Nobody expects that they actually will do so willingly. Just that Russia should because, y'know, starting wars to annex territory is not something most people like. That's why Ukraine should be armed until it can make Russia leave.
That said, Russia would absolutely benefit from a negotiated settlement right now. This war is taking a lot of Russian lives and resources, so if it can persuade either Ukraine to agree to enough concessions or Ukraine's backers to stop backing it, Russia could benefit enormously. Even if Russia actually manages to completely overrun Ukraine in the future, actually having to fight to the end will be an extremely costly ordeal.
This entire response here was ostensibly in respect to Ukraine.
From the article, which you clearly didn't read:
A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.
It was Russia that tried to negotiate a treaty with the US. And the US said 'fuck you, ask Ukraine, not us'. Its Russia treating Ukraine like a puppet state, not the US.
That’s really bizarre because why does America have a say in Russo-Ukrainian affairs? Shouldn’t a ceasefire be determined by the two parties not currently at a ceasefire?
Yeah why is it that also other western leaders like johnson visit ukraine and suddenly peace talks stop? https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
Why are they encouraging a war where Ukraine would depend on even more western military and economic aid?
Somebody who navigates all this please help us understand
Don't know why the United States would have any say in Putin pulling the Russian paramilitary out of Ukraine. Ceasefire is simple, back your ass out of Ukraine, back to 2013 borders.
In the interview with fucker carlson, Putin said that Ukraine is a vassal of the US and Russia does not negotiate with Ukraine as it's useless, they want to only negotiate with the puppet master.
Hence the offer, hence the rejection. It's geopolitical theatre.
oh for fucks sake, putins russia has never once 'negotiated' in good faith. they just use it to buy time to resupply and relocate. every peace deal theyve made, THEY broke. ukraine gets to decide when it's time to talk. the US cant stop them
Zelensky the Zionist asked for a WW3 last year. Russia has always discussed the Minsk agreements for negotiations, but since Maidan CIA coup in 2013, Ukraine has not been a sovereign state but a US puppet state.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says he will never accept Russia's control over Ukrainian land. He has outlawed any contacts with Russia.
A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.
The U.S. official said that there appeared to have been unofficial "Track II" conversations among Russians not in the government but that the United States was not engaged in them.
For sending public messages of trying to negotiate a cease fire, they sure weren't very public. Russia has no trouble disseminating information, why were these "very public"communications unheard until "the u.s. turned down a cease fire" was it Tucker? Was he the one you offered the cease fire to? If that's the case the only reason he didn't respond in the affirmative was because he was too busy gasping for post-fellatio air.
It's one of Putin's strategies: To make it look like it is a conflict between the US/NATO and Russia, not between Ukraine and Russia. He also tries to diminish Ukrainian sovereignity by making it appear as if the US is the overlord, as if Ukraine is an American puppet.
It's all about making Ukraine look like it isn't its own country. That's why we get those bullshit historic lessons by that pathetic man-child.
Ukraine lost its sovereignty back when the coup happened. The war is absolutely between NATO and Russia, and lots of NATO officials have said this fairly openly at this point. People who keep pretending otherwise are utterly disingenuous.
A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.
Russia and Hamas are both quickly proving how fickle the so called "freedoms" the west lauds itself on are. Both offer ceasefire deals to protect civilian life and are met with a collective shrug from their adversaries.
Biden's USA is stubborn and nihilistic and just wants to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as possible before Trump comes in and forces Ukraine to accept a treaty
USA (and Ukraine) knows that Putin hasn't changed its demands at all so any talks are pointless
USA (and Ukraine) knows that Russia is losing and doesn't want to negotiate
Biden forgot how to use a phone and is too embarrased to ask
I'm personally going with 2 with a sprinkle of 4 and 1. In my happy dreams, 3.
Why are so many people here from Lemmy.ml and Hexbear assuming Putin and Russia offered an amicable ceasefire? When has Putin EVER shown he would ever want such a thing?
The one thing that the Liberals have decided to take a stand on, "Russia Bad!", to the point that they'll keep the war machine churning through Ukranian bodies until its some other administration's responsibility to turn off the US money spigot. Then they'll squeal about it being a Putin Puppet's doing or some shit.
Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?
Original comment:
I'm going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):
Putin's investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries' military investments.
Reasoning:
Russia's actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
Sweden and Finland's potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.
Considering Occam's razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?
but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?
I'll give it a shot.
First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia's economy and population. This still holds true if it's just putin's investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.
Secondly, the war isn't pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn't frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.
I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn't mean that he couldn't also do this. Maybe it's not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn't care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.
On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn't rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren't the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there's Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia's list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.
So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn't for a path to Sevastopol alone.