But...Ukraine did negotiate with Russia in the early phase of the war. And a Ukrainian negotiator (Arakhamia) did say something to the tune of them being open to negotiations but accompanied by Western security guarantees.I find it amusing he's now renamed it from a 'peace plan' because so many numpties actually thought Ukraine is open to some sort of negotiation with Russia.
But...Ukraine did negotiate with Russia in the early phase of the war. And a Ukrainian negotiator (Arakhamia) did say something to the tune of them being open to negotiations but accompanied by Western security guarantees.
Is your argument that Ukraine will never ever negotiate again?
The fact that Ukraine was willing to at least sit at the table says that they were open to negotiations, to me anyway. During it, they found out that Russia's conditions remained harsh.Can you elaborate on those early negotiations? I know they sat at a table, but I don't think there was any expectation of any actual agreement. I seem to remember the Ukrainian team stating they knew within an hour of sitting down that it was a complete waste of time, but had to make the effort. Of course they may have been open to some sort of negotiation at that point however as there was still a real chance of losing the country in its entirety. That was a long time ago.
I think it would take very extreme circumstances for Ukraine to negotiate, i.e. Give something up, its land, its people, etc. I don't foresee those circumstances anytime soon so yeah, pretty much. I'm yet to hear a feasible suggestion. Ukraine knows better than anyone there's no such thing as a deal with Russia and at no point in the future will Ukraine rely on allies to guarantee its sovereignty.
I don't know if Zelensky can blankly say as much, as he has to balance the opinions of the US public/voters, who are being force fed ideas of him by Russia.
"Torture committed by Russian authorities has been widespread and systematic"
I think WSJ did a huge piece on them not so long ago… basically, Ukraine was actually open to constructive negotiations — it was a very different time, the blitzkrieg scare was still relatively fresh, no one knew about Bucha & other atrocities. But yeah, they almost immediately realized that Russians aren’t there for anything other than full capitulation and the so-called negotiators didn’t even have any real authority to make any decisions/compromises.Can you elaborate on those early negotiations? I know they sat at a table, but I don't think there was any expectation of any actual agreement. I seem to remember the Ukrainian team stating they knew within an hour of sitting down that it was a complete waste of time, but had to make the effort. Of course they may have been open to some sort of negotiation at that point however as there was still a real chance of losing the country in its entirety. That was a long time ago.
I think it would take very extreme circumstances for Ukraine to negotiate, i.e. Give something up, its land, its people, etc. I don't foresee those circumstances anytime soon so yeah, pretty much. I'm yet to hear a feasible suggestion. Ukraine knows better than anyone there's no such thing as a deal with Russia and at no point in the future will Ukraine rely on allies to guarantee its sovereignty.
I don't know if Zelensky can blankly say as much, as he has to balance the opinions of the US public/voters, who are being force fed ideas of him by Russia.
The fact that Ukraine was willing to at least sit at the table says that they were open to negotiations, to me anyway. I haven't seen indications yet that Ukraine is categorically against negotiations. If anything, the off-the-record rhetoric suggests they are seeking battlefield succcesses to have a stronger negotiating position.
And precisely because Ukraine fears an invasion 2.0 they want those security guarantees.
From the horses mouth. To paraphrase: Russia can only be forced into peace, its agreement on the matter is not required.
I also disagree with all the rhetoric about Kursk being to strengthen Ukraine's negotiation hand (sorry). It's a very digestible narrative and helps combat the propaganda portraying Zelensky as a warmonger. I do seem to be very much in the minority with how I look at this war however, so maybe I'm wrong.
My view -
- It's pure attrition, a numbers game, save yours and exhaust the enemies as efficiently as possible. Territory is a resource to trade for Russian attrition and Ukraine has plenty, if Russia takes Pokrovsk at the expense of 20,000 troops and whatever equipment they rode in on. That's massively favourable for Ukraine, just like Bakhmut was, so long as they don't take unnecessary risks with their own guys. If only Ukraine can recreate a few more Bakhmut's... Yes it fecking sucks for the people who call these places home, but there's an all out war to win. I for one, am ashamed they are left to fight this on our behalf.
- The war ends when enough pressure is put on Russia that something eventually breaks. Be that within a section of the military, the people, the economy, the oligarchs, the fsb or Putin himself. When one thing goes, history repeats itself and the stack of cards falls.
- Kursk is to apply that pressure. There's a dozen reasons this Kursk incursion is beneficial, it was there for the taking for one, at little cost, but the main points are the political pressure from taking Russian territory, forcing them to send more conscripts to fight and the mere fact they can now trade Russian territory for Russian attrition, bonus. If Russia wants to take back this ~1,000 km² at a similar rate to what they take territory in Ukraine at then what's that...? 9 months and another 200,000 troops? Lets hope they try, current reports indicate they are keen.
- Ukraine has no plans to retake its territory bit by bit, it takes it back all at once.
- This ain't WW2, it has more in common with Afghanistan for Russia, a war of choice vs a war of existence. Russia may have 4 times the population (if you believe Kremlin census/data) but it doesn't have 4 times the men of fighting age and the ratio its losing people at is not favourable. Add in its already severe labour shortages and an obviously failing economy, a dead currency, ever increasingly fecked birth rates and a myriad of other problems. Russia is done, its a ticking clock. It may get worse for Ukraine before the end as Putin goes through the various stages of desperation/mobilization, but this only ends one way.
https://kyivindependent.com/world-must-pressure-russia-to-negotiating-table-zelensky-says/"It doesn't mean that all territories are won back by force. I think the power of diplomacy can help," Zelensky said, adding that weakening Russia on the battlefield would give Ukraine a more advantageous position in negotiations.
"By putting pressure on Russia, I think it is possible to agree to a diplomatic settlement."
From the horses mouth. To paraphrase: Russia can only be forced into peace, its agreement on the matter is not required.
I also disagree with all the rhetoric about Kursk being to strengthen Ukraine's negotiation hand (sorry). It's a very digestible narrative and helps combat the propaganda portraying Zelensky as a warmonger. I do seem to be very much in the minority with how I look at this war however, so maybe I'm wrong.
My view -
- It's pure attrition, a numbers game, save yours and exhaust the enemies as efficiently as possible. Territory is a resource to trade for Russian attrition and Ukraine has plenty, if Russia takes Pokrovsk at the expense of 20,000 troops and whatever equipment they rode in on. That's massively favourable for Ukraine, just like Bakhmut was, so long as they don't take unnecessary risks with their own guys. If only Ukraine can recreate a few more Bakhmut's... Yes it fecking sucks for the people who call these places home, but there's an all out war to win. I for one, am ashamed they are left to fight this on our behalf.
- The war ends when enough pressure is put on Russia that something eventually breaks. Be that within a section of the military, the people, the economy, the oligarchs, the fsb or Putin himself. When one thing goes, history repeats itself and the stack of cards falls.
- Kursk is to apply that pressure. There's a dozen reasons this Kursk incursion is beneficial, it was there for the taking for one, at little cost, but the main points are the political pressure from taking Russian territory, forcing them to send more conscripts to fight and the mere fact they can now trade Russian territory for Russian attrition, bonus. If Russia wants to take back this ~1,000 km² at a similar rate to what they take territory in Ukraine at then what's that...? 9 months and another 200,000 troops? Lets hope they try, current reports indicate they are keen.
- Ukraine has no plans to retake its territory bit by bit, it takes it back all at once.
- This ain't WW2, it has more in common with Afghanistan for Russia, a war of choice vs a war of existence. Russia may have 4 times the population (if you believe Kremlin census/data) but it doesn't have 4 times the men of fighting age and the ratio its losing people at is not favourable. Add in its already severe labour shortages and an obviously failing economy, a dead currency, ever increasingly fecked birth rates and a myriad of other problems. Russia is done, its a ticking clock. It may get worse for Ukraine before the end as Putin goes through the various stages of desperation/mobilization, but this only ends one way.
It's not weak enough yet to be forced into negotiations. But considering how Russia behaves and what demands they made.This strikes me as being open to negotiations if they feel they have a good negotiating position. One can ask of course: would Russia be open to negotiations if their hand is weak?
Sept 25 (Reuters) - Russia has established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones for use in the war against Ukraine, according to two sources from a European intelligence agency and documents reviewed by Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russi...s-project-china-intel-sources-say-2024-09-25/IEMZ Kupol, a subsidiary of Russian state-owned weapons company Almaz-Antey, has developed and flight-tested a new drone model called Garpiya-3 (G3) in China with the help of local specialists, according to one of the documents, a report that Kupol sent to the Russian defence ministry earlier this year outlining its work.
Yes, in that sense it has created some headache for Putin. We'll see how the Kursk incursion plays out.It's not weak enough yet to be forced into negotiations. But considering how Russia behaves and what demands they made.
Before Kursk it would have been favourable for Russia if they could just end the fighting and freeze the front lines. They would have won a significant part of Ukrainian territory.
But now that would mean losing territory as well. As that's obviously not acceptable for Russia it means that they need to find a solution (or kick Ukraine out by force, which they are now trying).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/ben-cardin-dmytro-kuleba-deepfake-ukraineA deepfake “actor” imitating Ukraine’s recently departed foreign minister targeted the chairman of the Senate’s powerful foreign relations committee in a suspected attempt at election interference, US officials have confirmed. The notice added that the person, whose face and voice were consistent with Kuleba’s, “began acting out of character and firmly pressing for responses to questions like ‘Do you support long range missiles into Russian territory? I need to know your answer.’”
Cardin promptly ended the call and alerted the US state department, which confirmed that the individual was not Kuleba.
I'll summarize what he's saying in bullet points. I thought it was a good analysis as it echoes some of my thoughts. He talks about the scenario in which Ukraine doesn't receive security guarantees and the conflict gets freezed.
- Post-war Ukraine to face economic problems. Destroyed sea ports, unsafe land due to minefields, loss of important agricultural & industrial regions.
- Demographic picture looks bleak. In government-controlled territory, the population is estimated at 29 million. In 2014 before Crimea it was 45 million.
- Ukraine would be forced to have a high spending on defense. Tough task for a state that would have to deal with hundreds of thousands of veterans who need help and an aging population.
- Without security guarantees, chances of Ukrainian refugees returning to Ukraine gets smaller.
- The uncertainty would deter post-war investments as Ukraine would be deemed unattractive for economic engagement.
- Ukrainian domestic politics would enter a period of uncertainty and risks. Millions displaced, a stalled war, lost territories and a crippled economy would test Ukrainian national unity across political lines. Accusations of military failures could dominate the discourse.
- Using immigration to help address issues seems unlikely when EU countries offer more attractive destinations. And how many people would want to work in Ukraine while facing the threat of another invasion?
- Regarding military aid to Ukraine, Western support would be increasingly uncertain as peace could be used as an excuse for diminishing aid. There are already voices calling for reducing aid to Ukraine during wartime, let alone peacetime.
- Post-war Russia would face similar challenges but would be better positioned to absorb them due to its size and vast resources and craft in bypassing sanctions. It'd be a matter of time before Russia rebuilds a force large enough to deliver a decisive blow to Ukraine.
- Current peace proposals send the following message: no guarantees and an implicit expectation for Ukraine to cede territory.
20 minutes of Vivek talking pure gibberish about Ukraine. The so called "Russia-China alliance" is the real reason we should give Putin a swath of Ukraine.
Another reason why Friedman is completely useless as an interviewer. He allowed people to talk endless nonsense without challenging them, then claims he's accomplished something by having a friendly conversation.
He has such a weird fetish for being completely uncritical while platforming authoritarians and conservatives.
