Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoPotatoes wrote

Sachs says in regards to Crimea (around minute 22) "This is, from Russia's point of view, a core issue". Then at minute 24 he says "Russia says Crimea has to be ours". Sachs then goes on, at minute 26, to say that Ukraine should go back to Minsk II, completely omitting the fact that under Minsk II Russia was still arming and supporting paramilitaries in the Donbas as they violated the ceasefire!

This is what Zelenskiy had to say about the Minsk agreements in August:

At the point where we are, we are not ready for a ceasefire. We explained that there will be no Minsk-3, Minsk-5, or Minsk-7. We will not play these games, we have lost part of our territories this way … it is a trap

Furthermore, considering that Belarus has proved to be an accomplice of Russia in this war, allowing their military to train troops there and launch rockets at Kyiv there, not to mention using Belarus as a launch point for the initial invasion, Minsk is not a neutral meeting ground for the conflict. Suggesting that negotiations should occur there is preposterous.

You are right that Sachs does not explicitly say the word surrender, but he does say that Crimea should be handed over, and he does heavily imply that the Donbas (how much of it? Russian military does not even control 100% of it now) should be governed as Russia decides. Without Russian troops first retreating from Kherson and Zaporizhia (ideally without abducting children on the way), that sure sounds like a surrender to me.

4

fortmis OP wrote

Do you see absolutely no benefit to negotiation? Do you think the best outcome is still to be had through military might?

1

RanDomino wrote

The only thing worth negotiating is how quickly all Russian forces depart Ukraine. But 99% of people who talk about "negotiation" are implying a deal in which Russia maintains control of some Ukrainian territory. Apologists for fascist imperialism.

1

fortmis OP wrote

Definitely. I guess the argument then would be that making Russian forces leave (without using combat) would take some unprecedented diplomatic or economic force... or compromise. The first option wouldn't require negotiation with Russia, but it would definitely require some creative thinking.

−2

RanDomino wrote

All "diplomatic and economic force" is already being applied and "compromise" invariably means "Russia keeps some of Ukraine" which is nothing but rewarding fascist imperialist aggression.

−1

fortmis OP wrote

so... You think the only way through this is militarily?

−1

RanDomino wrote

The military strategy is working. No negotiation-based strategy has yet offered any realistic solution.

−3

NoPotatoes wrote

I think negotiating is fine, but I'm not optimistic a lasting peace can be achieved with the current context. There just isn't any trust on either side. How do you build trust out of such a broken relationship? If Russia stops bombing electrical substations tomorrow, will Ukraine believe they don't mean harm, or will Ukraine assume that Russia is stockpiling missiles for a future attack?

1

fortmis OP wrote

True,for sure. Still, trust must start somewhere, right? I don't think trust is any more likely to develop after another year of war than it is likely to develop should they start the process now. In fact the longer the war, the deeper the wounds, the longer it will take to find peace. The relationship is broken... And it will get more broken as the war goes on. I wish we could just dig our nails into the border between Ukraine and Russia and pull the two countries away from each other to give Ukraine space to heal.

1

RanDomino wrote

I wish we could just dig our nails into the border between Ukraine and Russia and pull the two countries away from each other

Yes, that's what the billions of dollars in weapons deliveries are for.

−3