Putin offers truce if Ukraine exits Russian-claimed areas and drops NATO bid. Kyiv rejects it

Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Friday to “immediately” order a cease-fire in Ukraine and start negotiations if Kyiv began withdrawing troops from the four regions annexed by Moscow in 2022 and renounced plans to join NATO. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected what he called an ultimatum by Putin to surrender more territory… [the offer] didn’t include any new demands. The Kremlin has said before that Kyiv should recognize its territorial gains and drop its bid to join NATO.

Russia occupies most, but not all, of the territory in question. They are winning the war, and this is the type of offer you make when you’re winning. As the article notes, this is not some new request; this has been on the table for a while.

Ukraine is losing, but slowly. They could take this deal now, saving their own people’s lives, or they could continue sending men into the meat grinder and wind up with this or worse in maybe another year.

Besides seeking to join NATO, Ukraine wants Russian forces out of its territory, including the Crimean Peninsula that was illegally annexed in 2014; the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity; and that Russia be held accountable for war crimes and for Moscow to pay reparations to Kyiv.

Compare Russia’s terms to this – a totally delusional offer for the losing side to suggest.

He will now be held in a grim adult detention centre [article later notes he was sentenced to a juvenile facility]

a top performing student at school

no scrap of evidence for this was produced

a hellhole adult detention centre [in the same sentence where the article notes he’s going to juvee]

If this was a story about, say, a January 6 defendant, these types of editorial decisions would jump out at people as an obvious sign of significant bias. Pull the exact same rhetorical tricks against a Bad Country, though, and most simply accept it at face value.

Arseny Turbin, who committed his alleged crimes when he was just 14, has been branded as Russia’s ‘youngest terrorist’ following his conviction…

Judge Oleg Shishov in Oryol found him guilty of ‘participation in the activities of an organisation that is recognised as terrorist’…

[His mother] said ‘We will appeal the verdict….we did not expect this outcome at all.’

There was a trial – “no scrap of evidence” is a bald-faced lie.

If your theory (which really would have no scrap of evidence behind it) is that this was a kangaroo court, why would his mom be talking about appeals, and why would there be an appeal available in the first place?

Real reporting would have been, at minimum, getting a trial transcript and evaluating the evidence yourself. Or finding a Russian lawyer who was familiar with the proceedings and interviewing them. But of course MSN didn’t do any of this, because this isn’t reporting, this is propaganda.

The article mentions that additional missiles were shot down, but it sounds like at least one hit where it was aimed.

Russia has summoned the US ambassador over a “barbaric” missile attack that hit a beach in Crimea, killing at least four, including children, and injuring 151.

I have yet to see even a story from the U.S. about what military target was supposed to be on a crowded beach.

This case’s existence is one indicator that the U.S. is much closer to a decaying empire than a fascist state. In a fascist state your union leaders wouldn’t argue a case before the Supreme Court – your union leaders would be shot. The U.S. will still do all the horrors of fascism abroad, but that’s “just” imperialism. At home, there are still many of the elements of bourgeois democracy.

If they make it illegal to strike and make you punishable in courts for it… Then at what point do people just start killing their boss instead?

Probably after they start with work-to-rule, slowdowns, sabotage, etc.

Today, Biden could:

• End all U.S. military support for Israel
• Veto any bill that contains one cent of funding for Israel
• Publically call a genocide a genocide
• Direct U.S. agencies to cancel contracts with companies that work with Israel, citing existing U.S. human rights laws
• Join the ICJ case against Israel
• Arrest Netanyahu’s son Yair, who’s just chilling in Miami
• Direct the National Guard to protect anti-genocide protesters
• Clean house at the State Department and other NatSec agencies to fire the people who have supported this genocide most vociferously
• Use the vast overseas surveillance power of the U.S. to document Israeli atrocities

How quickly would this stop?

And that’s not even considering options like a decapitation strike on the Israeli government, which should absolutely be on the table to stop a genocide.

Huey Newton was not what you would call a good speaker. In fact, he had a kind of high pitched monotonous voice and his rambling for three hours about the negation of the negation was sheer disaster. People walked out in droves. Instead of criticizing what was happening, most of the Party members defended it. When I said that Huey needed speaking lessons they jumped down my throat. When Huey changed his title from defense minister to the ridiculous “Supreme Commander” and then to the even more ridiculous “Supreme Servant,” damn near nobody said a word. That was one of the big problem in the Party. Criticism and self-criticism were not encouraged, and the little that was given often was not taken seriously. Constructive criticism and self-criticism are extremely important for any revolutionary organization. Without them, people tend to drown in their mistakes, and not learn from them.

One thing I see fairly often on here is the idea that trying to refine the presentation of leftist ideas = ceding ground to liberals, or watering leftist ideas down. The importance of good presentation is somewhere between “extremely helpful” and “absolutely crucial.”

The BPP seems to have left a lot of potential untapped because they didn’t care enough about how people received their ideas. We should learn from that.

Pick one: Russia is running on fumes, or Russia should have won a year ago.

The coherent opinion here is that it’s a slow, grinding war and the side that has lost more and more territory as it continued will continue to do so.

This has been the narrative since shortly after the war began. All that’s happened since is Russia has slowly advanced.

Taking everything you say at face value, the options for Ukraine are:

1. Take a deal that maybe you can’t trust, but it at least gives you time to breathe.
2. Keep fighting, and with the war going how it is eventually lose more than what you’ve already lost.
3. Attempt to draw other states into the conflict so that you have a shot at what might be considered a victory, likely years more down the road under the best of circumstances.

There is no justification for 2, and 3 is highly unlikely – if other states haven’t entered the war already, they’re not going to do so now.

This isn’t capitulation, this is cutting your losses while you have something left to hold onto.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

:smuglord: “you’re from Hexbear” isn’t an argument

Even assuming Russian shells are lower quality (and you have absolutely zero evidence of that), a shitload of weapons that are lower quality can still beat you.

Since taking office in 2021, Biden has yet to meet the Dalai Lama. As a candidate in 2020, Biden criticised Donald Trump for being the only US president in three decades who had neither met nor spoken to the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It’s the top bureaucrats of Russia

Jesus Christ, you were wrong. If you can’t acknowledge that reality, I’m not wasting any more time with you.

Stated policy means stated policy, not “a bunch of bureaucrats were assigned the same book once.”

they are sourcing a Duma member on Russian state television

Fair enough. It’s still a far cry from anyone in a position to actually use nukes saying anything like that, though. Here’s the stated policy of Russia on the topic:

Putin reiterated Russia’s formal position on the use of nuclear weapons in a statement to the Russian HRC on December 7 with no noteworthy changes. Putin claimed that the threat of nuclear war is growing, but that Russia will not be the first to employ nuclear weapons. Putin added, however, that if Russia is not the first to initiate the first use of nuclear weapons, it will also not be the second to do so, because the “possibility of using [a nuclear weapon] in the event of a nuclear strike on [Russian] territory are very limited.” Putin reiterated that Russian nuclear doctrine is premised on self-defense and stated that any Russian nuclear use would be retaliatory… Putin’s statements support ISW’s previous assessment that while Russian officials may engage in forms of nuclear saber-rattling as part of an information operation meant to undermine Western support for Ukraine, Russian officials have no intention of actually using them on the battlefield.

Why does some random Duma member’s offhand comments mean more than this?

Ukrainian separatists in Russian “little green men” uniforms

So your theory is that Russia intentionally shot down a civilian airliner, targeting the Netherlands specifically… why, exactly? Do you think they’re mustache-twirling villains who do evil stuff because evil is fun?

Proportional retaliation for their aggressive actions.

Ok, what proportional retaliation does the U.S. deserve for Iraq?

Two days ago, a Duma member suggested nuking Rotterdam.

Show me a source. Earlier in this conversation you said something was the “stated policy of Russia,” then when you went to find a source it turned out it was not.

Russian soldiers also actually shot down an airliner

Presumably you’re referring to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That was not shot down by Russia, but by Ukranian separatists using a Russian-supplied weapon. I’m not aware of any evidence that anyone intentionally targeted it, either, much less intentionally targeted it because it had Dutch citizens. Non-Russians mistaking an airliner for a military target is not the same as Russia targeting you.

I didn’t say that I support US policy

OK, so what military retaliation against the U.S. do you endorse? Do you apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, or not? That’s what I’m getting at – you do not apply your policy of retaliation to everyone, only countries you’ve already decided are Bad Countries. This isn’t deflecting, it’s showing that you are not being honest when you say “aggressive countries should see military retaliation.”

the peeps who said they will nuke Rotterdam

Who is saying this? Russia sure isn’t. You keep making up threats.

And on changing the subject, why are we talking about the US again?

If you actually believe that aggressive, militaristic countries should face retaliation to get them to back down – if you actually hold that as a principle – you would apply it to all such countries, and the #1 example of that is the U.S.

You don’t apply it to the U.S., which shows you don’t actually believe it. You only apply it to countries you’ve already deemed enemies.

You keep saying Russia is your enemy because they’re threatening you, but all you’ve mentioned are invented threats, not anything Russia has actually said or did towards your country.

This is why media criticism () is a great starting point for moving people left. It’s very easy for people confronted with uncomfortable facts to bury them the moment a “trusted, reliable” news source prints some rote “the enemy du jour is a Bad Country” piece. You have to show people how to critically read those pieces to avoid constant backsliding.