What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
I see Paul has got y'all in his sweet spot - arguing about minutiae in pursuit of his goal of winning the argument regardless of collateral damage. Why can't we all just agree that the grass is blue.
That's why I like to remind Paul every few days that Putin ordered an illegal, unnecessary, brutal and unwise invasion of a sovereign nation simply because he thought he could have a win before NATO had time to react. And Putin did this simply because he wants to reassemble the Russian Empire.
Big picture stuff, Paul.
paulsurovell said:
I looked at your "here" links and I think what you're trying to say here is that I've repeated my references to the evidence that the US/UK sabotaged the interim peace agreement in March-April 2022. Yes, I've done that to respond to denials that (a) there was an agreement and (b) that the US/UK sabotaged it. I will confess that I try to rebut arguments with facts as well as logic, so when the arguments involve the same facts it's necessary to repeat them -- in a case-specific fashion.
If no one found your arguments convincing the first dozen times, why would the next be different? And if you haven't found the responses convincing any of those times, what could I or anyone else say now that we haven't already?
(One way out of this circle would be new information. I've already noted one thing you could provide that would substantially change things -- actual quotes or other strong evidence that Putin at the time was seriously open to a settlement. The entire premise of your argument rests upon this -- show that and it's something new and substantial. Absent that, you're simply repeating for the sake of repetition)
paulsurovell said:
But I don't see any attempt on your part to show how your interpretation relates to this discussion.
I had faith, too, that the interpreted relationship spoke for itself: Put aside your sovereign impulse to act unilaterally, as in the war in Ukraine, and hash things out instead in disucussions with international partners.
nohero said:
In my humble opinion, this is an example of the trollish way that Mr. Surovell responds to any argument that contradicts his claims. DaveSchmidt specifically says, "while talking about the war in Ukraine", and Paul "corrects" him by saying, "he literally referenced Ukraine".
Also humbly, I don’t think Paul was correcting me. I think he was echoing that, yes, Zuppi’s reference to Ukraine was clear to everyone. While I see that as an explanation for not mentioning Ukraine in my comments, he appears to hold it against them.
Why doesn't Paul quote Vlad and Vlad media more? He's the aggressor at the current moment, right?
What exactly is Vlad's current purpose of his "special military operation"? Are people still going to jail for calling it a war?
What land lines has Vlad conceded he would be happy with? Why doesn't he accept the land he has conquered do far and be done with it?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
Tentative agreement between Ukraine and Russia confirmed by Fiona Hill, Angela Stent, US/UK sabotage of the agreement confirmed by Naftali Bennet and Ukrainska Pravda. Documentation above.
Only a "lie" for those who lie about those facts.
Bennet doesn't confirm "sabotage of the agreement". He does confirm that the discovery of Russian atrocities around the same time complicated any prospects for an agreement.
"I said it was over" -- was Bennet's opinion about how he thought the negotiations would go.
But it wasn't over in the real world until the West "blocked" the negotiations because they wanted to strike Putin. "Blocking" negotiations is sabotaging negotiations (which had reached an interim/tentative agreement according to Hill and Stent, as well as Bennet). Bennet's rendition is consistent with the reporting in Ukrainska Pravda. Three sources unambiguously clear that the West blocked/sabotaged the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the interim/tentative agreement that had been reached.
2:59:34
I'll say this in the broad sense, I think there was
a legitimate decision by the West
2:59:43
to keep striking Putin
and not...
2:59:51
"Strike Putin?"
Putin was striking Ukraine. Hold on, yes, but given… I mean the more aggressive approach.
I'll tell you something?
2:59:59
I can't say if they were wrong. Maybe other thugs in the world
would see it. My position at the time…
3:00:07
in this regard,
it's not a national Israeli interest. Unlike the consulate or Iran,
3:00:12
when I'm concerned about Israel,
I stand firm. –Yes. Here, I don’t have a say. I'm just the mediator,
3:00:19
but I turn to America
in this regard, I don’t do as I please.
3:00:25
Anything I did was coordinated
down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France.
3:00:32
So they blocked it?
-Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong.
3:00:40
In retrospect,
it's too soon to know. The advantages
and disadvantages:
3:00:47
The downside of the war going on is the casualties
in Ukraine and Russia
DaveSchmidt said:
nohero said:
In my humble opinion, this is an example of the trollish way that Mr. Surovell responds to any argument that contradicts his claims. DaveSchmidt specifically says, "while talking about the war in Ukraine", and Paul "corrects" him by saying, "he literally referenced Ukraine".
Also humbly, I don’t think Paul was correcting me. I think he was echoing that, yes, Zuppi’s reference to Ukraine was clear to everyone. While I see that as an explanation for not mentioning Ukraine in my comments, he appears to hold it against them.
Zuppi's reference to Ukraine was clear to everyone but you made no attempt to show how your interpretation is related to Ukraine.
jamie said:
Why doesn't Paul quote Vlad and Vlad media more? He's the aggressor at the current moment, right?
What exactly is Vlad's current purpose of his "special military operation"? Are people still going to jail for calling it a war?
What land lines has Vlad conceded he would be happy with? Why doesn't he accept the land he has conquered do far and be done with it?
Vlad doesn't say much these days.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Why doesn't Paul quote Vlad and Vlad media more? He's the aggressor at the current moment, right?
What exactly is Vlad's current purpose of his "special military operation"? Are people still going to jail for calling it a war?
What land lines has Vlad conceded he would be happy with? Why doesn't he accept the land he has conquered do far and be done with it?
Vlad doesn't say much these days.
So - he hasn't said how many nazis he's denazified since the start of this campaign? Has he addressed the nazi element in his Wagner mercenaries he hires?
Why wouldn't he say much? What is the reason for his silence? If he wants to negotiates - where are his demands?
You seem to take his as a fair negotiator and blame Zelenskyy for not coming to the table - you never ever blame Vlad for anything - at least it seems that way. If Vlad were to speak publicly - what would you expect or like him to say?
Putin blocked negotiations when he attacked Ukraine. Up until that point, everything was up for discussion. Granted some of the things Putin wanted, assuming he wasn't just posturing, were non-starters, but they could still be discussed. Once he invaded Ukraine, he thought perhaps he could negotiate at gunpoint or perhaps he thought he could get away with his smash and grab operation. Things don't work that way.
It's really quite simple. All the blood and all of the other damages from this war are on Putin.
^ It really is this simple. Putin - along with people like Oliver Stone have been trying to educate the world over the past few years that Ukraine is part of the motherland pure and simple. Every other excuse is merely another tool the Kremlin is using in their information arsenal. US Coup - NATO encroachment - etc. The nuclear saber rattling. The US hegemony. Vlad is demanding a New World Order with Russia playing a critical part. Well, IMO - he blew it by annihilating a sovereign country that he has called his fellow brothers and sisters. And he thought genocide was happening prior to his slaughter? This isn't even close!
paulsurovell said:
Zuppi's reference to Ukraine was clear to everyone but you made no attempt to show how your interpretation is related to Ukraine.
Sometimes a commenter’s faith in his audience proves to be misguided.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
I looked at your "here" links and I think what you're trying to say here is that I've repeated my references to the evidence that the US/UK sabotaged the interim peace agreement in March-April 2022. Yes, I've done that to respond to denials that (a) there was an agreement and (b) that the US/UK sabotaged it. I will confess that I try to rebut arguments with facts as well as logic, so when the arguments involve the same facts it's necessary to repeat them -- in a case-specific fashion.
If no one found your arguments convincing the first dozen times, why would the next be different? And if you haven't found the responses convincing any of those times, what could I or anyone else say now that we haven't already?
(One way out of this circle would be new information. I've already noted one thing you could provide that would substantially change things -- actual quotes or other strong evidence that Putin at the time was seriously open to a settlement. The entire premise of your argument rests upon this -- show that and it's something new and substantial. Absent that, you're simply repeating for the sake of repetition)
It's necessary to repeat when discussants -- such as yourself -- forget, ignore or misrepresent what you've said before, in order to correct the record.
For instance, I've provided "actual quotes" from Bennet that Putin's negotiators were open to pursuing a settlement but that they were blocked by the West from achieving that.
Another point in this regard is that I've repeatedly said that my views on the war are based on views and analyses of experts who I find objective and not promoters of official narratives or war propaganda. I rely most of all on Jeffrey Sachs, who has repeatedly referenced Bennet's reporting, most recently:
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/wgtgma5kj69pbpndjr4wf6aayhrszm
Historian Geoffrey Roberts recently wrote: “Could war have been prevented by a Russian-Western deal that halted NATO expansion and neutralised Ukraine in return for solid guarantees of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty? Quite possibly.” In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine reported progress towards a quick negotiated end to the war based on Ukraine’s neutrality. According to Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, who was a mediator, an agreement was close to being reached before the U.S., U.K., and France blocked it.While the Biden administration declares Russia’s invasion to be unprovoked, Russia pursued diplomatic options in 2021 to avoid war, while Biden rejected diplomacy, insisting that Russia had no say whatsoever on the question of NATO enlargement. And Russia pushed diplomacy in March 2022, while the Biden team again blocked a diplomatic end to the war.
What Naftali Bennet reported is black and white, a no-brainer. The West blocked negotiations that were headed toward an agreement because they saw an opportunity to weaken Russia. And that's what drives US/NATO policy today.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Zuppi's reference to Ukraine was clear to everyone but you made no attempt to show how your interpretation is related to Ukraine.
Sometimes a commenter’s faith in his audience proves to be misguided.
I think that "faith" was what led most of your audience to come to your defense.
jamie said:
^ It really is this simple. Putin - along with people like Oliver Stone have been trying to educate the world over the past few years that Ukraine is part of the motherland pure and simple. Every other excuse is merely another tool the Kremlin is using in their information arsenal. US Coup - NATO encroachment - etc. The nuclear saber rattling. The US hegemony. Vlad is demanding a New World Order with Russia playing a critical part. Well, IMO - he blew it by annihilating a sovereign country that he has called his fellow brothers and sisters. And he thought genocide was happening prior to his slaughter? This isn't even close!
Where we disagree is whether our country should continue to enable the deaths of tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands at this point) and the destruction of Ukraine. Or whether we should support a settlement that addresses the causes of the war (that includes NATO enlargement and attacks on Russian-speakers) like China's proposal. I opt for the latter:
Our country is enabling the death and destruction of Ukrainians????
Bat siht crazy!!!
Jaytee said:
Our country is enabling the death and destruction of Ukrainians????
Bat siht crazy!!!
By conducting and supplying a proxy war against Russia instead of supporting a cease-fire and negotiations.
tjohn said:
Putin blocked negotiations when he attacked Ukraine. Up until that point, everything was up for discussion. Granted some of the things Putin wanted, assuming he wasn't just posturing, were non-starters, but they could still be discussed. Once he invaded Ukraine, he thought perhaps he could negotiate at gunpoint or perhaps he thought he could get away with his smash and grab operation. Things don't work that way.
It's really quite simple. All the blood and all of the other damages from this war are on Putin.
Negotiations started three days after the invasion.
PVW said:
If no one found your arguments convincing the first dozen times, why would the next be different? And if you haven't found the responses convincing any of those times, what could I or anyone else say now that we haven't already?
If you’re here to win arguments, you’re motivated to keep repeating them until others concede. If you’re here to discuss, troubleshoot or simply absorb, once is usually enough.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Bennet doesn't confirm "sabotage of the agreement". He does confirm that the discovery of Russian atrocities around the same time complicated any prospects for an agreement.
"I said it was over" -- was Bennet's opinion about how he thought the negotiations would go.
But it wasn't over in the real world until the West "blocked" the negotiations because they wanted to strike Putin. "Blocking" negotiations is sabotaging negotiations (which had reached an interim/tentative agreement according to Hill and Stent, as well as Bennet). Bennet's rendition is consistent with the reporting in Ukrainska Pravda. Three sources unambiguously clear that the West blocked/sabotaged the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the interim/tentative agreement that had been reached.
You're "citing" Bennett and then ignoring what he actually said.
The Bucha atrocities were discovered April 1. "In the real world", as you say, that's when it effectively was "over" according to Bennett. The efforts of negotiators couldn't change that.
That's even acknowledged in one of the articles you look to for support - "The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories"
paulsurovell said:
Sanctions / ICC Update:
Not really an "ICC Update" since they didn't provide any substantive information in response any questions.
Pandor, was also peppered by questions from reporters on the possibility of an August visit by Putin, whom the International Criminal Court has indicted for war crimes in connection with the alleged abduction of children from Ukraine.
South Africa is a signatory to the treaty of the ICC and is obliged to arrest Putin if he visits. It hasn't stated whether it will.
Rather, the South African government has said that it is taking legal advice on its options, a move seen by critics as an attempt to find a way out of its obligation. Pandor was asked if South Africa was “fudging” its position when it had a clear obligation to detain Putin and hand him over to the international court.
“The obligations are clear but the answer is not fudged,” Pandor said. “The answer is that the (South African) president will indicate what the final position of South Africa is.”
Pando declined to comment on any behind-the-scenes talks between South Africa and Russia to strike some kind of agreement over a Putin visit for the Johannesburg summit.
“Diplomacy does not take place in front of cameras and microphones so I'm not going to reveal what deliberations we're having,” she said.
paulsurovell said:
What Naftali Bennet reported is black and white, a no-brainer. The West blocked negotiations that were headed toward an agreement because they saw an opportunity to weaken Russia. And that's what drives US/NATO policy today.
"Could war have been prevented by a Russian-Western deal that halted NATO expansion and neutralised Ukraine in return for solid guarantees of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty? Quite possibly."
All of your "facts" are pure conjecture. All possibilities. Nothing at all concrete. Putin could have chosen at any point NOT to decimate a sovereign nation. right? Please feel free and quote anything Putin has said recently. And as always - nevermind the sanction update - please provide a denazification update for once.
Only Putin truly knows what would have happened if any different negotiations went forward - you have no idea.
Kremlin propaganda - "we were headed to an agreement" - then X blocked it. You'll see this mantra until Putin is out of office or he has full control of the territories he illegally obtained through sham referendums.
paulsurovell said:
tjohn said:
Putin blocked negotiations when he attacked Ukraine. Up until that point, everything was up for discussion. Granted some of the things Putin wanted, assuming he wasn't just posturing, were non-starters, but they could still be discussed. Once he invaded Ukraine, he thought perhaps he could negotiate at gunpoint or perhaps he thought he could get away with his smash and grab operation. Things don't work that way.
It's really quite simple. All the blood and all of the other damages from this war are on Putin.
Negotiations started three days after the invasion.
Negotiations at gunpoint in a highly fluid situation=non-starter. It might have looked good for Russia for a bit but then Ukraine found her footing. And then Putin let his orcs commit war crimes.
Putin bet the ranch on a fast, decisive smash and grab.
The blood is on Putin and, by extension, his apologists.
DaveSchmidt said:
If you’re here to win arguments, you’re motivated to keep repeating them until others concede. If you’re here to discuss, troubleshoot or simply absorb, once is usually enough.
True -- though, if Paul were hoping to convince me, I've been pretty clear as to how he could go about doing so. It's nothing secret or complicated, and if he has the goods not even especially difficult.
For no particular reason -
"Russia believes in a traditional Russian family: a man, a woman and some kidnapped Ukrainian children forced to change their names."
— KaPutin (@putinacoffin) June 2, 2023
- Vladimir Putin pic.twitter.com/Qj63XXk9uE
I want to go back to the question of white supremacists, in Ukraine and the US. As I noted, the United States at the time of WWII was, by law and by culture, a white supremacist nation. Jim Crow was in full swing, complemented by plenty of extra-judicial murder and violence to enforce the racial hierarchy. But in the decades following the war that legal regimen was overthrown and the US took enormous strides toward becoming a truly democratic nation (much work, clearly, remains to be done).
I agree with those who do not see this as a coincidence. There were of course a multitude of reasons for the US to get into the war. We should always approach official justifications critically. At the same time, it would be a mistake to dismiss rhetoric such as the Four Freedoms and the general emphasis on fighting for a free-er, more democratic world as empty words. The naive cynics and idealists are both wrong in their insistence on absolutes; the base and the noble mix frequently and inextricably. Anything as complicated as a war has all kinds of consequences, most of them negative, but on the positive ledger the experience of a whole nation unified under a single cause does often engender a solidarity otherwise lacking, and can prod a people to act to narrow the gap between rhetoric and action. We probably should not be so surprised that the nation that returned from fighting fascism abroad was less tolerant of its manifestations at home.
The war Russia has imposed upon Ukraine is obviously a horrible atrocity, but I do think it's very possible, even likely, that its affect on Ukrainian society will similarly be to push it toward a greater sense of shared nationhood and democratic character, with its far right nationalists seeing their power erode in the same manner as their mid-century American counterparts. Not that the Russians, for whom the word "Nazi" mainly connotes anti-Russian animus, will see it that way -- Putin has ensured a bitter and lasting enmity of Ukrainians toward Russians for several generations at least.
Putin also equates nazis with people who have Russophobia. But as I've said many times - it's more Putinphobia then issues with Russian in general. Russians have just as much to fear from Vlad who is sending his troops to slaughter on a daily basis. He actually has the ability to stop the slaughter at any time. He alone is the only one calling the shots in this WAR. And we can ponder all the "what ifs" in regards to negotiations. And let me tell you - all plans that don't cede all the land to Vlad - will be a fault of the evil West. Vlad can easily get in front of a camera and state what his demands would be to stop the war.
Putin is hell bent on dividing the world, either you’re with him or against him. When will Africa ever learn from their mistakes? If slavery was horrific then they have no idea what they’re getting themselves into kissing Putin’s sun starved a$$.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
We're talking about this statement in 2022 (copied from you post on the prior page): "That's why even that article 11 of the Italian Constitution, to repudiate war - today in Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, large and small, even in the same families - is so topical. And the second part of the article, on which Dossetti worked so hard, is even more important: it's better to lose a piece of sovereignty and resolve the conflicts. Instead of taking up arms, let's discuss. Someone really acts as arbiter then, for don't let brother kill brother."
He's talking about Ukraine, specifically, but is also explicitly talking about conflicts everywhere. Again, he says the point is "to repudiate war - today in Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world." At that point, he makes reference to giving up "sovereignty". I provided an example of how he uses that word, in conjunction with his work with the Community of Sant'Egidio (actual peace activists).
The narrow, partisan interpretation that you're giving, that the Cardinal was prejudging the surrender of territory to Russia, ignores both his actual positions as well as the approach to peace activism of the community with which he is associated. That is why this statement that I quoted ("limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice") is relevant to interpreting his "lose a piece of sovereignty" phrase in the words you keep quoting.