. In peace negotiations between two warring states, each is going to make grand demands and then they get whittled down with time.



I haven't read any details about it but he certainly hasn't mentioned that it's a massive task or that it's being attempted but Russia isn't listening.

And 5 seconds of googling shows that Russia has attempted negotiations a few months ago

Putin offers cease-fire if Ukraine exits Russian-claimed areas and drops NATO bid. Kyiv calls proposal 'absurd'

Putin's remarks came as leaders of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations met in Italy and as Switzerland prepared to host scores of world leaders -- but not Russia -- this weekend to try to map out first steps toward peace in Ukraine.

www.pbs.org

Notice how there's no mention of the pre-1997 NATO member military withdrawal which was their initial demand way back before the invasion. So Russia is already scaling back their demands.

Not surprisingly, the West thought it was excessive. And of course, whatever the West counters with is gonna be seen as excessive by Russia. The point is, negotiations are taking place.

God damn you are such a rube.

Concessions can be made to end a war.

Your article is about the concessions required for a ceasefire. Not an end to the war.

Nobody with a brain is going to consider an offer involving massive concessions for a shitty ceasefire. Everyone knows this including Putin.

 

[Rod1]

Lol. I'm not applying for a diplomatic position so I can't tell you how to bring Russia to the table. There is no indication that bringing Russia to the table is being attempted but failing though.

You not being on a diplomatic position hasn't stopped you from suggesting the US should cut weapons supply to Ukraine to force them to negotiate.

So give me your wildest idea.

Probably all of them given that they've been consultants to various governments and institutions like the UN.

But not really.

The EU wasn't a state involved in a military conflict with Britain so bad comparison. In peace negotiations between two warring states, each is going to make grand demands and then they get whittled down with time.

You are the one who said "That's how negotiation works" now you say "Well war negotiations don't work like that".

So which is it? does parties make wild claims or not during war? because history shows us that war negotiations only happen when both sides realize the maximalist goal is too hard to attain or simply surrender negotiations where the lost party tries to convince the winning party to not be as harsh.

I haven't read any details about it but he certainly hasn't mentioned that it's a massive task or that it's being attempted but Russia isn't listening.

So he has not given any solution, what's his opinion worth then?

And 5 seconds of googling shows that Russia has attempted negotiations a few months ago

Ceasefire, not a war resolution.

Notice how there's no mention of the pre-1997 NATO member military withdrawal which was their initial demand way back before the invasion. So Russia is already scaling back their demands.

Scaling back their demand vis a vis NATO, not scaling back their demands vis a vis Ukraine.

And here you are doing it again, assuming that Ukraine isn't a real country with an agenda, just a pawn of the West without any agency.

Not surprisingly, the West thought it was excessive. And of course, whatever the West counters with is gonna be seen as excessive by Russia. The point is, negotiations are taking place.

Ukraine considered it excessive because it implies becoming a landlocked country and there is no security guarantee, just a pause in the fighting.

So why would Ukraine accept such conditions? they are going to lose half their country anyway, but at least Russia will be spent militarily to take the other half.

 

[Cid]

Ceasefire, not a war resolution.

He'll never grasp how stupid posting that article makes him look.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You not being on a diplomatic position hasn't stopped you from suggesting the US should cut weapons supply to Ukraine to force them to negotiate.

So give me your wildest idea.

You're way too hung up on this cutting off of weapons thing. I don't know or care how much or when the weapons supply gets cut off or decreased.

I just think that the US/NATO should explore the diplomatic route, not the military route because the military route is unwinnable.

You are the one who said "That's how negotiation works" now you say "Well war negotiations don't work like that".

So which is it? does parties make wild claims or not during war? because history shows us that war negotiations only happen when both sides realize the maximalist goal is too hard to attain or simply surrender negotiations where the lost party tries to convince the winning party to not be as harsh.

What? I've been consistent in my position: in negotiations between states at war, both sides are going to make tremendous demands that the other side won't accept, and then they discuss an agreement.

Obviously how much leverage you have in the negotiations is going to matter. If you've been getting your ass kicked, you don't have much leverage. But after 3 years of drawing Russia to a stalemate, Ukraine should be in a pretty decent position. Russia knows Ukraine can defend themselves and will be extremely costly to beat.

So he has not given any solution, what's his opinion worth then?

Stay on topic for once. The topic is NOT, "Does this guy have proposals for getting Russia to sit down?"

The topic is, "Is Russia and Putin opposed to dialogue?" You keep claiming they are but this one expert doesn't even bring it up.

Ceasefire, not a war resolution.

Jesus fucking Christ, a ceasefire is obviously the first step towards a war resolution!

I know you're just being Rod and just spewing out shit to be argumentative but it's really getting tiring...

Scaling back their demand vis a vis NATO, not scaling back their demands vis a vis Ukraine.

And here you are doing it again, assuming that Ukraine isn't a real country with an agenda, just a pawn of the West without any agency.

Surprise, surprise, yet ANOTHER tangent you off on. You get proven wrong and you absolutely HAVE to say something, so you bring up something else to divert.

Stay on topic. You've been adamant that Russia has zero interest in negotiating but here is a Western source showing otherwise.

Ukraine considered it excessive because it implies becoming a landlocked country and there is no security guarantee, just a pause in the fighting.

So why would Ukraine accept such conditions? they are going to lose half their country anyway, but at least Russia will be spent militarily to take the other half.

That's right, Ukraine counters with something else, then they go back and forth and hopefully reach an agreement.

 

[Rod1]

You're way too hung up on this cutting off of weapons thing. I don't know or care how much or when the weapons supply gets cut off or decreased.

Because you are insisting that US/NATO giving weapons to Ukraine is "military option" when giving weapons to Ukraine is just part of a broader strategy, EU has been in intensive diplomatic rounds with Putin, Macron and Olaf phoned Russia several times, Biden told Putin to please not invade Ukraine, the Austrian Prime Minister even traveled to Russia.

The one "hung up" is you, who claims that giving weapons to Ukraine means NATO isn't interested in a diplomatic solution.

I just think that the US/NATO should explore the diplomatic route, not the military route because the military route is unwinnable

See above.

What? I've been consistent in my position: in negotiations between states at war, both sides are going to make tremendous demands that the other side won't accept, and then they discuss an agreement.

Give me one real world example.

Obviously how much leverage you have in the negotiations is going to matter. If you've been getting your ass kicked, you don't have much leverage. But after 3 years of drawing Russia to a stalemate, Ukraine should be in a pretty decent position. Russia knows Ukraine can defend themselves and will be extremely costly to beat.

Ok, so we do agree that the best solution to bring Russia to the table is to make Ukraine show Russia that a military solution isn't viable?

Stay on topic for once. The topic is NOT, "Does this guy have proposals for getting Russia to sit down?"

Pretty much yes, if you are going to blame NATO for prolonging the war on the basis that NATO is the roadblock to negotiations the an argument needs to be established on why NATO is a roadblock and not Russia, which refuses to negotiate.

The topic is, "Is Russia and Putin opposed to dialogue?" You keep claiming they are but this one expert doesn't even bring it up.

I keep claiming they are on the basis that so far there has not been a real attempt from Russia to negotiate in good faith.

Jesus fucking Christ, a ceasefire is obviously the first step towards a war resolution!

A ceasefire where Ukraine gives away half the country? doubtful.

I know you're just being Rod and just spewing out shit to be argumentative but it's really getting tiring...

Ok, im not name calling you, uncalled for.

Surprise, surprise, yet ANOTHER tangent you off on. You get proven wrong and you absolutely HAVE to say something, so you bring up something else to divert.

How is it a tangent? You literally talked as if the ceasefire was negotiated between the West and NATO when the ceasefire is between Ukraine and Russia.

"NATO didn't have to go back to pre-1997 borders and the West rejected it".

The West didn't rejected it, it was Ukraine, because Ukraine won't give away half the country with no guarantees.

Stay on topic. You've been adamant that Russia has zero interest in negotiating but here is a Western source showing otherwise.

Right, "give us half the country for a temporary ceasefire".

That's right, Ukraine counters with something else, then they go back and forth and hopefully reach an agreement.

Ukraine is asking "How can we make sure a peace agreement will be respected"
Russia is asking "Give us half the country and we may consider a temporary ceasefire".

Yeah, totally the same.

 

[Prefect]

Iran would be foolish to get in on this because alliance are made before a conflict, not after a 3 week Russian operation gets dragged out to 3 years and their military is heavily depleted. Why on earth get dragged into a conflict that is already lost? No one is going to be pressuring North Korea or Iran soon after this because this is just way too much on the plate. I suspect this is about Russian military tech being exchanged but it can't be worth the true cost of segregating yourself from the world.

 

[Prefect]

All the stuff you're whining about is internal and this is an international relations subject.

Here's a better argument for your side: BRICS countries make up the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, and 37th biggest economies in the world

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

That's absolutely nothing to scoff at. And of course, a lot of other countries are friendly with BRICS.

A lot of these guys are delusional about the US-led West dominating the planet just because that's how it is. It ain't 1946 anymore.

You can scoff at it because it is such a small coalition and the only main players are India and China. The rest have no sway. India and China would be better to just breakaway themselves and form economic alliances in asia. Russia is just tag along that doesn't belong with the others.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Iran would be foolish to get in on this because alliance are made before a conflict, not after a 3 week Russian operation gets dragged out to 3 years and their military is heavily depleted. Why on earth get dragged into a conflict that is already lost? No one is going to be pressuring North Korea or Iran soon after this because this is just way too much on the plate. I suspect this is about Russian military tech being exchanged but it can't be worth the true cost of segregating yourself from the world.

Irans already been segregated from the world. Russia limited business with them in the past because they themselves didn’t want to be isolated from the west. Now it’s happened, they might as well open relations back up with Iran

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Because you are insisting that US/NATO giving weapons to Ukraine is "military option" when giving weapons to Ukraine is just part of a broader strategy, EU has been in intensive diplomatic rounds with Putin, Macron and Olaf phoned Russia several times, Biden told Putin to please not invade Ukraine, the Austrian Prime Minister even traveled to Russia.

The one "hung up" is you, who claims that giving weapons to Ukraine means NATO isn't interested in a diplomatic solution.

Fine, weapons to Ukraine is the Gandhi option. The US/NATO should continue giving Ukraine weapons if it means it'll lead to negotiation and diplomacy.

Ok, so we do agree that the best solution to bring Russia to the table is to make Ukraine show Russia that a military solution isn't viable?

Yes and Ukraine has already done that. We're not in March of 2022.

It's been 3 years and Russia has taken pretty big losses. Ukraine has already shown it can defend itself.

Pretty much yes, if you are going to blame NATO for prolonging the war on the basis that NATO is the roadblock to negotiations the an argument needs to be established on why NATO is a roadblock and not Russia, which refuses to negotiate.

That's not my argument.

I've just been saying that the military option isn't viable and they should go the negotiation route. I haven't read or know enough about which side is taking the negotiation route more seriously.

I keep claiming they are on the basis that so far there has not been a real attempt from Russia to negotiate in good faith.

Of course you think that. To you, anything short of Russia retreating fully, and full Ukraine NATO membership isn't a good faith offer.

This is why I keep referring to experts. They're far more knowledgeable than you or me, and at least none of the ones I've cited have mentioned lack of good faith on the part of Russia.

A ceasefire where Ukraine gives away half the country? doubtful.

Again, absolutely nothing is going to appease you because you're in the John Bolton-Henry Kissinger/Just Bleed camp. Full military victory every time, punish your enemies, only negotiate a surrender or something close to it.

That's fine if that's your position and it's actually the position that's winning in Washington right now. All I'm saying is that there are other options and they're better.

How is it a tangent? You literally talked as if the ceasefire was negotiated between the West and NATO when the ceasefire is between Ukraine and Russia.

"NATO didn't have to go back to pre-1997 borders and the West rejected it".

The West didn't rejected it, it was Ukraine, because Ukraine won't give away half the country with no guarantees.

Ukraine would have gotten rolled in 2 weeks if it wasn't for NATO weapons and training (which started in 2014 at least), and it's continuing NATO aid that's helped them get to where they're at in the first place.

Zelensky isn't a US government official but he'll absolutely listen if the US presses him on an agreement. So far they haven't pressed him because they agree with the military option.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You can scoff at it because it is such a small coalition and the only main players are India and China. The rest have no sway. India and China would be better to just breakaway themselves and form economic alliances in asia. Russia is just tag along that doesn't belong with the others.

It's small compared to the West, but it's massive compared to any coalition since the Eastern Bloc was a thing. Brazil is a top 10 economy and Iran and N. Korea are located in key, strategic areas.

Overlooking rivals isn't wise. Just about everyone agrees that we're back to having two superpowers after almost two decades of just having one.

 

[Rod1]

Yes and Ukraine has already done that. We're not in March of 2022.

It's been 3 years and Russia has taken pretty big losses. Ukraine has already shown it can defend itself.

Not enough to bring Russia to the table..

That's not my argument.

I've just been saying that the military option isn't viable and they should go the negotiation route. I haven't read or know enough about which side is taking the negotiation route more seriously.

Again, this is entirely based on the notion that it was never attempted, diplomatic solution goes hand to hand with military solution.

Of course you think that. To you, anything short of Russia retreating fully, and full Ukraine NATO membership isn't a good faith offer.

No, that's just Ukraine's maximalist goal, the West is fully aware that there will be territorial concessions.

This is why I keep referring to experts. They're far more knowledgeable than you or me, and at least none of the ones I've cited have mentioned lack of good faith on the part of Russia.

No, you don't you don't have a single issue with opinions on what NATO/Ukraine should do, you simply use that as an excuse to dodge the issue that you like Mearsheimer, don't believe in Ukrainian sovereignty, that this is just a conflict between NATO and Russia and that NATO must abandon Ukraine to be a Russian satellite state because appeasing regional powers is the path to stability.

Zelensky isn't a US government official but he'll absolutely listen if the US presses him on an agreement. So far they haven't pressed him because they agree with the military option.

"Mr Zelensky we would like you to roll over and die and we won't guarantee your safety, but we may cut military support, also even in the case you agreed with us the next election cycle may see us not backing our promises in anyway or form".

Zelensky will negotiate the moment hard security guarantees are on the table.

 

[Rod1]

It's small compared to the West, but it's massive compared to any coalition since the Eastern Bloc was a thing. Brazil is a top 10 economy and Iran and N. Korea are located in key, strategic areas.

None of these countries are aligned with each other or share the same goals whatsoever, some are actually potential enemies (India and China).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Again, this is entirely based on the notion that it was never attempted, diplomatic solution goes hand to hand with military solution.

Not attempted seriously enough, at least, which is why the fighting is still ongoing.

No, that's just Ukraine's maximalist goal, the West is fully aware that there will be territorial concessions.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Yeah, Ukraine expresses their maximalist goals, Russia does the same, then they hash things out.

An article relevant to yesterday's election. Yet another mention of putting "pressure" a diplomatic agreement and zero mention of Russian reluctance to negotiate.

Moreover, Trump has made comments that suggest the US could pressure Ukraine into an uneasy truce with Russia.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/trump-election-ukraine-war-russia-intl/index.html

"Mr Zelensky we would like you to roll over and die and we won't guarantee your safety, but we may cut military support, also even in the case you agreed with us the next election cycle may see us not backing our promises in anyway or form".

Zelensky will negotiate the moment hard security guarantees are on the table.

Ok, Rod Bolton, thanks for your input. Ukraine is lucky they don't have you as a diplomat because they'd be fighting until 2040.

Things will definitely change under Trump so I guess we just have to wait and find out.