• knotthatoneEnglish
    79·
    10 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians will cease firing once the Russians leave their country and stop trying to murder them.

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      42·
      10 months ago

      Here’s a question nobody has been able to answer for me yet.

      Why would Russia abandon a 2 year long military operation they’re winning.

      Literally just because a bunch of American libs said they should online?

      All reports are pointing to it not being the russians that would benefit from a ceasefire.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        15·
        10 months ago

        Nobody expects that they actually will do so willingly. Just that Russia should because, y’know, starting wars to annex territory is not something most people like. That’s why Ukraine should be armed until it can make Russia leave.

        That said, Russia would absolutely benefit from a negotiated settlement right now. This war is taking a lot of Russian lives and resources, so if it can persuade either Ukraine to agree to enough concessions or Ukraine’s backers to stop backing it, Russia could benefit enormously. Even if Russia actually manages to completely overrun Ukraine in the future, actually having to fight to the end will be an extremely costly ordeal.

      • GenEcon@lemm.ee
        6·
        10 months ago

        It was Russia that tried to negotiate a treaty with the US. And the US said ‘fuck you, ask Ukraine, not us’. Its Russia treating Ukraine like a puppet state, not the US.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          20·
          10 months ago

          A coup leading to a more U.S.-aligned government. The U.S. has only done that 100 times, including once in the last decade right there in Ukraine.

            • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              11·
              10 months ago

              In this scenario, by assuring the coup plotters that the U.S. will keep funding the war as long as they keep fighting it, as opposed to cutting bait with the coup as an excuse. The coup plotters would then accuse the deposed government of treasonously planning a surrender (a mischaracterization, but that’s par for the course) and portray themselves as acting in the national interest. They then keep the status quo of the war, with just a change in management. This would all fit neatly with the anti-Russia/pro-U.S. propaganda Ukraine has been subjected to. Any Russian objection would be written off as lies.

              If Russia tried to support a coup government, that government would be branded as treasonous even if they sought to act in the best interest of the Ukrainian people. The U.S. would immediately seek to discredit and destabilize the coup government, and a lot of Ukrainians would listen as they’re fighting a war with Russia.

            • jabrd [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              5·
              10 months ago

              Zelensky just removed Zaluzhny from heading the military because Zaluzhny was getting too popular and becoming a political threat. Important to point out that Zelensky has called off the elections that should be happening right now and that there’s growing dissent for his administration due to how poorly the war is going. Also worth pointing out that Zaluzhny has ties to the far right militias of the Ukrainian armed forces and flaunted this fact when Zelensky first tried to have him removed. It would be very easy for NATO to back Zaluzhny and his right wing thugs (the same ones that took part in the maidan coup) against Zelensky if Zelensky breaks with the West’s wishes. US intelligence agencies are very good at pulling at threads of existing dissent to create chaos and oust difficult political leaders

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        10 months ago

        This entire response here was ostensibly in respect to Ukraine.

        From the article, which you clearly didn’t read:

        A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    35·
    10 months ago

    Don’t know why the United States would have any say in Putin pulling the Russian paramilitary out of Ukraine. Ceasefire is simple, back your ass out of Ukraine, back to 2013 borders.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      20·
      10 months ago

      They (the US) don’t, and they acknowledge that.

      In the interview with fucker carlson, Putin said that Ukraine is a vassal of the US and Russia does not negotiate with Ukraine as it’s useless, they want to only negotiate with the puppet master.

      Hence the offer, hence the rejection. It’s geopolitical theatre.

  • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
    33·
    10 months ago

    I question why the US is doing the rejection rather than Ukraine (and similarly, why the UK rejected the last peace talks…)

  • jackpot@lemmy.ml
    30·
    10 months ago

    oh for fucks sake, putins russia has never once ‘negotiated’ in good faith. they just use it to buy time to resupply and relocate. every peace deal theyve made, THEY broke. ukraine gets to decide when it’s time to talk. the US cant stop them

  • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    15·
    10 months ago

    That’s really bizarre because why does America have a say in Russo-Ukrainian affairs? Shouldn’t a ceasefire be determined by the two parties not currently at a ceasefire?

    Somebody who is good at geopolitics explain

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    7·
    10 months ago

    So possible options as I see them:

    1. Biden’s USA is stubborn and nihilistic and just wants to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as possible before Trump comes in and forces Ukraine to accept a treaty

    2. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Putin hasn’t changed its demands at all so any talks are pointless

    3. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Russia is losing and doesn’t want to negotiate

    4. Biden forgot how to use a phone and is too embarrased to ask

    I’m personally going with 2 with a sprinkle of 4 and 1. In my happy dreams, 3.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        9·
        10 months ago

        Why are so many people here from Lemmy.ml and Hexbear assuming Putin and Russia offered an amicable ceasefire? When has Putin EVER shown he would ever want such a thing?

        You people have worms in your brains.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      15·
      10 months ago

      Why would Russia change its demands? It’s winning. If the other side is winning, you want to negotiate because the terms will only get worse.

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          10 months ago

          It’s propaganda. There are communist extremists in this thread trying to convince everyone the US is evil and using Ukraine as a bargaining chip.

          I don’t even disagree that the US has done, and will continue to do evil stuff… But this isn’t one of those times.

          The US is refusing to deal in back channels with Russia, and are insisting Ukraine be involved. From the article:

          A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

          • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            10 months ago

            Why would a communist parrot the propaganda of a right wing oligarchy invading another country?

            Oh right, hexbear.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          8·
          10 months ago

          That’s right, they should be. They aren’t doing so because it’s in the interest of the U.S. to continue the war, and the Ukrainian government more or less exists at the pleasure of the U.S.

    • D61 [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      7·
      10 months ago

      The one thing that the Liberals have decided to take a stand on, “Russia Bad!”, to the point that they’ll keep the war machine churning through Ukranian bodies until its some other administration’s responsibility to turn off the US money spigot. Then they’ll squeal about it being a Putin Puppet’s doing or some shit.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    10 months ago

    Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

    Original comment:
    I’m going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):

    Putin’s investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries’ military investments.

    Reasoning:

    1. Russia’s actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
    2. Sweden and Finland’s potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
    3. Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.

    Considering Occam’s razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      8·
      10 months ago

      but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

      I’ll give it a shot.

      First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia’s economy and population. This still holds true if it’s just putin’s investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.

      Secondly, the war isn’t pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn’t frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.

      • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        10 months ago

        Thank you for telling why I’m wrong :)

        I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t also do this. Maybe it’s not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn’t care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.

        On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn’t rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren’t the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there’s Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia’s list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.

        So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn’t for a path to Sevastopol alone.