Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated that Russia is not interested in any negotiations that do not result in Ukrainian territorial concessions beyond the parts of Ukraine Russian forces already occupy.
As Kaja Kallas keeps saying. The Russian negotiating strategy is to
1. Demand something that is not yours
2. Set ultimatums and threats
3. Not budge an inch in the ensuing negotiations
because
4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning.
This is precisely what Putin is doing here:
"He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. "
I mean since 1997? c'mon.
"4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning."
In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western
discourse as "the loss of China" â in the US, with bitter recriminations
and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is
revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The
tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with
most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The
"loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had
major policy consequences.
um.. what does that have to do with Georgia? Quite apart from the fact that NO imperial power has the right to own any territory merely by force of arms. Not the UK, Not France, Not Russia, nor the U.S.
so what exactly is your point? That the U.S. actually did have a right to China just as Russia has a right to Georgia? Is this Mearsheimer in action? Or what exactly are you trying to say?
does Georgia belong to someone other than Georgians then R.?
news to me.
In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western
discourse as "the loss of China" â in the US, with bitter recriminations
and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is
revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The
tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with
most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The
"loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had
major policy consequences.
âThe background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.â
To repeat, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
As Kaja Kallas keeps saying. The Russian negotiating strategy is to
1. Demand something that is not yours
2. Set ultimatums and threats
3. Not budge an inch in the ensuing negotiations
because
4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning.
This is precisely what Putin is doing here:
"He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. "
âThe background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.â
To repeat, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.
quite. Plus it's absolute bullshit. Putin's terms for a negotiated settlement are well-known and anyone with a finger and an internet connection can find them.
quite. Plus it's absolute bullshit. Putin's terms for a negotiated settlement are well-known and anyone with a finger and an internet connection can find them.
Chomsky continued, "Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn't refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion. By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can't find it. That's suppressed. You're not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this."
Regarding his views of the possible future scenarios, Chomsky said that "the war will end, either through diplomacy or not. That's just logic. Well, if diplomacy has a meaning, it means both sides can tolerate it. They don't like it, but they can tolerate it. They don't get anything they want, they get something. That's diplomacy. If you reject diplomacy, you are saying: 'Let the war go on with all of its horrors, with all the destruction of Ukraine, and let's let it go on until we get what we want.'"
By 'we,' Chomsky was referring to Washington, which simply wants to "harm Russia so severely that it will never be able to undertake actions like this again. Well, what does that mean? It's impossible to achieve. So, it means, let's continue the war until Ukraine is devastated. That's US policy."
Most of this is not obvious to western audiences simply because rational voices are "not allowed to talk" and because "rationality is not permitted. This is a level of hysteria that I have never seen, even during the Second World War, which I am old enough to remember very well."
While an alternative understanding of the devastating war in Ukraine is disallowed, the West continues to offer no serious answers or achievable goals, leaving Ukraine devastated and the root causes of the problem in place. "That's US policy," indeed.
Chomsky continued, "Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn't refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion. By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can't find it. That's suppressed. You're not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this."
Regarding his views of the possible future scenarios, Chomsky said that "the war will end, either through diplomacy or not. That's just logic. Well, if diplomacy has a meaning, it means both sides can tolerate it. They don't like it, but they can tolerate it. They don't get anything they want, they get something. That's diplomacy. If you reject diplomacy, you are saying: 'Let the war go on with all of its horrors, with all the destruction of Ukraine, and let's let it go on until we get what we want.'"
By 'we,' Chomsky was referring to Washington, which simply wants to "harm Russia so severely that it will never be able to undertake actions like this again. Well, what does that mean? It's impossible to achieve. So, it means, let's continue the war until Ukraine is devastated. That's US policy."
Most of this is not obvious to western audiences simply because rational voices are "not allowed to talk" and because "rationality is not permitted. This is a level of hysteria that I have never seen, even during the Second World War, which I am old enough to remember very well."
While an alternative understanding of the devastating war in Ukraine is disallowed, the West continues to offer no serious answers or achievable goals, leaving Ukraine devastated and the root causes of the problem in place. "That's US policy," indeed.
on a less two-dimensional note.. did the US try to exploit the weakness of the Russian Empire post 1990 to foster democratic revolutions in former Soviet satellite states? Of course it did.
The question is not if or why it tried. The question is why did the colour revolutions become so popular locally and why did every satellite state that could slip the surly bonds of Russian brotherhood immediately do so?
The more pertinent question would be why did the Americans and the collective west fail so miserably at reaching out to these states, Russia included.
The âcolor revolutionsâ that so alarmed Putin were, after all, the
manifestations of those countries daring to choose the West, or, rather
the way of life, governance and values the West represented, over
Moscow.
