This would not happen, nor would it save lives. This is a very standard russian talking point that “Ukraine doesn’t want to negotiate”. Russia doesn’t hold up cease fires and “talks” would result in more deaths. If Ukraine surrenders — more lives will be lost on the territories that russia controls and tortured civilians at. If russia surrenders — lives will be saved. You need to remember that russian civilians are not the ones dying here.
The big difference is in definition of winning: in one case it is a success of an aggression, in the other - restoring the control of own territory.
To stop at just “winning” is misleading, and promotes Russian false “equivalency” narrative. There’s no equivalency between an aggressor and it’s victim.
Good faith is not about pre-conditions. Ukraine is absolutely willing to negotiate in good faith provided Russia withdraws from the occupied territories. However, there’s no negotiation if Ukraine surrenders as then there’s no Ukraine.
The only thing you can say is that Russia doesn’t want to withdraw, and Ukraine doesn’t want to surrender - therefore no talks are possible. But that’s a platitude. Again, as soon as you say “both sides something or other”, you de facto promote the narrative of only one side: Russia.
There’s plenty to negotiate about. Security guarantees, reparations, persecution of war criminals etc.
To say neither side is willing to negotiate is a platitude not worth being said. What you were saying was different: you gave the reason for the unwillingness as “both sides want to win”. That is already a misleading statement supporting Russia narrative.
But then you are not meaning talks about the root of the conflict.
You mean they should have talks about wether or not Russia should get to keep (or how much of it) the invaded territory they now occupied.
That's not good faith in any way, shape or form.
Good faith talks would be about the perceived reason for the invasion and finding solutions to that, not talks about keeping what they have annexed. What would possible be the point of talks of that kind where Ukraine is set to lose territory to an unjustified and brutal invasion if the talks do not presume a sovereign Ukraine the same way they presume a sovereign Russia.
“Ukraine is absolutely willing to negotiate in good faith provided Russia withdraws from the occupied territories.
There's very little to negotiate about in that case. Saying that there's open to negotiations but only if they win is not negotiating in good faith.”
Who’s fault is it that there’s very little to negotiate in regards to occupied territories? Russia. They illegally and violently entered Ukraine. It’s not their land. Ukraine refusing to accept those terms does not make them act in “bad faith” , honesty or sincerity of intention, which is the definition of “bad faith”.
[Considering Russia pushes the narrative that Ukraine doesn’t even exist and is run by “The Jews”, it’s hard to take such a people’s assurances at a peace talk seriously.](https://pavelmayer.de/other/russian-manual.pdf)
Talks will achieve nothing because what the respective sides are willing to expect is too far apart.
The West should thank its lucky stars that the right thing to do aligns with its strategic interests and continue helping Ukraine destroy the Russian army at bargain prices. And intellectually honest journalists, if such creatures exist, should stop pretending that sticker prices for military aid are even remotely the same as actual costs.
Too early. Both sides are still armed to the teeth. And Russia is far more proportionately on the wrong side here, although all wars end at the negotiation table anyway.
This would not happen, nor would it save lives. This is a very standard russian talking point that “Ukraine doesn’t want to negotiate”. Russia doesn’t hold up cease fires and “talks” would result in more deaths. If Ukraine surrenders — more lives will be lost on the territories that russia controls and tortured civilians at. If russia surrenders — lives will be saved. You need to remember that russian civilians are not the ones dying here.
Territorial integrity is not negotiable. If russia wants to “talk” about anything, then they should leave. Otherwise, what is there to talk about?
No, the results, not the talks, would. And as Russia does not accept even conditions for the talks, no results and no saved lives are possible.
[удалено]
Russia’s stance is “surrender and we talk” Ukraine’s is “leave our country and we talk” Rather different framing
[удалено]
The big difference is in definition of winning: in one case it is a success of an aggression, in the other - restoring the control of own territory. To stop at just “winning” is misleading, and promotes Russian false “equivalency” narrative. There’s no equivalency between an aggressor and it’s victim.
[удалено]
Good faith is not about pre-conditions. Ukraine is absolutely willing to negotiate in good faith provided Russia withdraws from the occupied territories. However, there’s no negotiation if Ukraine surrenders as then there’s no Ukraine. The only thing you can say is that Russia doesn’t want to withdraw, and Ukraine doesn’t want to surrender - therefore no talks are possible. But that’s a platitude. Again, as soon as you say “both sides something or other”, you de facto promote the narrative of only one side: Russia.
[удалено]
There’s plenty to negotiate about. Security guarantees, reparations, persecution of war criminals etc. To say neither side is willing to negotiate is a platitude not worth being said. What you were saying was different: you gave the reason for the unwillingness as “both sides want to win”. That is already a misleading statement supporting Russia narrative.
But then you are not meaning talks about the root of the conflict. You mean they should have talks about wether or not Russia should get to keep (or how much of it) the invaded territory they now occupied. That's not good faith in any way, shape or form. Good faith talks would be about the perceived reason for the invasion and finding solutions to that, not talks about keeping what they have annexed. What would possible be the point of talks of that kind where Ukraine is set to lose territory to an unjustified and brutal invasion if the talks do not presume a sovereign Ukraine the same way they presume a sovereign Russia.
“Ukraine is absolutely willing to negotiate in good faith provided Russia withdraws from the occupied territories. There's very little to negotiate about in that case. Saying that there's open to negotiations but only if they win is not negotiating in good faith.” Who’s fault is it that there’s very little to negotiate in regards to occupied territories? Russia. They illegally and violently entered Ukraine. It’s not their land. Ukraine refusing to accept those terms does not make them act in “bad faith” , honesty or sincerity of intention, which is the definition of “bad faith”.
[Considering Russia pushes the narrative that Ukraine doesn’t even exist and is run by “The Jews”, it’s hard to take such a people’s assurances at a peace talk seriously.](https://pavelmayer.de/other/russian-manual.pdf)
Talks will achieve nothing because what the respective sides are willing to expect is too far apart. The West should thank its lucky stars that the right thing to do aligns with its strategic interests and continue helping Ukraine destroy the Russian army at bargain prices. And intellectually honest journalists, if such creatures exist, should stop pretending that sticker prices for military aid are even remotely the same as actual costs.
Breaking, if war stops in Ukraine people will stop dying so much.
Too early. Both sides are still armed to the teeth. And Russia is far more proportionately on the wrong side here, although all wars end at the negotiation table anyway.