The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man

[Week]

Related. 

[DMC]

I mean, if we're gonna talk about War, then let's do it.  Haile Selassie I:

Quote

that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned;

that until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation;

that until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes;

that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race;

that until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained.

And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed;

until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will;

until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven;

until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.

 

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

I mean, if we're gonna talk about War, then let's do it.  Haile Selassie I:

 

Poor Haile Selassie.  It never occurred to him that his own arguments could be used to undermine his own rule.

[Week]

So, are we still blaming society of USians writ large? 

 

[Rippounet]

I figured this was the proper place to post this.

@KalVsWade

Quote

I reject all of this logic as being self-destructive and tautological. By this logic, no one should ever try and stop Putin from doing anything that he wants - either he is a rational actor and will always escalate to more violence, or he is not a rational actor and will do whatever he wants anyway.

 Conversely, this ends up being a false dichotomy, and the main reason why I've kept my distance from the board these last few weeks is because it has been used all too often, to the point where criticizing the Western strategy has been almost systematically equated with support for Putin.
To be fair though, I have to admit Chomsky is in fact old because he either doesn't manage or doesn't bother to articulate a response to this. I wasn't able to find much about that in his latest writings, so I guess I'll have to try myself.

The choice was never between supporting Ukraine or doing nothing (that's the false dichotomy that I loathe). The question is what the West's objective should be (or should have been). And because the West is not actually a belligerent but a co-belligerent, the objective should always have been to stop the war asap and bring the criminals to justice, because the West -supposedly- wants to stand for the preservation of human life and human dignity.
In clear terms that means demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory ("status quo ante") and identifying the Russian officers responsible for crimes against the Ukrainian population to prepare their prosecution. That might sound naive, but I don't believe it is, not in the face of obvious Russian incompetence and not in the face of overwhelming Western superiority, that mean Russia may find itself having to accept whatever the West's terms are.
Military support for Ukraine was supposedly based on the principle of self-defense, so it always made sense to condition the sending of weapons to the impossibility of holding talks, or, to put it differently, to arm the Ukrainians as long as the Russian aren't reasonable. And whereas it is only natural for the Ukrainians to seek vengeance and reclaim the invaded territories through war, the West itself has no clear reason to share that objective. Therefore, the West should always have kept communications open with Russia with clear demands (withdrawal of Russian forces), and encouraged the Ukrainians to do the same with their own terms. To talk is not to accept or condone the invader's perspective, but also the possibility of reaching your objectives without unnecessary lives being lost. In international relations, countries do not have the luxury of denying even the worst nations the possibility of a negotiated end to a conflict. That may be immoral in itself, but that is besides the point, or we shouldn't be buying anything from China or talking with people like Bolsonaro.
Bloody Macron of all people got the right of it: send weapons to Ukraine, but keep calling Putin to seek an end to the conflict. Except France is insignificant, so it should have been Biden making those calls. To refuse negotiations amounts to choosing the continuation of war. It is to seek unconditional victory. Which can be the Ukrainians' objective, but not the West's. If the West wanted to keep the moral highground, then its objectives should have been justice according to international law, which I understand it is status quo ante on the ground and prosecution of criminals. Life and justice.
Such a position need not be "cowardly." In fact, it also opens up the possibility of NATO intervention under international law. If you want to play hardball with Putin, then NATO can design its own military objectives to ensure Russian retreat. There can be a "no-fly zone" or the designation of "no-conflict areas" protected by NATO troops (nuclear power plants and other critical civilian infrastructure being obvious targets for protection). Coupled with international assistance for the wounded and the destitute, not to mention investigations of Russian crimes (to parallel or support Amnesty International's). It is hardly uncommon to send international agents in a war zone in an attempt to lower tensions, if only because both sides must be careful not to harm them.
But none of that seems to have been tried or even seriously considered. I certainly didn't hear much about any of that. Western military intervention was ruled out early, which makes its entire strategy morally dubious, since it relies on the Ukrainians to do the fighting.
And this is where I align with Chomsky in his criticism of US positions. Because the US didn't dictate terms to Russia that are consistent with international law or some sort of internationally acceptable rule, it found itself embracing Ukrainian objectives (even vocally supporting ones beyond the status quo ante), seemingly making the unconditional capitulation of Russia its own objective. It therefore isn't surprising that other nations like India or China could remain openly neutral. It isn't surprising that so many experts on international relations were either uneasy or critical of the strategy. And of course it isn't surprising that pacifists would find themselves unable to condone it.
This is how we come to Chomsky's conclusion that the conflict has become a "ghastly experiment." The experiment is to see whether the Ukrainians can defeat Russia, which can only be described as an imperialist state ruled by an ageing autocrat with weapons of mass destruction. And maybe the Ukrainians can win (it certainly seems so), but that possibility also means letting them fight all the conscripts that Putin is willing or able to send, for god knows how long, while the threat of escalation in both Russian crimes and military confrontation remain. Not only does it mean that Ukrainian civilians can only rely on their military to protect them, but it also means that Putin is free to follow his own path of crimes against his people, sending countless men with little training and equipment to die in a war that most of them probably don't support, or at least wouldn't support if they weren't victims of state propaganda. It is making the entire Russian people pay for the crimes of their leader, their government, or their military.

There would be much more to discuss. Whether Putin himself can be brought to justice. Whether he can be deposed or assassinated. The thorny issue of Crimea, which the Ukrainians now legitimately want to recapture. Generally speaking, Ukrainian military successes mean their objectives have become more ambitious. It may have been possible to work out something like the Minsk agreements with international oversight before. Now, I do not know. The Western strategy seems to have led to more mad Putinian rhetoric (the annexation and mobilisation), while the Ukrainians keep humiliating the Russian military and now have their sights on Crimea. To put is imply, the conflict was fueled rather than appeased, and all the hyperboles that have been waived around like badges of honor served to obfuscate the fact: the West's continued involvement did not make things better, and may even have made them worse. The strategy of assisting Ukraine in its self-defense was initially correct ;  it should have very quickly been complemented by a more elaborate strategy that could obtain the agreement of the rest of the world. Russia may have the responsibility of invasion, but that quickly failed ; since then, the West's responsibility in the continuation of the conflict has only kept growing, and continues to grow.

It's almost ridiculous to talk about what might have been, because it now seems like the experiment must run its course. And maybe it will work. Maybe Putin will eventually gladly lose the Donbas if he can keep Crimea. Maybe he will accept losing Crimea if China decides to weigh against further madness. Maybe even he will be deposed or assassinated, and replaced by someone more reasonable. I do not know.
What I do know is that the strategy that was pursued entails such risk that one can only see it as reckless and callous, and that it confirms everything negative one may think about US foreign policy: that the US does not actually respect human life and dignity, that it certainly doesn't care a fig about international law or rules, and that its governments pursue their own self-serving objectives first and foremost, with the complicity of the media and their emotional narratives. I do think individuals have the luxury of seeing the world in black and white, however misguided that may be, but governments should not fall prey to moral simplicities.

Quote

they only seek to cowardly avoid a potential disaster to someone not involved in the conflict. 

Mayhaps. But conversely, what makes the continuation of war so "morally brave" in itself, if you're not involved yourself?
If you don't at least entertain the possibility of a negotiated end to a conflict, then you are effectively supporting one side wholeheartedly rather than moral idealism. The Ukrainians are entitled to seek revenge. What makes it so moral to provide them the means to achieve that? The modern international order was built on the idea that the strongest should not be deciding rewards and punishments for weaker nations, that there should be rules aiming for neutral justice and allowing for the permanent resolution of conflicts. Those principles are the ones the entire world can get behind (not just the US and its allies), and that will not depend on who the strongest military in the world is. Whenever they are ignored or dismissed, it only encourages further crimes.

 

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

I don't mean to be this reductive, but if you see the moral obligation of the international political apparati as to somehow insist upon the victim that they concede territorial losses when the possibility exists of victory in the field (against an AGGRESSOR)... I'm sorry, sir, but you are arguing for violent incrementalism all over the world. I truly admire that you believe that some kind of peaceful platonic state can be achieved in all nations and all hearts, but... Look at the fantasy you're constructing here. Putin gives up war criminals in exchange for Crimea? If you offered him that deal he'd give you Britney Griner's head and reach for Kyiv. 

 

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But none of that seems to have been tried or even seriously considered. I certainly didn't hear much about any of that. Western military intervention was ruled out early, which makes its entire strategy morally dubious, since it relies on the Ukrainians to do the fighting.

Okay, let's go with this. 

First off YOU were one of the people who advocated that NATO/West didn't get involved at all because of how provocative it would be. The notion that you're now advocating for it when you feared that this would be a problem and were actively relieved about it not coming to pass is some serious bullshit.

Second, the idea that Biden isn't constantly trying to talk to Russia to end this war is also obviously bullshit. There's a ton of documented evidence that Biden, Blinken, Macron, and even BoJo were calling repeatedly, willing to meet, etc. Unless you want a camera view of their specific conversation thinking that this isn't taking place is conspiratorial in its ignoring of reality. 

The US has had the same position with Russia since January. The US position is that Ukraine should be the ones who decide Ukraine's fate, and if they want to continue the war to retake Ukrainian territory that is first and foremost their decision. It relies on Ukraine doing the fighting and the choosing. 

And right now, Ukraine's choice is very simple: not one bit of sacrificing Ukrainian soil to Russian aggression. 

This isn't ambiguous, this isn't unclear, this is 100% within the bounds of international law and international rule and status quo ante. That you believe it is not is incredibly irrational. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

This is how we come to Chomsky's conclusion that the conflict has become a "ghastly experiment." The experiment is to see whether the Ukrainians can defeat Russia, which can only be described as an imperialist state ruled by an ageing autocrat with weapons of mass destruction. And maybe the Ukrainians can win (it certainly seems so), but that possibility also means letting them fight all the conscripts that Putin is willing or able to send, for god knows how long, while the threat of escalation in both Russian crimes and military confrontation remain. Not only does it mean that Ukrainian civilians can only rely on their military to protect them, but it also means that Putin is free to follow his own path of crimes against his people, sending countless men with little training and equipment to die in a war that most of them probably don't support, or at least wouldn't support if they weren't victims of state propaganda. It is making the entire Russian people pay for the crimes of their leader, their government, or their military. 

Your alternative would be...what? Russia does not want to negotiate. They have shown zero sign of stopping the fighting or even wanting to stop the fighting. You're presupposing this outlandish idea that the US has never looked for diplomatic solutions AND, miraculously, that Russia would accept them. 

You may not like it, but there are people for whom you cannot strike a deal and give them something they want in exchange for them to stop hitting you. Some people will just keep hitting you. You can promise money, or your ass, or your kids, or whatever, but it won't matter; they aren't interested in those things. They are interested in hitting you. And even if someone else promises them things - and even gives them things! - the only thing they'll accept as appeasement is the ability to hit you more. 

So yes, your basis point that negotiation has failed is a failed tautology because it assumes that it would have succeeded if only they tried negotiating really hard. That is not consistent with a basis in reality. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

There would be much more to discuss. Whether Putin himself can be brought to justice. Whether he can be deposed or assassinated. The thorny issue of Crimea, which the Ukrainians now legitimately want to recapture. Generally speaking, Ukrainian military successes mean their objectives have become more ambitious. It may have been possible to work out something like the Minsk agreements with international oversight before. Now, I do not know. The Western strategy seems to have led to more mad Putinian rhetoric (the annexation and mobilisation), while the Ukrainians keep humiliating the Russian military and now have their sights on Crimea. To put is imply, the conflict was fueled rather than appeased, and all the hyperboles that have been waived around like badges of honor served to obfuscate the fact: the West's continued involvement did not make things better, and may even have made them worse. The strategy of assisting Ukraine in its self-defense was initially correct ;  it should have very quickly been complemented by a more elaborate strategy that could obtain the agreement of the rest of the world. Russia may have the responsibility of invasion, but that quickly failed ; since then, the West's responsibility in the continuation of the conflict has only kept growing, and continues to grow.

Conversely if the West did not aid Ukraine, we would have millions of refugees flooding Europe, millions more being killed inside Ukraine (as we have already seen Russians do), rapes aplenty, massive looting and destruction of the entire country. 

But yes, I'll concede - fewer Russians would have suffered. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What I do know is that the strategy that was pursued entails such risk that one can only see it as reckless and callous, and that it confirms everything negative one may think about US foreign policy: that the US does not actually respect human life and dignity, that it certainly doesn't care a fig about international law or rules, and that its governments pursue their own self-serving objectives first and foremost, with the complicity of the media and their emotional narratives. I do think individuals have the luxury of seeing the world in black and white, however misguided that may be, but governments should not fall prey to moral simplicities.

First off: this isn't just the US; the entire western world is largely united for Ukraine. Including your France. That's one of the cool things about this - that this is shockingly unifying to the developed world. It is weirdly successful in uniting NATO countries like Turkey. It is getting former Soviet countries to oppose Russia. It is even getting China a bit peeved. 

Second: you are again ignoring the facts on the ground - that Russia has shown zero desire to negotiate - and that Ukrainian people are willing to fight for their sovereignty, now more than ever - especially after Bucha, and Izium. The US stopping giving arms to Ukraine wouldn't stop that desire. It would make them less successful and would result in millions dead, but apparently that's okay as long as it is Ukrainians dead. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Mayhaps. But conversely, what makes the continuation of war so "morally brave" in itself, if you're not involved yourself? 

It is especially cowardly to try to discourage someone from getting beaten up from fighting back at all because it might inconvenience you at some point. It is less cowardly to give them help when they ask, even if that inconveniences you. I don't see how you can see these things as equivalent but I guess not having a reality-based conclusion frees one up for a lot of things.

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you don't at least entertain the possibility of a negotiated end to a conflict, then you are effectively supporting one side wholeheartedly rather than moral idealism.

Partially, yes? But also again I support the thesis that there are some things that cannot be negotiated; they are decided by who wins and who loses. I also support the thesis that some people are not willing to negotiate until they've been shown the error of their other ways. 

You seem to be under the conclusion that I don't support diplomacy. I do. So does the US. So does NATO. A hint to this is that the US did not attack or even really aid when Russia was building up their forces for months. Ukraine barely got anything prior to Feb 23rd. Because...they were trying to give a diplomatic solution some breathing room. And...it didn't work! It continues to not work. Putin has had several offramps over the months that he could have taken - multiple sanction escalations, the loss of the Kyiv offensive, the push for Mariupol, the loss of the Moskva - any of those he could have used as a reason to stop. He has not done so and has escalated at every turn, because he is not interested in negotiations. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The Ukrainians are entitled to seek revenge. What makes it so moral to provide them the means to achieve that?

Ukraine is not seeking revenge, nor is the west attempting to achieve or enable that. Point of fact, the west has made it abundantly clear the preconditions of the aid being used for Ukraine stay within Ukraine (2014) borders. That it is not to be used to attack Russia. If the West wanted Ukraine to get revenge, they'd give them cruise missiles to hit Moscow the same way Russia hit Kyiv. That hasn't happened. This isn't a serious argument by you; this is emotive garbage. 

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The modern international order was built on the idea that the strongest should not be deciding rewards and punishments for weaker nations, that there should be rules aiming for neutral justice and allowing for the permanent resolution of conflicts. Those principles are the ones the entire world can get behind (not just the US and its allies), and that will not depend on who the strongest military in the world is. Whenever they are ignored or dismissed, it only encourages further crimes.

This makes zero sense as a conclusion when you're talking about what Russia did and is doing to Ukraine. It also, again, presupposes a world where everyone only goes to war for entirely rational reasons, and everyone is interested in negotiation. How do you negotiate an end to genocide? How do you negotiate an end to ethnic cleansing? 

[polishgenius]

Good grief was that an awful lot of words to write to push a conclusion that (once again- honestly a pattern with you now when talking about this war, Rippounet, even though people have pointed it out to you every time it's come up) completely ignores that Ukraine has its own agency. It's ironic to hold a position that essentially bemoans American imperialism yet rests entirely on the notion that Ukraine is a sattelite of the US and has not just no right but no ability to make decisions of its own. You have in your own head annexed them far more thoroughly than either the US or Russia ever could. 

And also that even if you set aside all the things Kal brought up, which you shouldn't, you're treating this war as if it was a single self-contained event, contextless except of course for any pressure the US might bring to bear. Absolutely no concession to the idea that this is part of a pattern going back not just to 2014 but at the very least to the 1940s, and that Russia having any success now will see them want to try some shit again, both in Ukraine and elsewhere. I mean, they'll probably want to try anyway, and eventually will, but losing here will make the calculations against that stronger.  

[Gorn]

@Rippounet

There's this piece of paper called the UN Charter. It says a lot of things, but the most important one is that big countries cannot take land from smaller countries by force. No, not even if it's "just Crimea".

If Ukraine is forced to cede even the tiniest sliver of its territory to Russia, that piece of paper is worthless. We're back in the 19th century, except that all the great powers have nukes now.

You really, really don't want to be living in such a world. And you probably wouldn't for very long. Live, I mean.

[Darzin]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

.
And this is where I align with Chomsky in his criticism of US positions. Because the US didn't dictate terms to Russia that are consistent with international law or some sort of internationally acceptable rule, it found itself embracing Ukrainian objectives (even vocally supporting ones beyond the status quo ante), seemingly making the unconditional capitulation of Russia its own objective. It therefore isn't surprising that other nations like India or China could remain openly neutral. It isn't surprising that so many experts on international relations were either uneasy or critical of the strategy. And of course it isn't surprising that pacifists would find themselves unable to condone it.
This is how we come to Chomsky's conclusion that the conflict has become a "ghastly experiment." The experiment is to see whether the Ukrainians can defeat Russia, which can only be described as an imperialist state ruled by an ageing autocrat with weapons of mass destruction. And maybe the Ukrainians can win (it certainly seems so), but that possibility also means letting them fight all the conscripts that Putin is willing or able to send, for god knows how long, while the threat of escalation in both Russian crimes and military confrontation remain. Not only does it mean that Ukrainian civilians can only rely on their military to protect them, but it also means that Putin is free to follow his own path of crimes against his people, sending countless men with little training and equipment to die in a war that most of them probably don't support, or at least wouldn't support if they weren't victims of state propaganda. It is making the entire Russian people pay for the crimes of their leader, their government, or their military.

I don't think you or Chomsky actually believe this for a minute though. Or else, where was Chomsky's criticism of the Soviet Union for providing aid to the North Vietnamese to allow them to fight in a hopeless war they had no hope of winning militarily and allowing them to kill American conscripts who didn't want to be there? I must have missed that. I really doubt you apply this, duty to give up the second an aggressor is willing to make peace, concept to any other conflict. Do you think the allies should have sued for peace with Germany and Japan in 1944 rather than issuing an ultimatum of unconditional surrender? Hell after Stalingrad the Soviets could have probably gotten peace right there on current lines in 1942 what a win for pacifism that would have been!

The characterization of Ukraine retaking territory in a defensive war as aggression and vengeance is absurd. Retaking territory that was force ably conquered from you in an ongoing war is not vengeance. Should the allies not have invaded France in 1944 to avoid continuing the killing in the name of vengeance? You're holding Ukraine to a crazy weird rule that no other country is ever held to. 

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

First off YOU were one of the people who advocated that NATO/West didn't get involved at all because of how provocative it would be.

I remember only becoming involved in the topic after the sinking of the Moskva, saying that Biden should call Putin. At the time I took essentially the same position as I do now: that the West should support Ukrainian self-defense, but that I thought this was turning into a proxy war against Russia, with everything that entailed.

It is almost impossible for me to have said that NATO/West shouldn't get involved, since from the start I was aware of Western involvement in Ukraine way before 2022. In fact, I posted a link about the leaked conversation of the US diplomat saying "Fuck the EU". You know, this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victoria-nuland-phonecall-leaked-video

I may have said something that you misunderstood though... But in all likelihood, you're just confusing my positions with someone else's.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Second, the idea that Biden isn't constantly trying to talk to Russia to end this war is also obviously bullshit. There's a ton of documented evidence that Biden, Blinken, Macron, and even BoJo were calling repeatedly, willing to meet, etc.

Is or were? Pretty big difference.

Google tells me Biden called Putin on February 12. A quick look at the results doesn't give me any more recent calls, the Moskva sunk on April 14, and I've read many articles in the last few months saying that the US and Ukraine will not negotiate.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Russia does not want to negotiate.

I have seen at least two instances in the media here in the past few months of Russia clearly asking to negotiate.

Now this, combined with the above, tells me your media and my media are saying/reporting rather different things.

In the French media, Macron has pretty much been portrayed as the only one in the West trying to call Putin or push for negotiations for months. Needless to say, the French media being as concentrated and corrupt as it is, it is perfectly possible that they have tried to push a perspective favorable to their hero. I do try to get my information from a wide variety of sources though, so if the West has been trying hard, I must have missed something.

Last news I read was Zelensky saying he will negotiate if Russia has another president (which I read as a joke). And the Ukrainians are rather annoyed at Macron's grandstanding to the point they invented the verb "to macron."

Given the asskicking the Russians ar egetting, I'd be surprised if they're not interested in negotiations. I'm pretty sure they're desperate for a way out of this mess.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

The US stopping giving arms to Ukraine wouldn't stop that desire. It would make them less successful and would result in millions dead, but apparently that's okay as long as it is Ukrainians dead.

That amounts to a strawman.

BTW

48 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

if you see the moral obligation of the international political apparati as to somehow insist upon the victim that they concede territorial losses

Also a strawman. I pretty much said the very opposite.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

A hint to this is that the US did not attack or even really aid when Russia was building up their forces for months. Ukraine barely got anything prior to Feb 23rd.

That is at least misleading and possibly just flat out wrong.

The US strategy regarding Ukraine is very well known and documented. The very reason the Russian invasion was defeated is thanks to US support in the first place. I even posted a link to the vote by the US Congress appropriating funds for Ukrainian defense at some point.

That's some serious rewriting of history.

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Ukraine is not seeking revenge, nor is the west attempting to achieve or enable that. Point of fact, the west has made it abundantly clear the preconditions of the aid being used for Ukraine stay within Ukraine (2014) borders.

I blew a fuse on the board (in a rather cryptic way tbh) when a NYT or WP article reported the US government doing the very opposite. I think someone called me a "quack" or something.

Unless you mean January 2014, in which case we are in agreement.

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

You may not like it, but there are people for whom you cannot strike a deal and give them something they want in exchange for them to stop hitting you. Some people will just keep hitting you. You can promise money, or your ass, or your kids, or whatever, but it won't matter; they aren't interested in those things. They are interested in hitting you. And even if someone else promises them things - and even gives them things! - the only thing they'll accept as appeasement is the ability to hit you more.

The big idea is not to characterize entire peoples or nations this way, since this would only lead to emulating their worst behaviors, possibly even becoming the very thing that is being fought in the first place.

That's why it's so important to keep a level head even in times of war, so as not to end up answering genocide with genocide.

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Good grief was that an awful lot of words to write to push a conclusion that completely ignores that Ukraine has its own agency. It's ironic to hold a position that essentially bemoans American imperialism yet rests entirely on the notion that Ukraine is a sattelite of the US and has not just no right but no ability to make decisions of its own.

Conversely, to keep insisting on Ukrainian agency is to refuse to see the impact of sending tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment (plus training and logistical support), including sophisticated weaponry, to one of the parties in a war.

It's like people don't understand what the numbers mean. For instance, US/Western support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s Iraq-Iran war was orders of magnitude smaller, and yet had a considerable impact. The Iranians have never forgotten that, though most people in the West have.

It's a bit rich to arm people and then talk about their "agency." The entire point of my position is to leave both options on the table. Always. What do you think happens when you send weapons in a war with no conditions, and insist on "agency" ?

Christ on a bike, sorry, but do people here really have no historical perspective at all? Do you any idea how many times this has been done, and what the results have been?
What kind of people sent weapons to other people's wars in the past without any conditions? What were their objectives? Do you guys truly have no notion of the consequences? Do you truly not know, or do you refuse to see?
Is it that hard to see that it is always best to seek a quick end to wars? I mean, that's even the rationale used to justify the nuking of Japan...

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

And also that even if you set aside all the things Kal brought up

Which suggest we not only have different positions, but even possibly live in different worlds.

 

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

you're treating this war as if it was a single self-contained event, contextless except of course for any pressure the US might bring to bear. Absolutely no concession to the idea that this is part of a pattern going back not just to 2014 but at the very least to the 1940s, and that Russia having any success now will see them want to try some shit again, both in Ukraine and elsewhere. I mean, they'll probably want to try anyway, and eventually will, but losing here will make the calculations against that stronger.  

Yes, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Sorry, it's hard not to. Anyway, I know my Cold War better than most people, and I don't think bringing up the past "at the very least to the 1940s" yields what you think it does, though of course I understand why anyone from Poland would be legitimately fearful of Russian imperialism.

Small bit of history: for decades, US conservatives described the Russians (well, the Soviets, but they often used the word "Russian" at the time) as expansionist, barbaric, and all that. They could never change, they would always be aggressive, etc. One could not negotiate with them, because they would never give up their dreams of domination, and could not be trusted to hold their end of deals. In fact, the historical record shows that the Soviets were just as good (or as bad) at respecting treaties than the US/West, but that wasn't the narrative. The narrative was that any attempt to negotiate would constitute "appeasement" and just encourage the Soviets to even greater expansionism. For a large part of the establishment, it was better to be dead than red, or perhaps better to be dead than socialist. As Irving Kristol eventually admitted, "his" Cold War was always being fought on the inside.
And Gorbachev arrived and started not only negotiating disarmament with a vengeance, he even started unilaterally disarming at times. Yes, sometimes, he didn't even wait for the US or the West to promise to reciprocate, he just... pulled out troops.
Oh sure, he was after saving money and getting Western investments (he was no fool). But that doesn't change the fact that for all the rhetoric about Russian imperialism, it took just one Soviet leader of a slightly different ilk to peacefully bring down the Soviet/Russian empire in just a few years. As Arbatov promised, the Russians did deprive the West of its enemy, for a time at least.

 

Anyway, I would possibly concede I am in error, if only every damn time I attempt to discuss this it didn't turn out we are using different sets of facts to begin with (now it seems even my positions may be rewritten). And I have to confess, I just don't want to spend the time and energy finding links that I have already posted (not to mention, checking what I have written in the past), because that just doesn't work. And anyway, it's not like discussing the conflict will have any impact on it, and if I'm the one who's wrong, that's actually pretty good news.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I have seen at least two instances in the media here in the past few months of Russia clearly asking to negotiate.

I'm not interested in getting into a long debate here, but stop with this. Russia's attempts to negotiate throughout this whole affair have ranged from completely unserious to offensive to the concept of international relations. It's been 99% bullshit. It was in the lead up, it was after THEY INVADED FOR NO REASON AT ALL THAT IS COHERENT, and it's been the same ever since they've clearly lost the war on both the actual and narrative front. 

Russia didn't come to negotiate, they came to parade in Kyiv after they conquered it and they failed as badly as one can do. Your constant handwaving is disappointing considering how much I respect your opinions on most other subjects.

[Darzin]

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Is it that hard to see that it is always best to seek a quick end to wars?

I rather think that one of the major lessons of the 20th century is that appeasing tyrants for "peace in our time" can end pretty badly and soundly defeating those who launched the war can end pretty well. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Christ on a bike, sorry, but do people here really have no historical perspective at all? Do you any idea how many times this has been done, and what the results have been?
What kind of people sent weapons to other people's wars in the past without any conditions? What were their objectives? Do you guys truly have no notion of the consequences? Do you truly not know, or do you refuse to see?

 

You mean like in WWII where prior to declaring war the US was providing the British and the Soviets with a blank check of weapons and foodstuffs? Which worked out splendidly or at least as best as could be hoped for, given the circumstances, you keep removing things from all context, treating "providing weapons" as a moral bad. Providing weapons is a morally neutral action it's to who the weapons are provided that determines the morality. Can you really not see the difference between helping Zelensky and Saddam Hussien? 

Also, your fetishizing of negotiation ignores that prior to Bucha Ukraine was negotiating there were talks taking place in Turkey that were making some progress around the idea of Donbas autonomy and Ukraine conceding Crimea. Those negotiations stopped not because of US arms deliveries or Ukrainian warmongering, but because of the discovery of the massacres at Bucha made it politically untenable for the Ukrainian government to leave any of their citizens to the tender mercies of the Russians. You show so much understanding for why Iranians to remember US help towards Saddam and yet lack the same perspective of why Ukrainians might be reluctant to abandon their fellow countrymen to be robbed, raped and murdered by the Russian army.  

You keep alluding to different facts, that people here have had the wool pulled over our eyes. So what are they? What key facts are we missing? You say it's useless to explain but to me that just sounds like you know your facts are not enough, reflexive disdain for the US and NATO are not actually good reasons to abandon Ukrain the wolves. 

 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Christ on a bike, sorry, but do people here really have no historical perspective at all?

 

The projection is strong in this one.

You're George Orwelling me for pointing out that Russia has been an aggressor towards Eastern Europe for decades at least - I was born in England because my dad was exiled from his homeland for his work in the resistance against them but you're telling me I'm just making that up - and you've got the nerve to accuse others of lacking perspective. 

 

I'm not surprised though. Your position here is that the Ukraine should stop fighting because the US wants them to keep fighting, essentially. You'd presumably deny it and might not even realise that's what it is, but the logical extension of that position is that the Eastern bloc was wrong to throw off Soviet rule at all, because that's what the US wanted us to do. 

Edit: Having gone back to your post once I'd got less angry about the Orwell shot: you acknowledge that it's understandable for a Polish person to be fearful of Russian imperialism, but you don't connect that to what's going on here?

You invoked Gorbachev, but Putin isn't Gorbachev. If he is ousted or dies then we can see where the new leader stands, what their position is, maybe take a different tack, though not naively and not without thought for what Ukraine wants and needs. But Putin has a pattern of these 'interventions' and then building on them. Not only that, but he openly called the fall of the Soviet Union that Gorbachev oversaw a tragedy and in his February 21st speech intimated that he doesn't consider that dissolution legitimate. In that same speech he denounced Lenin and later leaders for letting Ukraine go, and for incorporating into it the regions that they did. Why on earth would we negotiate with that man on the basis that he might suddenly turn into a dove? 

[Alarich II]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Military support for Ukraine was supposedly based on the principle of self-defense, so it always made sense to condition the sending of weapons to the impossibility of holding talks, or, to put it differently, to arm the Ukrainians as long as the Russian aren't reasonable. And whereas it is only natural for the Ukrainians to seek vengeance and reclaim the invaded territories through war, the West itself has no clear reason to share that objective.

Two points, because I think your long post boils down to this:

1. What is a reasonable Russian position? They invaded Ukraine and it would be reasonable to withdraw from this invasion and negotiate a peace. But this is not going to happen: After the official annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts, Putin himself has basically ruled out any "reasonable" position, because the Russian constitution rules out ceding any Russian territory. In Russian terms, this is now Russian territory, therefore they have to be defended and Putin has basically tied himself and all his successors to the mast of this ship. It is the political mirror of Putins military "holding orders" for Kherson and Lyman. He has left no room for a position that is reasonable to Russia and the West and so, the arms deliveries have to go on and very probably have to be increased to force Russia into a "reasonable" position. 

2. Of course, the West has very clear reasons to share the objective of reclaiming the entirety of the Ukrainian territory for several reasons:

a) Russia, the US and the UK have as per memorandum of Budapest, affirmed the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its existing borders of 1994. Ukraine gave up its nukes in return for this (and Russia got a ton of money to dispose of them). Obviously, already one of these nuclear powers not respecting what it signed, is a huge blow for any efforts of nuclear nonproliferation, if the other two were to accept this, we are opening a pandoras box. So these two powers have significant interest in the restitution of Ukrainian territorial integrity - including Crimea - if only to preserve the current order of nuclear powers and send a clear signal that the deal "territorial integrity against nonproliferation" will be held up, with signifianct conventional military investment if need be.

b) European powers in general have agreed to agree on the post 1945 borders for all European states. This doesn't prevent the disintegration of states like Czechoslovakia or Jugoslavia, but the basic consensus, at least in Europe, was that no state will expand its territory at the expense of another after the borders were drawn in 1945 (except I think the US never officially recognised the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states). First and foremost, Germany who had lost about a third of her territory after 1945, was integrated into this peace order which held up remarkably well. If we were to give up this peace order and accept that states can claim or reclaim territory of other states, then the European peace order will fall apart. What would happen, if Germany says, okay, so we are now investing into massive rearmament and btw. we are fine with the Russian precedent and btw. Kaliningrad belonged to Russia longer than Crimea ever did... this would be catastrophic. So not accepting any revision of state borders and supporting this with significant military support, is also an important signal: of course to people like Orban who are talking about a Greater Hungary, but also to Germany. 

c) Those states who are within the boundaries of "Greater Russia", i.e. the sphere in which Russia claims the right to dictate policies and to territory, based on historic imperial expansion (which reaches as far as Warsaw), have a very keen interest in self preservance and so, their objective is probably the most far reaching: beyond just the territorial integrity, they do have an interest in decisive Russian defeat on all fronts - military, economic and cultural and long-lasting weakening of Russian ambition (I linked an interesting speech in Russian by an Estonian MP who basically spelled this out in the last Ukr. Thread). We see first developments of this already: in Latvia, the strongest opposition party which had it's roots in the big Russian community, has failed to enter parliament after the last elections. So the cultural grip of Russia on ethnic Russians abroad is already faltering.

In conclusion - the US and most European powers do share the Ukrainian objective of reclaiming the territories that Russia has invaded. Some may have even further objectives and those are the ones who are most vocal about NATO membership, weapons deliveries etc. Germany has to make a decision - either be part of the European peace order and therefore signal its willingness to defend it (which has been so far the decision). Or try, with the help of Russia, to overturn it and become a revisionist power. I strongly prefer the first over the latter. But affirmation that the West has no clear reason to support the main objective of Ukraine, wich is the full restitution of its territorial integrity, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, the west has very clear and comprehensible reasons to share that objective.

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Darzin said:

Also, your fetishizing of negotiation ignores that prior to Bucha Ukraine was negotiating there were talks taking place in Turkey that were making some progress around the idea of Donbas autonomy and Ukraine conceding Crimea. Those negotiations stopped not because of US arms deliveries or Ukrainian warmongering, but because of the discovery of the massacres at Bucha made it politically untenable for the Ukrainian government to leave any of their citizens to the tender mercies of the Russians. You show so much understanding for why Iranians to remember US help towards Saddam and yet lack the same perspective of why Ukrainians might be reluctant to abandon their fellow countrymen to be robbed, raped and murdered by the Russian army. 

I think it's clear those negotiations were also, to some extent, futile. The Russians were discussing things that seemed semi-credible to end the war but not also doing anything to deliver on them, and the main feeling is they were just running out the clock whilst their military took more territory. But "engaging" in the peace talks made Russia look reasonable to allies and friendly neutrals like Turkey, China and India, and there was some precedent in how the situation in Georgia was resolved in 2008 (Russia gained overwhelming military success, ran into a series of setbacks, and cashed their chips with a French-brokered peace deal that achieved the maximum realistic gains before they could sustain any losses) which gave some even in the west hope that the conflict could be ended before it went too far.

Ukraine has since retaken far more more territory than it had lost by the time the talks ended (or by now), but Russia has also widened its territorial ambitions.

The main obstacle to peace is now Putin, personally, and an inherently unrealistic position: Russia is claiming more and more territory despite losing more and more often on the battlefield. He is trying to expand his ambitions whilst his capabilities collapse, which is not rational and provides no basis for a workable, practical peace.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Rippounet

Are you saying Ukraine should give up its 5 Eastmost Oblasts and ratify Russia’s annexation?  Yes or no?  

Do you really believe that action would sate Putin (or Putin’s successor’s) desire for “Empire”?

[Gorn]

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The choice was never between supporting Ukraine or doing nothing (that's the false dichotomy that I loathe). The question is what the West's objective should be (or should have been). And because the West is not actually a belligerent but a co-belligerent, the objective should always have been to stop the war asap and bring the criminals to justice, because the West -supposedly- wants to stand for the preservation of human life and human dignity.
In clear terms that means demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory ("status quo ante") and identifying the Russian officers responsible for crimes against the Ukrainian population to prepare their prosecution.

Let's come back to this part.

The most relevant war criminal on Russian side is Putin himself. He is directly responsible for all the war crimes in this war. Everyone else, every general who commanded artillery shelling of civilians, every captain or major who commanded executions of prisoners, every low-level psycho who took the opportunity to rape, murder and loot with impunity, they are all "small potatoes" and irrelevant.

By your own standards, you should be supporting Ukraine until its complete victory. Because there is no going back to a world in which Ukrainian presidents or western leaders shake hands with Putin and smile for photo ops. Too much blood has been shed for that to happen.

[Kalbear]

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is or were? Pretty big difference.

Google tells me Biden called Putin on February 12. A quick look at the results doesn't give me any more recent calls, the Moskva sunk on April 14, and I've read many articles in the last few months saying that the US and Ukraine will not negotiate.

I have seen at least two instances in the media here in the past few months of Russia clearly asking to negotiate.

Now this, combined with the above, tells me your media and my media are saying/reporting rather different things.

Yeah, I think that's accurate - your media is definitely saying things that are different. In the US we call these things 'alternative facts'. 

I do agree that Macron has publicly been very loud pushing for negotiations. My point has been that this is entirely theater and Russia has no actual interest in serious negotiations, never has, and that every country involved is continually talking (or attempting to talk) with Russia about ending this war. Though probably not very publicly. Blinken has been in contact with Russia quite a bit, as an example. We know about BoJo trying to reach Putin. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

At the same time Ukraine, at least right now, has absolutely no interest in negotiating anything beyond 2014 lines. Russia obliterated any chance of negotiation with committing war crimes at a grand scale. Ukraine cannot exist as an entity unless they can protect the lives of their citizens, and they cannot do that while Russia controls Ukraine land. The Western allies know this and are not going to undermine Ukraine's goals here either, so they do keep diplomatic channels open - but they do so quietly. And Zelensky rightly points out that Putin is not remotely to be trusted to keep a word, to obey international law, to do anything other than what Putin wants to do - so he cannot reasonably be negotiated with. 

This is the first problem with your position: negotiation and diplomacy requires some degree of trust - trust in the other person's word, trust that they understand your ability to kick their ass, trust that they have a similar world view and goals to you or at least an understandable view. Putin has demonstrated none of these. How does one negotiate with someone whose goals are to kill you? The answer is very basic: you make a deal when the other person has no choice but to accept, and the only way to do that is to beat them down. 

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Given the asskicking the Russians ar egetting, I'd be surprised if they're not interested in negotiations. I'm pretty sure they're desperate for a way out of this mess.

Then you should be very surprised, because Putin has shown absolutely zero sign of coming back to the table publicly or otherwise. The normal suspects of countries who would facilitate this - Turkey, Belarus, China - have been entirely quiet in this regard. It's almost as if Putin is not actually interested in negotiation. 

This is the second example of how your views are not based in reality and the second problem with your position: you don't seem to understand or recognize Putin's point of view, at all. Which is weird, because he's been exceedingly honest about it. He believes that Ukraine is not a nation and that it is the right of Russia to reclaim their land. He believes that any Ukrainian who resists this is a fascist and should be killed. He believes that Ukraine breaking away from Russian influence and joining NATO/EU countries is an existential threat to Russia. Now, you can argue about how irrational this is - I certainly think it is! - but that doesn't matter, because it is genuinely believed. 

Now, I ask you - if you feel that the existence of a country is an existential threat to you and your country, what would you accept as a diplomatic solution? 

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That amounts to a strawman.

The comment in question was that you will accept millions of Ukrainians dead. It is absolutely not a strawman. You might not like it, but your goals of negotiation will precisely achieve that. You continue to elide the cost to Ukraine of accepting Russian goals, when the Russian goals are the complete elimination of Ukraine as an entity, culture and people. 

The obvious conclusion to accepting those goals is that millions of Ukrainians will die, and millions more will be re-educated and converted. 

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That is at least misleading and possibly just flat out wrong.

The US strategy regarding Ukraine is very well known and documented. The very reason the Russian invasion was defeated is thanks to US support in the first place. I even posted a link to the vote by the US Congress appropriating funds for Ukrainian defense at some point.

That's some serious rewriting of history.

The US gave a very small amount of military aid to Ukraine right before Feb 23rd, limited to defensive weapons, small arms and supplies. After Feb 23rd the US has given something like 35 times the amount of weapons, and that's just the US - NATO has chipped in almost as much. And the weapons are significantly more advanced, more offensive, and more effective. 

US support was very useful, that's absolutely true, but it wasn't remotely all the capabilities that the US could have done, and honestly if the US had been giving Ukraine HIMARS early on Kyiv might not have been attacked at all. 

My point is that while the US has been giving Ukraine some assistance since 2014 it has been very, very small and defensive in nature until the Feb invasion took place. From my counting the US gave about 2 billion dollars in aid from 2014 to 2022 prior to the war, and of that only 600m was actually weapons. Since then the US has authorized over 70 billion dollars in weapons, and that's just the US. 

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The big idea is not to characterize entire peoples or nations this way, since this would only lead to emulating their worst behaviors, possibly even becoming the very thing that is being fought in the first place.

That's why it's so important to keep a level head even in times of war, so as not to end up answering genocide with genocide.

I don't get this at all. Who is calling for Russian genocide? This seems like one of those Chomsky polemics that doesn't make any sense but sounds like a good bumper sticker.

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Conversely, to keep insisting on Ukrainian agency is to refuse to see the impact of sending tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment (plus training and logistical support), including sophisticated weaponry, to one of the parties in a war.

It's like people don't understand what the numbers mean. For instance, US/Western support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s Iraq-Iran war was orders of magnitude smaller, and yet had a considerable impact. The Iranians have never forgotten that, though most people in the West have.

It's a bit rich to arm people and then talk about their "agency." The entire point of my position is to leave both options on the table. Always. What do you think happens when you send weapons in a war with no conditions, and insist on "agency" ? 

Christ on a bike, sorry, but do people here really have no historical perspective at all? Do you any idea how many times this has been done, and what the results have been?
What kind of people sent weapons to other people's wars in the past without any conditions? What were their objectives? Do you guys truly have no notion of the consequences? Do you truly not know, or do you refuse to see?
Is it that hard to see that it is always best to seek a quick end to wars? I mean, that's even the rationale used to justify the nuking of Japan...

Here's the third problem with your worldview: you believe that a country asking for help is somehow wrong. That alliances and deals or even countries that are opposed to things like illegal wars should not help countries involved in those wars. 

Or, somehow, that it would be better to have a quick war even if it means millions of Ukrainians dead. 

The fourth problem is that you believe we are sending weapons to Ukraine without specifying conditions. The US has been very specific on what arms can be used in Russia, and that means HIMARS cannot be used. They can be used against anything Ukrainian pre-2014, but nothing in actual Russia. Obviously if this is violated the US will reconsider those arms, and without regular supply and maintenance HIMARS will quickly become useless. 

 

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Small bit of history: for decades, US conservatives described the Russians (well, the Soviets, but they often used the word "Russian" at the time) as expansionist, barbaric, and all that. They could never change, they would always be aggressive, etc. One could not negotiate with them, because they would never give up their dreams of domination, and could not be trusted to hold their end of deals. In fact, the historical record shows that the Soviets were just as good (or as bad) at respecting treaties than the US/West, but that wasn't the narrative. The narrative was that any attempt to negotiate would constitute "appeasement" and just encourage the Soviets to even greater expansionism. For a large part of the establishment, it was better to be dead than red, or perhaps better to be dead than socialist. As Irving Kristol eventually admitted, "his" Cold War was always being fought on the inside.
And Gorbachev arrived and started not only negotiating disarmament with a vengeance, he even started unilaterally disarming at times. Yes, sometimes, he didn't even wait for the US or the West to promise to reciprocate, he just... pulled out troops.
Oh sure, he was after saving money and getting Western investments (he was no fool). But that doesn't change the fact that for all the rhetoric about Russian imperialism, it took just one Soviet leader of a slightly different ilk to peacefully bring down the Soviet/Russian empire in just a few years. As Arbatov promised, the Russians did deprive the West of its enemy, for a time at least.

This is the fifth problem with your argument and your worldview: you appear to believe that because the US has been wrong in the past and Russia has been right some of the time that the US is wrong now, and Russia is in the right. There are profound differences between the Soviet Union before and now. There are profound differences between the western world before and now. You appear to completely ignore these things and treat this as another cold-war escalation similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan and ignore any facts that belie this. 

You ignore all of what Putin has done in the past 20 years because Gorbachev - who hasn't been in power for 30 years and died just this year - did something else. 

You ignore Putin's demands and goals because Khruschev negotiated in back channels with Kennedy. 

But mostly, you ignore that Ukraine is its own country. Zelensky is not a puppet ruler from the US CIA. Ukraine was going to fight Russia regardless of US support. Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, Britain, Belgium, Greece, even fucking Turkey! - all are helping Ukraine. This isn't a US only action, this isn't the US vs Russia, this is virtually the whole world vs one aggressor. That you cannot wrap your head around this - or dismiss it blithely as 'legitimate fear of Russian imperialism' as if that's just a small talking point - is probably the biggest problem, and one that really does indicate you have alternative facts. 

The final problem with your argument is that it assumes stopping war now is somehow actually possible. Putin just declared that the Baltics, Kazakhstan, and several other countries are still part of Russia. How much are you willing to negotiate away? Would you give up France if it meant stopping war? 

And by stopping war - are you accepting things like the Bucha war crimes as a given? How many Buchas are you willing to tolerate? 

What is the number that you are okay with as long as you don't have to have war?

[Padraig]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I have seen at least two instances in the media here in the past few months of Russia clearly asking to negotiate.

Now this, combined with the above, tells me your media and my media are saying/reporting rather different things.

.

.

.

Last news I read was Zelensky saying he will negotiate if Russia has another president (which I read as a joke). And the Ukrainians are rather annoyed at Macron's grandstanding to the point they invented the verb "to macron."

Given the asskicking the Russians are getting, I'd be surprised if they're not interested in negotiations. I'm pretty sure they're desperate for a way out of this mess.

It's important to also note the context behind what you wrote above.  This is (some of) what Putin announced last week.

Quote

 

“We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately end hostilities, end the war that they unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table.

“We are ready for this … But we will not discuss the choice of the people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson. That has been made. Russia will not betray them.”

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/30/russia-ukraine-war-putins-annexation-speech-what-did-he-say

Sure, Putin is asking for negotiations but he is also saying these 4 Oblasts are off the table.   These are eternally part of Russia now.  Given this premise, can you understand why people don't take Putin's offer to negotiate very seriously?

In response, Ukraine said they aren't going to negotiate with Putin anymore.  When somebody proves they aren't interested in it (and seizing those Oblasts should make that clear to anyone), why bother?  Ukraine said it is still willing to negotiate, just not with Putin.

So, I am curious about one thing.  You come onto this board with very definitive views about this war.  You admit that you could be wrong but its very much, "this is what I believe, prove me wrong".  But you don't seem particularly well informed about this war.  What I wrote above is no secret.  You say you heard something about Russia wanting to negotiate.  And something about Ukraine dismissing Putin.  Did you just decide not to inform yourself about these things before you decided to post about them here?  Or are you pretending you don't know because it makes your case harder to argue?  I'm genuinely curious about this.

Even saying Russia is "desperate to get out of this mess" while they inflame the issue further by annexing land seems a ridiculous statement to make.  It does not reflect reality.

There are a lot of other things about this war that you don't seem informed about.  But since the annexation happened last week, it seemed to be the most obvious element to touch upon.

Of course, nobody needs to be informed about this war.  But if they lack knowledge, they need to be a lot more open minded about it.