261
U.S. Rejects Putin’s Latest Call for Ukraine Negotiations
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
261 points (100.0% liked)
World News
37121 readers
590 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, "US has plenty of wars" -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.
I'm not condoning Putin btw. It's just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They'd be stupid to do that. But that's what Ukraine wants. In the end it's Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.
If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I'd be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico
It's not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about "Chinese weapons on our doorstep" would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.
Or
It can't be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia's aggression.
Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?
What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.
So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn't happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.
Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.
Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that's what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA
"The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine's government." Why are you acting like these are equivalent?
I don't think it's my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation
Well aren't you explaining it perfectly? Ukraine would have to leave the one and join the other.
And yeah I agree with all your sentiments, Ukraine should be free. But we can also agree that Russia is not acting completely randomly but out of self interest. And also that Russia is perfectly capable of invading a country and fucking up their shit. Right? We can agree that one should take Russia seriously? And be smart and careful?
It's not about Russia being right, it's about not being stupid and provoking them. Ukraine absolutely had a right to join NATO and it was absolutely clear that they would get in trouble and shouldn't have tried it. Fuckers like Stoltenberg shouldn't have encouraged it.
I don't think I've ever suggested that Russia is acting randomly. I agree completely that Russia is acting in Russia's interests. I just don't think it follows from that that everyone else should just lie down and and let Russia do whatever it wants, so if countries that have the power and will to oppose Russia's morally objectionable actions wish to do so then good on them in my book.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting except "Total victory or death (for Ukrainians)".
But you clearly said that this was not about NATO. Which means there are no clear reasons since the stated reasons by Russia are a lie, which means there is nothing to negotiate.
EDIT: It should be our responsibility not to fuel the war into an endless conflict, but to push both sides to negotiate a diplomatic solution. But this can't happen if the reasons for the conflict are consistently misrepresented by the media.
I'm suggesting that NATO should arm Ukraine to defend itself for so long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting.
No, it does not mean that. If Russia achieves its goals then it acquires millions of new citizens, a lot of the world's most fertile land, a very strategically valuable port (that it was leasing until recently), and the water supply for that port. These would all make Russia significantly more powerful.
Of course, I don't think that Russia deserves a goddamn thing out of any negotiations. Ideally the only negotiations will be how Russia will pay reparations to Ukraine. But again, it's not my place to tell Ukraine what to do. I just think that we should put Ukraine in a position to be able to decide for itself. If Ukraine decides to negotiate and accept some losses in order to end the war, that's Ukraine's call; the point is it has to be strong enough to be able to make the decision, not have it made for it by Russia.
Well you're basically spelling it out - the objective is to fuck Russia. I don't really have anything against that except: 1. It costs the lives of many Ukrainian and Russian people and 2. I prefer at least some balance of power instead of letting the US run unopposed and roughshod over the world
The objective is only "fuck Russia" if by "fuck Russia" you mean "prevent Russia from violently stealing a bunch of stuff from another country". If that's what you mean, then yes, the objective is fuck Russia. If that's what "fuck Russia" means, Russia deserves to be fucked and brought it upon itself.
NATO has no leverage to make Ukraine keep fighting. If Ukraine decides it would rather capitulate, what is NATO going to do about it? The thing that is costing Ukrainian and Russian lives is Russia's attempted land grab. The deaths stop immediately if Russia just goes home.
We already have China. Russia can't play in the same league as America, it's not even close. The EU and China are pretty much the only entities that currently can. I could see India getting there reasonably soon.
We're gonna need some evidence that the first one was a NATO coup for that to be persuasive. Because frankly it is not that weird at all to me that a president suddenly and unilaterally making an enormous and unpopular shift in policy sparked large protests and opposition. Never mind that Ukrainians completely destroyed Yanukovych's party at the election only months afterwards. Never mind that Yanukovych fucking fled the country. Was Ukraine meant to just patiently wait for him to come back after he abandoned his post?
And yes, I have read the transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt call. It is not persuasive towards your claim of a NATO-backed coup. It shows that America wanted to influence who came to power afterwards, but it's very clearly reactive and not proactive. And I'm sorry, but negotiating with leaders of a movement to try to persuade them who they should work with is just not a coup.
So "[A] provoking Russia was the reason, according to [B]". What do you say, is [A] Ukraine and is [B] Putin?
As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.
Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin's struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.
Play stupid games win stupid prices.
it's 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US's wars are evil 99% of the time isn't a reason to reject the one good one
US literally occupies a larger percentage of Syria at this very moment than Russia is of Ukraine.
You're clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.