• knotthatone@lemmy.oneEnglish
    7523·
    10 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians will cease firing once the Russians leave their country and stop trying to murder them.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    3517·
    10 months ago

    Don’t know why the United States would have any say in Putin pulling the Russian paramilitary out of Ukraine. Ceasefire is simple, back your ass out of Ukraine, back to 2013 borders.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      193·
      10 months ago

      They (the US) don’t, and they acknowledge that.

      In the interview with fucker carlson, Putin said that Ukraine is a vassal of the US and Russia does not negotiate with Ukraine as it’s useless, they want to only negotiate with the puppet master.

      Hence the offer, hence the rejection. It’s geopolitical theatre.

  • jackpot@lemmy.ml
    3018·
    10 months ago

    oh for fucks sake, putins russia has never once ‘negotiated’ in good faith. they just use it to buy time to resupply and relocate. every peace deal theyve made, THEY broke. ukraine gets to decide when it’s time to talk. the US cant stop them

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    315·
    10 months ago

    Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

    Original comment:
    I’m going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):

    Putin’s investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries’ military investments.

    Reasoning:

    1. Russia’s actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
    2. Sweden and Finland’s potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
    3. Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.

    Considering Occam’s razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      81·
      10 months ago

      but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

      I’ll give it a shot.

      First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia’s economy and population. This still holds true if it’s just putin’s investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.

      Secondly, the war isn’t pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn’t frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.

      • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        10 months ago

        Thank you for telling why I’m wrong :)

        I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t also do this. Maybe it’s not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn’t care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.

        On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn’t rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren’t the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there’s Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia’s list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.

        So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn’t for a path to Sevastopol alone.

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    519·
    10 months ago

    So possible options as I see them:

    1. Biden’s USA is stubborn and nihilistic and just wants to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as possible before Trump comes in and forces Ukraine to accept a treaty

    2. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Putin hasn’t changed its demands at all so any talks are pointless

    3. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Russia is losing and doesn’t want to negotiate

    4. Biden forgot how to use a phone and is too embarrased to ask

    I’m personally going with 2 with a sprinkle of 4 and 1. In my happy dreams, 3.

  • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
    1632·
    10 months ago

    I question why the US is doing the rejection rather than Ukraine (and similarly, why the UK rejected the last peace talks…)