AOC Joins Biden and Kamala as a Necon.

@vivify said
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/what-invasion-russian-denials-crimea-trigger-war-words-n45666

What Invasion? Russian Denials on Crimea


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis/putin-signs-crimea-treaty-as-ukraine-serviceman-dies-in-attack-idUSBREA1Q1E820140319

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty in Moscow on Tuesday m ...[text shortened]... b]Putin announces Russian annexation of four Ukrainian regions

Putin's word is his bond, huh?

I never made such a stupid claim.

Putin, like any leader of a major or even not so major power, will mislead if he thinks it is to his advantage. He will also negotiate and follow agreements when he thinks that is to his and his country's advantage.

Few treaties or international agreements would ever be signed if a prerequisite was that the people signing them had never made false, public statements.

@phranny said
@Zahlanzi Aslo, given the current GOP and the size of Trump supporters, Putin sees the U.S. as weak and unwilling to intervene.

Oh yes that too. And, i may add, all the propaganda and misinformation Russia has spread over the years in the west.

He really thought Ukraine will be done in like one week

@no1marauder said
The peace talks were a major story in March and April and Ukrainian officials discussed them openly. There is no reason to blindly accept your or your article's characterization that they never had any chance of success.

there is no reason to blindly accept yours either.

Your link seems to make Putin to be almost reasonable. Did he really give up the demilitarization of Ukraine and that it recognizes the independence of the separatist regions? Last i checked those were very much part of his demands

@zahlanzi said
there is no reason to blindly accept yours either.

Your link seems to make Putin to be almost reasonable. Did he really give up the demilitarization of Ukraine and that it recognizes the independence of the separatist regions? Last i checked those were very much part of his demands

What a country's leader "demands" in public and what he might accept in private negotiations are different.

As you state, Putin thought the invasion would bring a quick victory and an overthrow of the Ukrainian government. When that didn't happen, he was forced to adjust his negotiating position. The evidence of that regarding the March'-April talks is overwhelming.

@no1marauder said
The peace talks were a major story in March and April and Ukrainian officials discussed them openly. There is no reason to blindly accept your or your article's characterization that they never had any chance of success.

You're misquoting the article.

Ukraine genuinely wanted peace talks *if* that included regaining land taken during the invasion. The article says Russia was not going to agree to that.

@no1marauder said
I never made such a stupid claim.

Putin, like any leader of a major or even not so major power, will mislead if he thinks it is to his advantage. He will also negotiate and follow agreements when he thinks that is to his and his country's advantage.

Few treaties or international agreements would ever be signed if a prerequisite was that the people signing them had never made false, public statements.

We're talking about promises to not invade a country repeatedly being broken. That's kind of important detail when considering peace talks with an invading country.

You're possibly the only one on this entire site who equates invading a country to little white lies.

@vivify said
You're misquoting the article.

Ukraine genuinely wanted peace talks *if* that included regaining land taken during the invasion. The article says Russia was not going to agree to that.

The article is contradicted by information obtained by, among others, Fiona Hill, an Eastern European and Russian expert who served in the US government as an intelligence analyst at high levels for three Presidents.

@vivify said
We're talking about promises to not invade a country repeatedly being broken. That's kind of important detail when considering peace talks with an invading country.

You're possibly the only one on this entire site who equates invading a country to little white lies.

Stop with the BS. Many world leaders have told far more than "little white lies" (including US Presidents) without it forever precluding meaningful negotiations with them.

@no1marauder said
US policymakers surely believed it at the time just like people here believe that Russia will roll into NATO countries if not dealt an unequivocal military defeat in Ukraine.

That such beliefs are unreasonable paranoia doesn't make them lies.

You're still ignoring that in Vietnam, there was no Russian invasion, only a USA one, while in Ukraine, there very much is a Russian invasion which you are trying to justify.

Noting that Russia is actively invading neighbouring countries is not paranoia, unlike the 1960s Red Scare which was only based on "what if". There is no "what if" in Ukraine; there is a "it's happening".

@no1marauder said
Again, do you know what a "negotiation" is?

Yes, it's something Putin doesn't do.

@no1marauder said
Vivify: That goes for Russia who invaded Ukraine after pro-EU demonstrations.

"Misquoted"?

"Misrepresented"?

Yes. Misquoted, misrepresented, and slandered.

If you really were a lawyer, you'd know that post hoc non est propter hoc.

@no1marauder said
The peace talks were a major story in March and April and Ukrainian officials discussed them openly. There is no reason to blindly accept your or your article's characterization that they never had any chance of success.

You must have been hearing your reports of them on RT. Over here in the West, the major story was that Russia was being dishonest in pretending to hold peace talks that were nothing but an insistence that Ukraine roll over and expose its belly.

@no1marauder said
Stop with the BS. Many world leaders have told far more than "little white lies" (including US Presidents) without it forever precluding meaningful negotiations with them.

Look, you're really ignoring the pattern here.

Politicians lie. Sure. But usually, they behave like civilised people and only lie up-front, not once the deal is brokered. Putin, OTOH, has a known habit of going back on his word. Most politicians' word is worth no more than the paper it's written on. Putin's word is worth nothing. Putin's word is worth ignoring. Putin is not like Bush, or Reagan, or Thatcher, or even Boris Johnson. Putin is like Trump. For most politicians, you can't believe everything they promise. For Putin, you can believe nothing he promises. Nothing. Whatsoever. Negotiations with him are meaningless, because he will go back on his word. Every. Single. Time.

He has form. There is no such thing as a meaningful negotiation with Putin.

@no1marauder said
The article is contradicted by information obtained by, among others, Fiona Hill, an Eastern European and Russian expert who served in the US government as an intelligence analyst at high levels for three Presidents.

a) Appeal to authority fallacy
b) All Ms. Hill did was report that a deal "appeared" to be reached. That's it.

The article doesn't "contradict" that claim, it explains why that appearance was not actually what it seemed.

@no1marauder said
Stop with the BS. Many world leaders have told far more than "little white lies" (including US Presidents) without it forever precluding meaningful negotiations with them.

Breaking promises to not invade a country isn't a "white lie".

"I did not have sex with that woman" is a white lie. "I won't wage war and murder your civilians" is not.