So, Biden hasn’t made that attempt yet?
“Hey Vlad, would you mind slinking out of Ukraine with your tail between you legs and give back any territory you have seized including Crimea? Also we’d like you to step down and possibly execute yourself for war crimes. Thanks, your pal Joe.”
You know, I don’t think he’s made that request yet.
What you described is not negotiating a treaty, so you seem to be grossly mischaracterizing what the letter asked for as well.
I did, however, check to see if the US has made any efforts to get involved in talks, and it seems like no, they haven’t. Turkey has, and the UN as a body has, but not the US.
The UN and Turkey have sought to act as intermediaries between Kyiv and Moscow, and had recent success in brokering the deal on Ukraine’s grain exports.
That was months ago, but it still seems to be the case.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to meet Turkey’s President Erdogan on Thursday. It’s expected that Turkey could formally offer to host peace talks between Russia and the West in a bid to end the war in Ukraine.
I guess the question is whether the US getting more directly involved would be counterproductive. Russia and Turkey are strong trade partners, if not actual allies, and it makes sense for them to negotiate. The US and Russia are pretty active adversaries; not in the military sense, but the US has levied sanctions against Russia, and Russia’s attempts to subvert US democracy are well-publicized.
Though I do suppose that the US could back Turkey, in the sense that they pledge to ease sanctions if Russia plays fair, and Turkey could be the ones relaying that. I’m not sure if that’s a tactic the US or UN has tried.
ETA: The FT site above was available for me to read (which is how I grabbed the quote), but now shows up as paywalled. I don’t know what the deal is there.
Realistically, the way the “peace process” would work at the present moment is that there would be a cease-fire with Russia continuing to occupy Ukrainian land, and then while the US and Ukraine attempt to secure some treaty that Ukrainians could accept, Russia would refuse to continue to negotiate and either the cease-fire lines would become the permanent de-facto border or the cease-fire would be broken at some point in the future.
If the Ukrainian government actually agreed to that, it would be a sign that they think they’re going to lose support from the US for a continued war and had no choice but to accept Russian annexation of their land.
I am making the point that what is acceptable to Ukraine will likely not be acceptable to Putin.
Yes, what the Progressive Caucus is asking for is unrealistic.
Hopefully they are not so unaware of the basic power dynamics in the conflict. If they are and all signed on to that statement unaware of the implications they should retract it.
The statement they signed onto doesn’t have the negative implications you laid out in post 44.
The scenario you laid out in post 44 is, indeed, a pretty bad deal for Ukraine. However, it’s not really relevant to this thread since that’s not what the progressive Caucus is asking Joe Biden to seek.
They are asking Joe Biden, “Hey Joe, can you negotiate the best possible outcome for Ukraine including security guarantees? Also, could you do that quickly? Kthxbye.” It’s an unrealistic request, but it doesn’t have negative implications.
Reality is going to be a lot messier and a lot less ideal for Ukraine. That, however, is will be the case whether this letter was written or not.
Pretending that they are implying that Ukraine should give up territory directly contradicts what the letter actually says.
This is what politicians do; they declare their position on issues. There’s no need to look for some “motive” behind politicians issuing a long-winded position paper that doesn’t really add anything to the discussion and which nobody but Twitter obsessives will ever even hear about, much less read.
Yes it does. Anyone with a brain looking at this situation knows that peace right now means Russia permanently occupying Ukraine. Not everyone is going to simply assume incompetence on the part of people who think a peace deal would be reasonable right now.
And to be clear I don’t think this is genuine malice, I think unfortunately the progressives are giving in to pressure from the people similar to the ones that proested AOC and are making a tonedeaf statement for “peace”.
Reality is of course going to be messy but there is no way Ukraine even gets to where they are now with their advances pushing Russia near to their border if there is any question about US resolve.
They are not asking for a simple cease fire now so we can work some shit out down the road, and I don’t know why you are pretending otherwise.
They are asking for, “a negotiated settlement and ceasefire.”
And, “a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties.”
And, “a sovereign and independent Ukraine.”
Among other things.
That is not achievable right now. However, if someone completely ignores what the Progressive Caucus is asking for and puts in place a deal that is much worse for Ukraine, it wouldn’t be the fault of the Progressive Caucus.
If for some reason you ignore a bunch of the letter, I guess you could kind of see the letter as a request that would lead to Russia permanently occupying Ukraine. But I have no idea why you are insisting upon ignoring much of what they are asking for.
There is no implication of Russia permanently occupying Ukraine in the letter. None. It’s just not there.
Oh nothing that happens on the ground will be the fault of this letter. Fortunately unless something changes they’re still approving the aid to Ukraine and ultimately actions will speak louder than words.
What is missing from what they’re saying is that Russian withdrawal is a prerequisite for peace. Everything in their letter is consistent with Ukraine just taking the best they can get and still being a “sovereign nation” that just happens to be smaller than it used to be (which fortunately also happens to be unrealistic on the US side).
Sure does…
… if you ignore, “a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine,” and, " in coordination with our Ukrainian partners."
I don’t know why you’re ignoring important parts of the letter to arrive at your conclusion, but you seem pretty determined to do so.
If Russian withdrawal is required for any deal worked out in coordination with our Ukrainian partners to be acceptable to Ukraine, then that is what they’re asking for.
Said another way: only regime change in Moscow, or outright conquest of Russia, will do. That seems a … tall order.
Sounds great in theory. And is morally a correct and easy stance. But implementation will be a stone cold bitch. So what’s your plan B? And before we get to plan B, how much are you willing to spend = sacrifice to achieve your plan A?
None of this has anything to do with the Progressive Caucus’s letter. I’m simply asking for you to explain what you want the US to achieve and how you expect them to achieve it. And what it’ll cost us in blood and treasure to do so.
I’m not. It’s A - vague on what they would expect Ukraine to agree to and B - doesn’t say whether they’d be agreeing to this due to being out of other options. Anyone can see that that would be the only way the solution would actually be realistic.
It’s pretty clear that they want Ukraine to decide what is acceptable to Ukraine.
Their solution is not realistic. It’s quite a leap from “they proposed something unrealistic” to “they want this thing to end with Russia permanently occupying Ukraine”. You have to jump through a lot hoops along the way too. It’s pretty weird that you’re doing that.
The thing is that they both didn’t propose any specific solution, and the conclusion their goal is to use diplomacy to achieve the unrealistic solution of Russia agreeing to withdraw is so wildly unrealistic that it isn’t credible for informed politicians to propose that in good faith. Thinking that Ukraine would accept a cease fire while Russia occupies their land and Ukraine maintains a strong military position is of course also unrealistic but its what makes the entire push or diplomacy ignorant to a negligent degree at best and disingenuous at worst.
Where do you live that politicians don’t make meaningless feel good gestures?
“We want the ideal resolution, from the Ukrainian point of view, to the Russia- Ukraine conflict.”
“That’ll never happen, therefore you must be implying that you’re OK with Putin permanently occupying parts of Ukraine.”
That’s fucking nonsense.
Can I hear the one again that has Putin stepping down and presenting himself for execution? That one sounded pretty good.
That’ll be the order, I fear, until the fascist party regains control of Congress. Then those same fascists will be talking realpolitik all of the sudden, insisting that Putin’s conquest of Ukraine is a fait accompli, that facts don’t care about your feelings, and the “smart” move is to just accept the inevitable and stop wasting money on obstructing the natural flow of history towards a natural hierarchy.
They’ll want to save that money instead to underwrite massive tax breaks for the wealthy and to pay to plus-up police departments to go after all those woke social justice types who are trying to teach children ridiculous lies like “George Washington was a slaveholder” and “Jesus didn’t write the Constitution, Moses didn’t write the Bill of Rights.”
We are so fucked in a couple of months. And I don’t believe in god, but god help us when they… I won’t say vote Trump back into office. But when Trump ends up back in office, however that might happen.
We are fucked.
But in the meantime, fuck you @dalej42, you disingenuous, crypto-fascist fuckwad. I’m surprised I don’t already have you on ignore.
That bothered me too.
I understand it’s an “empty gesture”, but it’s one that throws the Biden administration under the bus. It accomplishes nothing and it’s bad politics. Not just bad, it’s downright shitty.