Russia lays out demands for talks with US on Ukraine, sources say
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
(..)
Russia has made similar demands of the U.S. over the last two decades – demands that would limit the West’s ability to build a stronger military presence in Europe and potentially allow Putin to expand his influence in the continent.“There’s no sign that the Russians are willing to make any concessions,” said Angela Stent, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who was the top U.S. intelligence analyst for Russia and Eurasia. “The demands haven’t changed at all. I think they are not really interested in peace or a meaningful ceasefire.”
-
System shared this topic on
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
Meaning: jack shit
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
This is just reverse appraisement.
-
(..)
Russia has made similar demands of the U.S. over the last two decades – demands that would limit the West’s ability to build a stronger military presence in Europe and potentially allow Putin to expand his influence in the continent.“There’s no sign that the Russians are willing to make any concessions,” said Angela Stent, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who was the top U.S. intelligence analyst for Russia and Eurasia. “The demands haven’t changed at all. I think they are not really interested in peace or a meaningful ceasefire.”
That's a weird take from Angela. Why would you make concessions before the negotiations even started?
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
Russia is fighting this war to prevent troops in Ukraine. There is nothing unclear. Putin won't talk about peace as long as the West doesn't offer that.
-
Russia is fighting this war to prevent troops in Ukraine. There is nothing unclear. Putin won't talk about peace as long as the West doesn't offer that.
Why repeat Putin's talking points? They're invading because Putin wants to recreate the imperial Russia and doesn't consider Ukraine to be an actual country with a separate identity and culture.
-
- Russia's demands similar to earlier terms presented to US, say sources
- Demands include no NATO membership for Kyiv, no foreign troops in Ukraine
- Unclear if Putin will engage seriously in peace talks
- Biden administration discussed demands prior to Ukraine invasion
Nothing about EU membership.
Another reason to keep operating towards slowly but surely defining a joint defense and border enforcement strategy.
Then let Ukraine in, if it leaves up to democratic standards and Rule of Law.I think NATO membership is not something most European states are seeing as something to support for Ukraine.
-
That's a weird take from Angela. Why would you make concessions before the negotiations even started?
These are the terms to start the negotiations.
This is basically saying 'give in to all my demands and we can start talking', which, to be fair, is Russia's playbook.
-
Russia is fighting this war to prevent troops in Ukraine. There is nothing unclear. Putin won't talk about peace as long as the West doesn't offer that.
Then we should send more troops, we should give taurus and storm shadow, make sure there are absolutely no Russian troops in Ukraine ever again.
-
Russia is fighting this war to prevent troops in Ukraine. There is nothing unclear. Putin won't talk about peace as long as the West doesn't offer that.
Fuck putler and fuck his dumb fucking war.
-
Russia is fighting this war to prevent troops in Ukraine. There is nothing unclear. Putin won't talk about peace as long as the West doesn't offer that.
There were no western troops in Ukraine when Putin attacked and also no plans to put some there.
-
Why repeat Putin's talking points? They're invading because Putin wants to recreate the imperial Russia and doesn't consider Ukraine to be an actual country with a separate identity and culture.
This would require to accept that Putin is stupid. I don't see that.
-
This would require to accept that Putin is stupid. I don't see that.
You need to change your news sources.
-
There were no western troops in Ukraine when Putin attacked and also no plans to put some there.
Without any authority, I would say that from a Russian perspective, they weren't there 'yet'. Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be the staging ground for an invasion.
I am sure I am not telling you something entirely new. There have been enough wars in recent times that it is not entirely unjustified for a country with many resources to assume that it is a target.
The problem in seeing the Russian perspective is that it feels a bit dirty to realize that we can reasonably be perceived as a threat.
-
This would require to accept that Putin is stupid. I don't see that.
Imperialism doesn't imply stupidity.
A state's sovereignty is contingent on others recognising and respecting it. If Putin claims Ukraine isn't a sovereign state, that's not a mistake so much as his opinion – a dangerous opinion, make no mistake, because he uses it to justify his actions to his own people and is putting a lot of effort into trying to convince everyone else to accept his opinion. If we do, Ukraine effectively loses its sovereignty, because that is itself a product of other states' opinions.
-
Without any authority, I would say that from a Russian perspective, they weren't there 'yet'. Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be the staging ground for an invasion.
I am sure I am not telling you something entirely new. There have been enough wars in recent times that it is not entirely unjustified for a country with many resources to assume that it is a target.
The problem in seeing the Russian perspective is that it feels a bit dirty to realize that we can reasonably be perceived as a threat.
That is so wrong, dude. Come on!
-
You need to change your news sources.
That's very interesting. I didn't know this text, just a smilar one.
This doesn't convince me that Putin is a history fanatic. For sure, there is some myth building, and Russia is not good at it. But it seems to be a tool to support the war, and not the other way round.
Why has Putin waited so long? Russia is not using new weapons. They could have conquered Ukraine more easily twenty years ago.
-
Imperialism doesn't imply stupidity.
A state's sovereignty is contingent on others recognising and respecting it. If Putin claims Ukraine isn't a sovereign state, that's not a mistake so much as his opinion – a dangerous opinion, make no mistake, because he uses it to justify his actions to his own people and is putting a lot of effort into trying to convince everyone else to accept his opinion. If we do, Ukraine effectively loses its sovereignty, because that is itself a product of other states' opinions.
Which strategic advantage lies in conquering Ukraine? Russia doesn't need land. The future center of civilisation lies in Eastasia. Why waste resources in the west?
Conquering Kyiv for nostalgic reasons is stupid. I don't think that Putin thinks like that.
-
That is so wrong, dude. Come on!
You don't like it or is there a logical error or a wrong assumption?
