Russian President Vladimir Putin may be open to a cease-fire in his war with Ukraine, so long as the country could still declare victory, a new report by the New York Times found.
Putin, still confident in his forces, said that Russia’s goals have not changed. In his annual year-end press conference last week, Putin warned that there would be no peace solution in Ukraine until Russia achieves its overarching goals, the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine.
Putin’s message might be different now, as he has reportedly signaled he is ready to make a deal. Since September, Putin has signaled that he is open to a pause in fighting along the current lines, which is much shorter than his intention to dominate Ukraine, according to the Times who cited two former senior Russian officials.
According to the United Nations, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 18,500 have been injured since the start of the war nearly two years ago.
Arguing that by conceding some territory you concede all territory (and eventually the world), is literally just the slippery slope fallacy. We have zero basis for thinking that Russia’s invasion of Georgia and Ukraine wasn’t simply an attempt at re-aligning former Russian (and later Soviet) territory. This motivation does not exist for any other territory, and didn’t even exist when Ukraine was Russia aligned, and does not exist in the CSTO.
For some weird ass reason1 the only two positions on this are “Ukraine are NAzis”, or “Russia is trying to conquer the world therefore Ukraine must fight to the death for every m2” and zero evaluation of geopolitics is ever performed.
Weird how your incredible “evaluation of geopolitics” that you performed lines up basically word for word what the Kremlin says.
Totally dude, would you like to flex your IR degree and show the world that this statement is correct?
Was that supposed to make sense? You’re in this thread talking down to people and then can’t form a coherent thought to being called out holy shit I’m dying lmaooooooo.
I’m sure your geopolitics knowledge rivals that of people with doctorates but that is so cringe to say . I’m sure.you got all your takes on Rumble lol
I’m sorry what was I supposed to say?
Your comment literally criticised by my argument on the basis that “It was just like Putin’s” which is not only false but completely irrelevant, who else shares my argument has no relevance to it’s accuracy.
So how am I supposed to respond to such a viciously anti-intellectual claim? Is it really so unacceptable to request that you actually produce reasoning for your argument? At the very least to demonstrate that you are mentally capable of holding this conversation?
FYI I never claimed that I was more knowledgeable than IR scholars, I said somewhat cheekily that you need to be educated (which you clearly aren’t) to effectively challenge my statement.
It’s really sad when one has to explain the insult when the recipient party is too stupid to understand.
“Can’t form a coherent thought”
Again I’m going to need some evidence of this, the fact that you failed to understand a statement, does not make it incoherent.
Unlike most people I actually do provide empirical and rational evidence for my core arguments, even the irrelevant insults. My intellectual standards are through the roof compared to you losers (losers because you are willingly too stupid and lazy, to actually learn empirical facts and provide arguments. See I just met a standard that you have still failed to meet).
Oh well if it is just to make Russia big again like the imperial days, I guess all that death and destruction is totally acceptable and a fine course of action, then. What was I thinking, imagining that allowing a naked lebensraum style land grab go off would let world leaders seeking more territory know they can take whatever they want? Obviously that would be fine if you could point to a map from a few centuries ago where it says “we totally own this forever guys”. Gosh, I was so silly, I should pay more attention to geopolitics.
“is totally acceptable and a fine course of action”
Motte-and-Bailey fallacy.
The argument is not that it is okay to invade countries based on historical claims, it’s not. It’s that we have no basis for thinking that Russia’s motivation for invading Ukraine and Georgia applies to invading all other countries of the world, which is the argument you made and repeated here again.
You realise that most invasions in the world are ignored by the global community? They mostly happen in Africa. So you trying to generalize it from Russia to all aggressor states in the world, is also false. Most invasions do not receive major international response, so why would aggressor states look at a lack of response to the invasion of Ukraine for inspiration and not say the Second Congo War?
“Gosh I was so silly”
“Brain-dead” is the term I would use.
“I should pay more attention to geopolitics”
And English class, and elementary logic.