I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I intended what I said to be a supposition, not an actual claim of knowledge regarding your beliefs, but I can see how it could’ve been interpreted that way.
Sure. Your concept gives Ukraine nothing and Russia everything. A better negotiation would be that Russia returns to the borders that were negotiated with Ukraine after they gained independence, borders they agreed not to cross if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return the world will lift sanctions against Russia. Everyone gains.
How does that prevent Russia from attacking at a future date? It seems like your objection to my proposal that it would only stop the war, “For now” is just as much of a problem in your proposal. As such, I think that it’s an invalid objection and can be dismissed, seeing as you seem to be perfectly happy with a proposal that contains the same possibility, if it’s the one you prefer.
So, that being the case, I submit that an agreement where the killing stops is mutually beneficial to everyone, not just Russia, and that throwing more draftees at fortified Russian positions is not worth the potential territorial gains.
There is no way to ever prevent a hypothetical future invasion of any country. As I said, Ukraine already made a deal with Russia for this to not happen. Any country could send its military over its border any time, regardless of any negotiated peace in the past.
You cannot future-proof treaties. It’s not possible.
Your point is that treaties shouldn’t be negotiated equitably because they can’t be future-proofed? Because that sounds like a “let Russia do whatever they want” argument.
I do have an answer. You told me what it was, remember?
You’re playing games to avoid answering because you can’t.
If you apologize for putting words in my mouth or someone else asks me, I will answer. Until then, we’ll just go with your mind-reading answer.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I intended what I said to be a supposition, not an actual claim of knowledge regarding your beliefs, but I can see how it could’ve been interpreted that way.
Now if you would please answer the question.
Sure. Your concept gives Ukraine nothing and Russia everything. A better negotiation would be that Russia returns to the borders that were negotiated with Ukraine after they gained independence, borders they agreed not to cross if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return the world will lift sanctions against Russia. Everyone gains.
How does that prevent Russia from attacking at a future date? It seems like your objection to my proposal that it would only stop the war, “For now” is just as much of a problem in your proposal. As such, I think that it’s an invalid objection and can be dismissed, seeing as you seem to be perfectly happy with a proposal that contains the same possibility, if it’s the one you prefer.
So, that being the case, I submit that an agreement where the killing stops is mutually beneficial to everyone, not just Russia, and that throwing more draftees at fortified Russian positions is not worth the potential territorial gains.
There is no way to ever prevent a hypothetical future invasion of any country. As I said, Ukraine already made a deal with Russia for this to not happen. Any country could send its military over its border any time, regardless of any negotiated peace in the past.
You cannot future-proof treaties. It’s not possible.
Exactly my point.
Your point is that treaties shouldn’t be negotiated equitably because they can’t be future-proofed? Because that sounds like a “let Russia do whatever they want” argument.