So @dalej42 believes he is able to read between the lines of the progressive letter, and where it says “Putin is bad and we should take Ukraine’s side against him,” he believes he can perceive a coded intent where the letter really wants us to abandon Ukraine to Putin’s ambitions. Now, here is a piece of video made by Trump flunkies which actually says, out loud and with no coded language, “we should stop helping Ukraine,” full stop.
So what do you think, @dalej42? Is the cohort of Trump flunkies full of traitors? This is a direct fucking question. Yes or no.
Yeah, but at some point, no matter how steeped they are in their own propaganda, they are going to realize that they haven’t actually managed to conquer Ukraine.
Biden is doing, and has been doing, everything 100% correct in backing Ukraine. He does not need a course-correction. And that’s what that letter was. Why else write it? And for god’s sake, send it? Now???
The signatories felt the need to urge Biden to negotiate with Putin. Negotiate with a narcissistic autocrat? Haven’t the last 4-6 years taught anyone a lesson about that? You don’t offer to negotiate with a narcissist terrorist thug who will never admit wrong or concede anything. And to do what? Negotiate with Putin over what should be the outcome for Ukraine? Where the hell would we get off negotiating on behalf of another country? If were were to do that, it should only be in response to Ukraine asking us to step in.
Again, Biden has been 100% correct here. He’s not so dumb as to go into talks with Putin. What could be the outcome of that? “Ok, we’ll let you keep the eastern provinces if you’ll stop”? Is that what Ukraine wants? Any student of history can see the folly in this approach.
Any negotiating we would do should be back channel, out of the public eye, and follow the lead of Ukraine. That’s why this letter was so bad. At least the progressives that wrote/signed it had sense enough to disavow it. But most folks here not only not disavow it, but double down on how innocuous it supposedly was.
I swear, if this was any other message board or comment section, I’d conclude this thread was infiltrated with Russian trolls. I’m aware enough to realize that’s not the case. The only other explanation I can come up with is…
You don’t negotiate peace with friends and allies, you negotiate peace with enemies. If you refuse to negotiate peace with people because they are your enemies, then war is never-ending.
We have stepped in, and Ukraine seems to be benefiting from us doing so. They didn’t build those missile systems that are driving the Russians back.
But how can Ukraine negotiate? They aren’t in a position to do so, we are. We have leverage that they do not. Without us at the table advocating for Ukraine, they have nothing to offer to end the peace.
It sounds like you want to leave Ukraine to its own devices to make its own way and negotiate on its own. I don’t know why you want Ukraine to be conquered by Russia, but that’s the result of what you are demanding here.
Perhaps when someone is surprised like you are, the problem is that you have misunderstood something, not that people are all acting entirely different than you would have expected.
Right, the people who actually read the letter and understood its context are the idiots. I’d say that the people that have jumped on the outrage wagon and simply made shit up to complain about, as you just did, are useless morons.
Whether it is desirable to enter negotiations depends on, amongst other things, your strength, the enemy’s strength, and the enemy’s trustworthiness. The latter two are extremely low. Russia is weak and will not adhere to a peace agreement. And since any further fighting will mostly damage Ukraine, it is up to them to decide if they are hurting enough to desire negotiations despite those factors.
Well, the other option is that Ukraine conquers Russia. Anything else requires some sort of peaceful resolution that will only come about through diplomacy.
Now, while I’d be willing to back Ukraine if they chose to march on Moscow, I don’t know if that’s what they actually want to do.
Are you saying that they should negotiate on their own, without the USA and other Western powers at the table?
And what negotiating power do you think that Ukraine has without the USA backing them?
I’m glad we are backing them, but the reason that they are fending off Russia isn’t just because of their plucky resolve, it’s because of the billions of dollars of military hardware we are shipping them.
We are at the table, and will be part of any negotiations for peace. The moment we leave the table, Russia wins.
That’s a side issue. The US is backing Ukraine because a.) it is the morally correct thing to do and b.) it also happens to be smart realpolitik. US and European support has enabled Ukraine to survive so far semi-intact and that continued backing does indeed give Ukraine far more leverage than they would otherwise have.
But said leverage should be Ukraine’s to use at their own discretion and theirs alone. If they want the U.S. there at the table, they can of course say so. If they don’t - the US should step back from the table but continue to back Ukraine materially to the hilt to give Ukraine the leverage they need to negotiate on their own if that is what Ukraine prefers. Anything otherwise would a quid pro quo from the US I’d find distasteful - “we’re giving you arms therefore we get a say in what you negotiate about your own country’s future.”
We are providing more than weapons to Ukraine in order to support them. We also have sanctions against Russia that is damaging their economy, which both hopefully helps turn the people against the warmongers in charge, and decreases their ability to wage war.
Are the sanctions that we can lift against Russia if it ceases hostilities and returns the land it has assaulted (including Crimea) something that Ukraine gets to negotiate with?
It’s unnecessary - it’s already tacitly there. There are sanctions because Russia started a war. The war ends, eventually so do the sanctions. Probably much sooner than later. Ukraine shouldn’t use it as an explicit bargaining chip per se, because it is not their decision to make. But Russia knows the score. Russian fuel is in serious demand - the second the war ends parts of Europe will be very shortly scrambling all over themselves (oh, so genteelly) to make new deals.
Russia started a war that has caused an economic logjam. End the war, they open the way to clearing the logjam. Ukraine doesn’t need to use this as a cudgel or bargaining chip, because it is already baked in to any negotiation.
ETA: I mean, there are many countries sanctioning Russia. Do they all get a seat at the table? Japan? San Marino?
There were sanctions before Russia started the war. We sanctioned them for a number of things that had nothing to do with Ukraine.
If Russia ceases hostilities and leaves Ukraine, that also doesn’t mean that we should automatically lift the sanctions imposed for their invasion. We may want to keep some in place for a time as punishment for their actions.
So, we have a lot going on here. We can offer to drop some or all of the sanctions that were imposed because of the war, and we can also sweeten the pot by offering to drop others that have to do with other things. We could offer to trade back prisoners or spies that we have in custody. We could even negotiate nuclear missile reductions and placement if that seem appropriate.
These are just some of the things that we bring to the table, and while we may (and should) back Ukraine by offering these, they are not Ukraine’s to offer.
Agreed. As I said I don’t really have a problem with Ukraine wanting the US (or EU or whoever) to participate in negotiations. But it has to be their choice, not ours.
