I will ask one more time, and this is a real question expecting a consistent answer: How do you contemplate negotiations with an enemy who is bombing your country every day, every hour of the day or of the night and did so without interruption for three years? "What kind of diplomacy are you talking about"[sic]?
How do negotiations work? In general and in wars in particular? I am really not entirely sure what you are asking, even though the question you say is real. Shouldn’t there be some type of negotiations or start of and a proposal, and hopefully reached agreement, for the enemy to stop “bombing your country every day”? I mean there should be certain steps taken in order for the conversation to even begin before the bombing stops or reduced to some agreed capacity. You say later in your post that things are upside down, while I see that, even without reading the post further, what you are proposing with your question is actually upside down. I am guessing the first step towards stopping the bombing would be saying or even implying that one is ready to talk and willing to negotiate. This should not be followed by something along the lines of “first, Russia needs to withdraw all its forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine” and other conditions. Do you see this as a reasonable demand to even begin the talks? Obviously I am referring to the current situation. There are no talks otherwise, right? To continue the thought process here, let’s assume in some bizarro world (because this is what you are asking and proposing), Russia agrees to these terms and withdraws its troops from Ukraine (does that include Crimea?). What then? What are they going to negotiate about? Ukrainian NATO membership? Russian disarmament? Reparations paid to Ukraine? New European security architecture? Status of Crimea, provided no troop withdrawal from Crimea takes place? This is a real question too.
Furthermore, if this proposed bizarro world scenario were to happen, we would go back in time to about February 2022, before the invasion, but without thousands dead, destroyed and scarred economies, a clearly shifted (at least perceptions of the) world order, and so on. Back to the time when the Russian troops were outside of Ukraine, for the most part, and no bombings “every day, every hour of the day or of the night”. Basically, while far from ideal, but, given the circumstances, the best time for diplomacy to take place. Is it not?
Let us come back to the real world, however. Russia controls about 20% of Ukraine today. The perspective of forcing it out from this territory is extremely bleak. This accounts for the military assistance from the United States, which may or may not end, but will likely (in my opinion, definitely) be at the very least reduced. A good chunk of the aid that had been provided by Europe requires either a sign off from the USA or straight up come from the United States (via monetary exchange, one could assume). Such as air defense, for example. I am not even talking about the satellite data and intel. Starlink is just as crucial, but less likely to be cut off, as long it is paid for. And so on. Ukraine is in no position to say “remove the troops or else!”, “stop the bombings or else!”. It is in no position to demand anything. Currently, the best Ukraine can offer is to keep grinding. Is it not the case? In the meantime, Russia is slowly advancing, though at a great cost (there is no stalemate). Everyone understands (or they should) that Russia does not need some great breakthrough that they likely cannot take advantage of anyway in the current circumstances, but a slow grind until it is slow no more once Ukrainian resources are exhausted…
Anyway… I wanted to reply to other posts, as well as to expand on this one, and I will try to do so tomorrow. But yeah,
@Fredled, I understand there is righteousness, right and wrong, and whatever else, but reality always comes first. Feelings don’t matter at all, really. We all have them. Any proposal should be connected to
the reality. See, I personally wish there was an independent Ukraine with borders as they wish; a Russia that was a great prosperous country, as would be Ukraine and any other; an Africa, free of war and disease; Israelis and Palestinians coexisting, as well as the rest of the mIddle East; a China and a United States of America that get along and work together to better the world, as would anyone else; heck, a world, that we all live in, regardless what part of it we are from, where there was pure understanding and no competition (for dominance of ideas or otherwise) among the countries, all equal with a clear voice, a “world peace”, as some virtual miss Universe would say; an Elon Musk that is “normal”, perhaps; and so on. Then you wake up and the reality hits you right in the face and here we are. Some get up right away when the alarm clock rings; others prefer to spend half an hour in bed before getting up; some get up without the alarm ringing at all; then there are those who sleep through the alarm, past the clock battery life; but all wake up one way or the other (unless they died in their sleep, of course).
I should add, you asked for a “consistent answer” and I am not sure what you really meant by it, but if you go back through all my posts since I joined this forum, you will see what I am saying here is very consistent with all my other posts. I have a feeling that “consistency” is not the word you were looking for though.
