"According to a May report from Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian side was ready for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but it later came to a halt after the discovery of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and the surprise visit on 9 April of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who told Zelenskyy "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with," and that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin stated publicly that talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end". Another three days later, Roman Abramovich visited Kyiv in an attempt to resume negotiations, but was rebuffed by Zelenskyy as a non-neutral party.[42] According to Fiona Hill and Angela Stent writing in Foreign Affairs in September, U.S. officials they spoke with said Russia and Ukraine "appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement", whereby the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO in exchange security guarantees from a number of countries. However, in a July interview with Russian state media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that this compromise was no longer an option, saying that even the Donbas was not enough and that the "geography had changed."[43]

"On 7 April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the peace deal Ukraine drafted and presented to the Russian government contained "unacceptable" elements. Lavrov said that the proposal diverged from the terms negotiators had agreed on. Mykhaylo Podolyak, a negotiator for Ukraine, said that the comments from Lavrov are a tactic to draw attention away from the war crime accusations against Russian forces. Lastly, Lavrov stated, "Despite all the provocations, the Russian delegation will continue with the negotiation process, pressing for our own draft agreement that clearly and fully outlines our initial and key positions and requirements."[44]

"On 11 April, the Chancellor of Austria, Karl Nehammer, visited and spoke with Putin in Moscow in 'very direct, open and hard' talks which were skeptical of the short-term peaceful resolution of the invasion.[45] By 26 April, the Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres visited Russia for the purpose of speaking with Putin and Lavrov in separate meetings, and after the meetings with them indicating skepticism as to any short term resolution of differences between Russia and Ukraine largely due to very different respective perspectives on the circumstances of the invasion presently being adopted by each of the two nations.[46]

Failed attempts at obtaining peace

Exactly. As I said, the US (and UK) staying out of it would itself be a good start, since neither are interested in peace.

Exactly. As I said, the US (and UK) staying out of it would itself be a good start, since neither are interested in peace. — Xtrix

Probably. The UN Secretary General doesn't give that as the main problem, though.

What a fantastic pic. FFS with leaders like these, and crowds whipped into a frenzy... Won't repeat myself at the moment.

I must imagine that someone in background is thinking about some way to settle this. It is beyond comprehension that we are seeing a potentially lethal event and we're just like, not walking, but running, quite enthusiastically, off a cliff.

Words fail.

In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline. I don't know if Germany was aware of this, but, I think that's counterproductive. — Manuel

Asking again why you are convinced of this.

It's a matter of likelihood. I suspect we may soon get direct evidence of the event. It would make no sense for Germany to blow up a pipeline (which is close to them) that provides them crucial resources especially in winter.

Russia surely needs any money it can get, given the sanctions it has. So it has no incentive to blow up a pipeline that benefits them. The US does have an incentive to blow up the pipeline. Remember that Blinken said that it was a "tremendous opportunity" to take advantage of this situation and further weaken Russia. That's very convenient.

Add that to Biden's comments saying trust me we have a way of shutting it down, you can find it on YouTube.

Alternatively, it could be Ukraine that did so, to further pull Europe on its side in winter, with zero guarantees it will work out. It makes sense for them to do it to weaken Russia, in a sense, but they would not do something that big without the approval of Washington.

Finally, if Russia, for whatever reason, did not want to supply Germany, it could simply shut off the supply, no need to blow it up.

So there's no alternative I can think of, that is realistic, given what's at play.

Got it. You are merely speculating.

Not about what Blinken or Biden said, which would be silly to overlook in my opinion.

Or you can present another plausible account.

I don't see what other scenario is probable out of those I mentioned.

You are the one who presented it as a fact when it was only an opinion about the matter.

Now that you are not presenting it as a fact, it doesn't mean anything to argue against why you think it is one. I don't know what actually happened.

That's kind of like saying that all these people in Moscow who are against the war and are jumping out of windows actually were depressed. Do you have proof saying otherwise?

This is the most plausible scenario we have as of this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfN56MgDprk

But, yes, it could be that Russia decided to harm itself by blowing the pipeline near Germany. It's not as if the US or Nato or Ukraine will say "I did it!".

However, if there is evidence pointing in the other direction, then I will have to retract my comments.

Surely, there must be a distinction between listing motives for why somebody might have committed a crime and that such an event went down.

That the scenario exhausts what you are able to imagine is not an advance toward understanding what happened.

You get that from a summary? — Isaac

Well, no, lots have been posted already.

all seeing this like we're choosing wallpaper — Isaac

But there are no neat solutions at the moment. :/ And so, comments keep going in circles. (Not that the world will listen to us anyway.) Commitments to questionable future predictions aren't that easy to come by here, especially not in the case of handing over self-power. Loss of any trust there may have been doesn't help, either. The attackers want to assimilate, the defenders want them to leave. Maybe China could put pressure on the attackers? Worth a shot for someone to promote? Hmm don't really see that happening, at least not in a way that really matters.

Frustration with Ukraine war spills out on Russian state TV (Oct 3, 2022)

Critique of Putin, use of the word "war", and speaking of leaving Ukrainian land is punishable or dangerous, though. No can do.

Belarus's Lukashenko warns Ukraine, deploys troops with Russia (Oct 10, 2022)

Military analysts saw this coming I think. Putin made a phone call or two, and Lukashenko sees the boogeyman to the south. Does it say something about the situation? (Is Putin in need of help, cannon fodder, distraction, getting scared, or something?)

What might happen if Belarus declares war with Ukraine?

you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. — Manuel

I’ve mostly avoided this thread. A lot of heat, almost no light. Or substance.

negotiations require a cease fire. Putin will have to ask for one. That's just how it works. — frank

No they don't, and no it isn't. There aren't laws of physics about peace talks.

The US is not the appropriate broker because they have an interest in the conflict. — frank

What's the US's interest?

When Putin signals that he wants to talk, a broker will emerge. — frank

Why wait?

They're getting supplies from other countries — frank

Hardly. But either way, if the US says jump...

Russia is presently losing on the battlefield — frank

According to whom?

Or even get out of the way of negotiations. — Xtrix

Yes, indeed. I think my position could probably be summed up by "either do it properly or stay out of it".

I should add though that the reason I think the US might need to play a part in the talks is a) Russia is of the view that this is a US problem (NATO weapons in Ukraine, US involvement in Maidan, etc) so their involvement will probably be necessary for a deal to stick, and b) Putin has this 'big boy's table' idea that he's being left out of, US involvement there might make him more likely to accept a deal.

The UN Secretary General doesn't give that as the main problem, though. — frank

You seriously think he's going to list that as the main problem?

It does appear so. I don’t see how Ukraine could have come this far without US backing. — Xtrix

It couldn't. Which does not mean that they will stop without further US support, since by now Russia is the largest purveyor of weapons to Ukraine.

So I’m not happy about it. I’m not happy about pushing for continued war without equally pushing for peace negotiations — Xtrix

The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. And I am afraid that there isn't much you can do about it, other than vote for Trump at the next general elections.

But there are no neat solutions at the moment. :/ And so, comments keep going in circles. — jorndoe

Comments keep going in circles because no-one will address the issues directly (not that they might not go in circles still, even then, but we could at least see). We might have a more profitable discussion if people were to actually address the arguments raised rather than treat the thread as a pro-Ukrainian news aggregator.

So...

lots have been posted already. — jorndoe

Well, not that I've noticed (you might cite them if they're easy to find. I know some have pointed to Chechnya and even further back in history as evidence of Russian treatment (the same people, oddly, who then said that the Amnesty document was out of date!), but I've asked them why they thought Crimea wasn't a good indicator and that's where the discussion ended. Where it always does - any time there isn't an answer which can be plucked directly from western media talking points.

Russia is the largest purveyor of weapons to Ukraine. — Olivier5

Really, that's an interesting development. Your source for that?

The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. — Olivier5

No it isn't. One country's sovereignty over an area is not a legitimate foreign policy objective. If their efforts to negotiate failed, then defence might be legitimate (proper defence), but that isn't the case here. Negotiations haven't even been tried (by the US) and the defence is deliberately drip-fed to prolong the war, not end it. Not to mention the recklessness of flooding of an illegal arms hub with modern highly destructive weapons and the destabilisation of a region with a history of serious nationalist and far-right violence. I don't see anything 'legitimate' about those aims.

I am afraid that there isn't much you can do about it, other than vote for Trump at the next general elections. — Olivier5

Another with such a dysfunctional imagination that they think politics only happens one day in every four years.

you have to show that Russian control over Donbas will be worse than Ukrainian control — Isaac

That is precisely what your quote implied, though. Go back and read it more carefully, because it seems you failed to understand it.

That is precisely what your quote implied, though. Go back and read it more carefully, because it seems you failed to understand it. — Olivier5

It showed nothing of the sort. If you don't understand why not I suggest you go back and read it more carefully.

Or, you know, we could actually discuss the arguments rather than hand-waive them away as a misunderstanding on the part of our interlocutors.

Your source for that? — Isaac

News.

One country's sovereignty over an area is not a legitimate foreign policy objective. — Isaac

You mean the UN charter got it all wring?

LOL. You managed to misunderstand even your own quote. Now that's funny.

politics only happens one day in every four years. — Isaac

FYI, US foreign policy is set by the president, who is elected every four years.

Your source for that? — Isaac


News. — Olivier5

Go on... Which news article?

You mean the UN charter got it all wring? — Olivier5

No, since the UN charter does not specify that one country's sovereignty should be a foreign policy objective.

US foreign policy is set by the president, who is elected every four years. — Olivier5

So? Is he kept in an isolation chamber from the day of the election lest he makes any decision under influence from what he sees and reads about the mood of the general public?

Google it up. Russia is the largest weapon provider to Ukraine right now.

The UN charter condemn aggression, posits that any member state has the right to defend itself, and to seek alliances in doing so.

Is he kept in an isolation chamber from the day of the election lest he makes any decision under influence from what he sees and reads about the mood of the general public? — Isaac

Pretty much, yes. The. US public has very little influence on FP. This is just a fact. It's not me saying it, nor do I condone it. You cannot influence US foreign policy simply by expressing views on TPF. You would need a whole lobbying apparatus to achieve anything like this, like the one developed by Israel.

The only public action with an impact on USFP is to vote to change the president.

Google it up. Russia is the largest weapon provider to Ukraine right now. — Olivier5

So no sources then.

The UN charter condemn aggression, posits that any member state has the right to defend itself, and to seek alliances in doing so. — Olivier5

Yep. Still waiting for the part where it says that another country's sovereignty over an area is a legitimate foreign policy goal. Does it condemn, for example, a change in sovereignty resulting from peace negotiations?

The. US public has very little influence on FP. This is just a fact. It's not me saying it, nor do I condone it. You cannot influence US foreign policy simply by expressing views on TPF. You would need a whole lobbying apparatus to achieve anything like this, like the one developed by Israel. — Olivier5

I love the way that when it comes to those making the exact same argument about the uselessness of condemning Russia you become the solidarity-proclaiming keyboard warrior, when exactly the same is expressed against the US you become the hard-nosed pragmatist. You must get dizzy sometimes?

The only public action with an impact on USFP is to vote to change the president. — Olivier5

Explain how that works then. Does the new president completely swap out all the lobbying groups and replace them with a new set?

You think the "chance" of Ukraine improving its human rights record is worth thousands of deaths and can't be achieved any other way. I can't argue against a callous disregard for human life nor a dysfunctional imagination. — Isaac

Dysfunctional imagination? Your concern for “human life” is at odds with your concern for “human rights” on historical grounds. The end of foreign, political, social oppression doesn’t come without people putting their own life and others' at risk of a bloodshed, so no progress toward “human rights” can get there in a certain, straight, compassionate and peaceful way as one would hope (the recent Iranian protests are another good example of this point). So I get why you need lots of functional imagination to overcome your intellectual impasse.

no progress toward “human rights” can get there in a certain, straight, compassionate and peaceful way as one would hope (the recent Iranian protests are another good example of this point). — neomac

Chicago Riots killed 43 people, part of a series of about 50 such riots which, together with many peaceful demonstrations, brought about the changes in American civil rights.

The Ukraine war is currently killing 600 people a day.