Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
sommerfeld | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 What does Ukrain get out of this? This is essentially all Russian demands except Odessa and the south
▲ ▼
Magister Michael Dilger M.Sc. | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 First, the actual battle lines currently are inside of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This deal backs those up meaning Russia concedes territory it already holds, and Ukraine concedes no territory at all.  You might think Ukraine's pre-2022 borders are the 'proper' borders but Russia thinks Ukraine's pre-Soviet breakup are the 'proper' borders.  Ukraine arguing from it's memory of "we used to hold this land" is just as illogical as Russia arguing from it's memory of "we used to hold this land".  The only real objective truth is the current battle lines, and this agreement favors Ukraine decisively in that regard.
▲ ▼
sommerfeld | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Within your logic, if Russia occupied Kiev, then it make sense for Kiev to go to Russia.

Military occupation has nothing to do with the ability to rule the land. It's nonsense to think western Ukraine, even it occupied would be willing to submit to russian rule, given how "westernized" it is.
▲ ▼
Magister Michael Dilger M.Sc. | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 That is a reasonable basis for an argument, I don't disagree.  Western Ukraine would not be "tamed" by Russia, and IMHO I don't think Russia would care to try.  So if you want to argue that Donetsk and Luhansk are pro-West and hate Russia and are trying to push Russia out you can make that argument. I don't think it's true, but facts are my weakest tool since I'm not in possession of facts any better than anyone else is, I have to make judgement calls about what I think the facts probably are. In my judgement, Donetsk and Luhansk are mostly pro-Russian, even moreso pro-independence from both of them. I could be wrong. I've heard a lot of 'facts' and I don't know which ones are bullshit.

My point is just that any negotiation needs to start from the way things are, not the way things were or are wished to be, and if you want to use this argument about various regions that is totally fine with me.

Swing around to Israel-Palestine and you see the same thing. Palestine argues from their position in 1948... In fact they argue from their position prior to the Belfour Declaration in 1917.  That is an unreasonable position for negotiation because the actual on the ground situation isn't anywhere close to that.  Maybe they are right about what should have happened, but chanting "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is not only pointless, it hurts their cause.  Gaza is isolated from the West Bank, fuctionally Israel divided them in 1947, and even more so in 1967.  Refusing to accept their loss and insisting on getting it all back is not a negotiating position that will ever succeed, even if it is morally justified.  Israel negotiates with Hamas because effectively, defacto, Hamas is the government of Gaza.  And Hamas accepts deals that don't go anywhere close to "from the river to the sea" because when it comes to negotiations, that is simply how it works -- you start from the actual situation right now, not the one you wish were true or that you remember.

I've never seen Western leaders (including Ukraine) admit that they lost land to Russia and negotiate from the current situation. Putin has said talks have to start from the current situation, and Western leaders insist they start from a prior situation.  Such a demand ensures peace talks cannot happen, which is probably their intention.
▲ ▼
smart | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 "Interesting take, but I respectfully disagree. Negotiations should always strive to address historical injustices and work towards a fair resolution for all parties involved. Starting from the current situation is important, but ignoring past grievances only perpetuates conflict. Let's aim for a comprehensive and just solution rather than dismissing the complexities of the past."