I'm not sure why you call it a compromise, but the answer is no. — Tate

It's a compromise because the United States and the European Union obviously want to add Ukraine to their political spheres - something which is unacceptable to Russia.

Since, according to your own words, the US and the EU are unwilling to accept any compromise here, how can you argue Putin is the reason why there are no negotiations?

No one can have a fight on their own. It takes two. Assigning blame is taking sides.

Assigning blame is taking sides. — unenlightened

I'm personally quite comfortable with taking side, in this case and in many others where there's a clear aggressor. There's no moral symmetry that I can see here.

He lost me when he argued that Putin doesn't lie. How naïve, or wedged to one's narrative one needs to be to make such a blatantly false statement? Putin told us before Feb 24 that he had no intention to attack Ukraine. He's perfectly capable of lying.

I'm personally quite comfortable with taking side,...where there's a clear aggressor. — Olivier5

So how did you determine that there was a 'clear aggressor' prior to such taking sides?

I'm personally quite comfortable with taking side, in this case and in many others where there's a clear aggressor. There's no moral symmetry that I can see here. — Olivier5

The symmetry is between the way you see it and the way your opponents see it. But to be comfortable with war is assuredly to be a good long way from it. One may have to choose a side, one may have to fight, but to find it comfortable is unconscionable.

He lost me when he argued that Putin doesn't lie. How naïve, or wedged to one's narrative one needs to be to make such a blatantly false statement? Putin told us before Feb 24 that he had no intention to attack Ukraine. He's perfectly capable of lying. — Olivier5

Is it your interpretation that Mearsheimer's theory hinges on whether or not Putin is capable of lying?

It's a compromise because the United States and the European Union obviously want to add Ukraine to their political spheres - something which is unacceptable to Russia. — Tzeentch

The US and the EU are simply willing to admit Ukraine as a member and ally. They have not proposed to force Ukraine to do anything, so I don't see how any "compromise" has been made.

Since, according to your own words, the US and the EU are unwilling to accept any compromise here, how can you argue Putin is the reason why there are no negotiations? — Tzeentch

I was talking about negotiations to end the conflict. That is between Russia and Ukraine. Neither the US not the EU is actively fighting Russia.

The US and the EU are simply willing to admit Ukraine as a member and ally. — Tate

And they have publicly expressed a desire to make it so, and actively taken steps to make that a reality. (See Mearsheimer's talk)

I was talking about negotiations to end the conflict. That is between Russia and Ukraine. — Tate

The United States and European Union are involved in Ukraine, not just politically but also militarily. I don't think you're disputing that.

However, despite the world's largest military and economic power in the world, the United States, being intimately involved in Ukraine, you believe a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia is a realistic solution to this conflict?

They have not proposed to force Ukraine to do anything — Tate

Why are you deciding that military action constitutes force, but economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, intelligence operations and bribery do not?

I was talking about negotiations to end the conflict. That is between Russia and Ukraine. Neither the US not the EU is actively fighting Russia. — Tate

Why have you decided that the supply of weapons, training and intelligence is insufficient to generate a duty to seek a negotiated settlement?

you believe a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and Russia is a realistic solution to this conflict? — Tzeentch

I don't know. The death of Putin might be the only path to peace

I think Putin's death would not produce a peace. The conflict in Ukraine represents a genuine geopolitical great power struggle that goes much further than the ambitions of individual heads of state.

I would recommend watching that talk by Mearsheimer. He presents a historical context that goes back to the Bush administration.

A "great power", as the term is used in political science, has global influence.

Russia is not a great power.

Your gas bill suggests otherwise.

Regardless, whether or not you consider Russia is a great power isn't relevant to the point I'm making - a point which you seem to be avoiding.

Russia is not a great power, so there is no "great power conflict" here. If it was, then Obama wouldn't have had the option to ignore Russia in 2014.

You're getting a little hung up on this "great power" thing.

One might almost get the impression you're desperately trying to find something to disagree with, so you can avoid talking substance, just like .

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"?

Or do you also disagree that such a thing is taking place in Ukraine?

You're getting a little hung up on this "great power" thing. — Tzeentch

The reason being that a great power conflict is very different from the average geopolitical conflict.

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"? — Tzeentch

Definitely.

How about we rephrase it to "geopolitical conflict"? — Tzeentch

Definitely. — Tate

Then what impact would Putin's death have on the geopolitical factors that underlie the conflict in Ukraine?

Then what impact would Putin's death have on the geopolitical factors that underlie the conflict in Ukraine? — Tzeentch

He is what underlies the conflict.

He is what underlies the conflict. — Tate

You just stated what is happening in Ukraine is a geopolitical conflict. Now you imply that it is not geopolitical factors that caused the conflict in Ukraine, but the sole person Putin.

Which is it going to be?

There isn't much to Russian politics other than Putin. Look at the way he started the war: by dragging officials before the cameras to say what he required them to say. There is no Russian "establishment" in the American sense of that word. Russia's government is retrograde, like an organized crime ring.

The "madman Putin" hypothesis.

Do you have any scholarly sources that provide a basis for such a hypothesis, like the one I provided for a more geopolitical approach in the shape of Mearsheimer's lecture?

There is no Russian "establishment" in the American sense of that word. Russia's government is retrograde, like an organized crime ring. — Tate

Can you explain, then, why they have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? Seems a reckless oversight on the part of the world's primary governing body, to allow a madman-led crime ring one of only five permanent seats on the element in charge of global security.

The "madman Putin" hypothesis. — Tzeentch

I didn't say he's mad.

Beating around the bush again.

Beating around the bush again. — Tzeentch

Not really. He came to power by organizing military action. Since then, it's worked well to shore up his power and control. This is the first time things have gone substantially astray for him. This is all things you could investigate for yourself.

Not really. He came to power by organizing military action. Since then, it's worked well to shore up his power and control. This is the first time things have gone substantially astray for him. This is all things you could investigate for yourself. — Tate

I'm not seeing any sources.

One would almost get the impression you don't have any.

:yawn:

Is it your interpretation that Mearsheimer's theory hinges on whether or not Putin is capable of lying? — Tzeentch

Yes