Utopia Talk / Politics / Is the Ukraine peace proposal real?

Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 10:28:50 US Secretary of State Marco Rubio apparently said it's not: "Secretary of State Marco Rubio told US senators Saturday that the sweeping peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine was not America’s — but merely a “leaked” Russian “wish list,” according to reports. Rubio told a bipartisan delegation at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada Saturday afternoon that the 28-point blueprint supposedly crafted to end the war is actually a Russian proposal, not a US initiative, according to South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds. “He made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” Rounds said, Politico reported. “It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked.” Rounds, however, said the Trump administration wants to “utilize it as a starting point,” adding that the plan “looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with,” the Associated Press reported. Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said that, according to Rubio, the plan was a “wish list of the Russians.”" http://nyp...ricas-but-a-russian-wish-list/ ---- But then he says it IS a US proposal: "Marco Rubio @marcorubio The peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine." http://x.c...?t=BFFGcVgkHRdaOsWdt6oUqw&s=19 Wtf is going on here
TheChildren rank	Sun Nov 23 11:10:49 how thick u gotta be? wut goin on? da war is lost, thats wut goin on. da victor sets da rules. when has it ever not be. tis isnt call of duty, u lost this round, anotha chance next round etc etc douglas been sayin it 4 two years now. was already clear 2 everyone except da likes of yall who eat sleep and breathe propaganda
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 13:25:21 Rugian: Witcoff and Vance and a few other maga folks are anti-Ukraine Pro-Russia for cultural reasons. Rubio and other more traditional republicans are the other way around. Witcoff is an idiot and regularly gets played by Russia. He's been freelancing on a deal with Dimtriev, but he's too dim (State department calls him Dim Philby) to realise he's getting played. Dimtriev leaked a very pro russian version to get Western press to try and bounce the US into backing it by forcing Witcoff and others to either get behind it, or admit they had been strung along by Russia (which would incinerate their credibility). There's now a furious attempt going on by various factions in the US to leverage the situation for their agenda, while undertaking damage control with allies, and not make it look like the US is basically brain-dead as a geopolitical actor (this last part isn't working, to the extent that European leaders are openly mocking the US, cf. Tusks comment). In short, what is going on is that you elected a bunch of clueless amateurs and folks in Russia's pocket (whether they know it or not, many think they are just aligned in interests and outlook) and it's all going as well as you might expect.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 13:32:21 Basically the US gone done a massive prat-fall and because the Vance-Witcoff faction still have dear leaders favour, and because the russian proposals had hooks designed to entice Trump; rather than weigh in behind Rubio et. Al's initial attempts to distance the US from it, dear leader has asked them to use it as starting point because he quite likes that stuff about getting Russia's frozen assets (not going to happen), money for guarantees (worthless) and a peace council he will preside over (he has no credibility the moment he's out of office). These guys aren't very bright, and things got out of hand.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 13:38:35 BTW, this is classic Russian intelligence operations of the reflexive control type. They knew when they leaked it that the US wouldn't have the fortitude to cut Witcoff loose. They also knew that Trump would then want to seize the opportunity to grasp the crazy stuff that Europe won't agree to and undermines the US credibility globally; but which appeals to his greed and vanity. So now the US is demanduer for a plan authored in Russia that's a Russian wishlist, but which Putin is pretending isn't what he wants but what the US wants and will need further concessions to accept.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 13:42:06 Result: chaos, panic, division of the west and anchoring any deal around Russian maximalist demands. Worst case for Russia, the deal fails having sown further distrust between America and her increasingly former allies, demoralisation in Ukraine, and makes America look weak (failed to achieve its goals again!). I.e. still a win. The lesson to the US: stop electing cowardly idiots just because they support racism. You are literally throwing away the political and economic supremacy your wiser forfathers built for you.
LazyCommunist rank	Sun Nov 23 13:47:10 How we OWNED the West^^ https://macspaunday.substack.com/p/he-got-this-from-k “He Must Have Got This From K.” How a Russian operative used the American media to force a risible “peace deal” into existence
jergul rank	Sun Nov 23 16:04:13 Seb Maximalist goals would include Odesa and Kjiv. The extent of Russian ambition can be mapped pretty neatly by looking at how oblasts voted pre-maidan.
jergul rank	Sun Nov 23 16:05:38 Point is, the current deal is a compromise from a Russian perspective. Perhaps too much of a compromise as we have not yet seen negotiations using the 28 points as an advisory framework.
Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 16:42:18 Seb That's a whole lot of evidence-free speculation in there. Maybe it's right. Maybe not. I guess we'll see. Stop it with the "you only voted for Trump because racism" nonsense. Who else should voters have voted for? The only alternative was a fucking idiot the Democrats put up with as a candidate with exactly zero public input as to her selection. Kamala was an idiot with a shitload of bad policies. Trump is also an idiot (and a massive egoist), but he had some policies that weren't so terrible. The less bad option in this case was clear. I know you think that Americans were insane to vote for the option that was going to be less supportive on Ukraine - but guess what? Ukraine isn't a top priority for the average American voter. It is a top priority for Europe, but Europe's interests in this case are irrelevant. It'd be like me not understanding how the UK voted for Labour when the Conservatives are the ones who are more supportive of US beef imports. Hell, it's not even like the Democrats were really all that supportive of Ukraine either. Biden had nearly two years to try and effectuate a better outcome in the conflict. Instead, he spent most of that time waffling over whether to give the Ukrainians heavy weapons. Similarly, when it became clear that Trump was likely going to win the election, neither Biden nor the Europeans treated that as a prompt to go all-in on Ukraine while they still could. You fuckers wasted every single opportunity you had, and then you whine when the anti-Ukraine candidate does anti-Ukraine things. Sorry, but at some point you need to take personal accountability for your, and there's no other term for this, your fuck-ups.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 16:45:24 Rugian: Who else would you vote for? Literally anyone else. A donkey could do a better job.
Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 16:46:47 The fact that you say that when we have empirical proof (Biden's administration) that that is not true...
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 16:47:15 "That's a whole lot of evidence-free speculation in there" Nah there's loads of evidence, not least Witcoff accidentally tweeting the fact that Dimtriev is the only one that could leak it. You are just operating in a bit of a bubble. The US media isn't covering a lot of stuff that's known because they are frightened of the administration.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 16:54:10 By the way, I didn't say voting for anyone but Trump for Ukraine policy. Ukraine policy is a symptom of the sheer dysfunction of the Republican party, not an attribute. Any sane policy analysis shows that US support for Ukraine is good *for America*. Watching you piss away the 21st century to China by fucking it up and convincing yourself that somehow it makes sense is darkly comic, if deeply depressing.
Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 17:01:12 Seb I wish we had an administration was more supportive of Ukraine, and a Ukraine that was more capable of withstanding the Russian military. The fact is that we have neither, and as we are forced to deal in reality the Europeans should have been more able to pivot on strategy. The fact that Europe's default stance ("we should support Ukraine with arms, and be we we of course mean the United State") hasn't barely changed despite the change in American leadership and the clear degradation of Ukraine's fighting capability is proof of complete policy-making failure at Europe's highest levels.
Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 17:07:16 Also, your talk about sheer dysfunction in the GOP is laughable, given the sheer dysfunction in the Democratic Party. The majority of Democrats are now in full-blown favor of identity politics and LGBT rights (even when they fly in the face of basic biology) and is increasingly given over to socialism. The last Democratic administration came into office believing that inflation was a thing of the past and that you could print money indefinitely without any repercussions. As previously established, the Democrats unquestionably lined up behind a presidential candidate who was clearly too old and lacking the mental acuity for the office, and then with just months before the election they belatedly booted him from the ticket and instead elevated a deeply unpopular replacement who was only in the running because she was black and a woman (that's not bigotry on my part - that was explicitly Joe Biden's criteria for selecting his VP). These people are children, not to be taken seriously. You want to talk about the problems in the GOP? Fine. But don't pretend that the Democrats are in any better shape.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 17:07:19 Rugian: Oh hush with your silly fake American talking points. Who do you think cares about this nonsense outside of the US? Europe has supplied Ukraine more arms than the US, and a great deal of what the US provided was near obsolescent but counted at inflated replacement value.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 17:09:50 Bottom line, your preferred candidate for the president is an obvious crook looting your own economy and surrounded by bungling idiots who are busy dismantling Americas pillars of strength for a mix of personal gain and applause from idiots that are just happy to see other Americans suffer to alleviate their own frustrations. A good old fashioned temper tantrum, basically.
Rugian rank	Sun Nov 23 17:14:52 Seb rank Sun Nov 23 17:07:19 Rugian: Oh hush with your silly fake American talking points. Who do you think cares about this nonsense outside of the US? And we're back to the whole "American voters don't know what they should want because their priorities don't entirely align with Europe's." You'll never learn. The US alone has supplied Ukraine with almost half of its benefits. That's a ridiculous ratio given that Europe is directly next door to Ukraine and allegedly has more of a willingness to help than the US does.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 17:29:21 Rugian: Simply not true. Total support given to Ukraine as of august, 45.6% from the EU, 17.3% other Vs 37% from the US. The US has supplied about 64bn in military aid vs 80bn from European countries. Currently the US doesn't supply any military aid: Europe buys it from the US. This will be painful if the US gets into a war with China. European participation will likely come with a bill.
Seb rank	Sun Nov 23 17:30:41 Problem is you live in a country where the president lies daily on these matters, and the press repeat the lie without challenge because they fear reprisals if they do. Rots your brain.
Pillz rank	Sun Nov 23 18:11:46 Roflmao
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 10:35:56 And now the calls are leaked. Why might that be, and who could be doing it, and why? Well, they obvious effect is that it will derail the deal, so who stands most at this point to disrupt matters? We don't know the terms, but if we take things at face value, Ukraine is now happy with the revisions it has agreed with Trump. That could be a lie of course. The Russians aren't happy with the new proposals. Who could have access? It seems unlikely the Ukrainians would have that sophisticated penetration. European countries intelligence agencies? Maybe. But it seems to me the most obvious answer is Russia who probably records all this stuff routinely and would have direct access to one of the participants. This wasn't intended to be a serious negotiation, it was supposed to be an intelligence operation to disrupt Western unity, with a long shot upside off forcing Ukraine into conceding everything Russia asks for. And the Trump admin fell for it. Again.
TheChildren rank	Wed Nov 26 11:00:04 late stage "capilist" societies at full display
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 11:04:27 This, by the way, is a typical dysfunction of "Big Man" politics. In a genuinely functioning democratic govt you have clear lines is authority flowing through institutional mechanism (either of the party or state) that drive to consistent institutional positions. It's certainly true these can malfunction, but more often than not that works. When you get these cult of personality systems, the modern state is far too complex to control so even when the "Big Man" has got focus and will power; they can't be in top of everything, but they can't protect weaknesses by admitting that. General strategies for managing that is to stay enigmatic and aloof and encourage underlings to compete against eachother in second guessing what the big man actually wants and wait for a winner to emerge. And when the big man is a disorganised mess and easily biddable this gets even worse as factions vie to control access to the big man, and the big man's informational environment. So when people talk about how Trump was they least worse alternative to Kamala, I think they are nuts. Kamala was a conventional politician of the kind the US system is carefully designed to limit any possible damage from. Trump on the other hand is literally breaking the ability of American govt to function in ways that will be impossible to repair: fundamentally burning American power as you gear up for the geopolitical challenge of who gets to own the 21st century. History books will record the Trump presidencies as a tragedy. They'll contextualise that in terms of other failings you'll recognise: the intellectual stagnancy and complacency of the democrats, decay and hollowing out of societal infrastructure (media particularly) essential for democratic processes by wealth owners and other corruption. They'll probably put the trigger as the failure to get a grip on the financial crisis and the war on terror, but the Trump admins will likely be seen where manageable crises bloomed into an irreversible catastrophe.
jergul rank	Wed Nov 26 12:43:57 Seb Many constitutions are designed with a big man role in mind. It is quite typical of republics. A failure of imagine perhaps by the constitutional fathers of this or that country. Unimaginable to step completely away from a monarchy by the grace of god, the systems instead allow for power accumulation in one person, but check that by democratic processes that allow that big man to be removed regularly. The US "problem" today rests in the drift towards limiting executive powers by unwritten rules and conventions. Turns out the problem with unwritten stuff is that they are easily overturned by any executive ruler wanting to turn back the clock to say FDR times. So, its a feature of those republics, not a bug. By hey, at least constitutional monarchies with their ceremonial heads of states get the best jewelry. We do have that. In addition to more comprehensive checks and balances in non-first past the post systems (ludicrous how few votes needed for a majority in first past the post systems. North Korean like almost).
jergul rank	Wed Nov 26 12:44:19 imagination*
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 13:14:14 Jergul: We are not describing the same thing. By Big Man I don't mean a constitutionally defined role that centralised a lot of power either structural or legally codified power (e.g. French president under most normal circumstances, or British PM) A monarchy, ironically, need not be a big-man system if constrained. Compare e.g. Henry VIII with Charles II. I'm describing a figure that's accumulated a lot of personal political power (e.g. personality cult) and leveraged that to largely circumvent constitutional controls and run country by diktat and personal patronage. I.e. big man is what you get when constitutions become ornaments rather than actual constraints.
jergul rank	Wed Nov 26 13:32:39 We are describing the same things. You are just using ominous words. Trump rolled back to FDR give or take. The only real constitutional change since then was term limits. The rest of the limitations impossed since then are unwritten convention. The monarchy thing I did mention. Ceremonial figureheads to have nice jewelry going for them as I said. As to personal political power, well, that is how the system is supposed to work. We vote for our representative in the system. They are supposed to represent us. A feature, not a bug. Political parties are not constitutionally protected and arguably do more to subvert voter democratic intent than anything else. That half the voters less one have under average IQ by definition is of course unfortunate, but that is best resolved by childhood nutrition, good health care and good education.
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 13:42:21 Jergul, we definitely aren't talking about the same thing. I think you are doing that tiresome thing of trying to hijack one discussion make an entirely different point. In this case about the weaknesses and deficiencies you perceive in certain constitutional arrangements; whereas I'm talking about what happens when you abandon constitutionalism in favour of a cult of personality and personal patronage. I really can't be bothered beyond that.
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 13:46:26 Actually I'll allow myself one small example. Trumps power does not arise from his control of the Republican party. He has been able to subvert that entirely because he has captured enough of the core republican voters into his cult of personality such that you have a very hard time standing as a republican without his personal patronage. Constitutional arrangements can't really deal with this problem, it requires voters who value constitutionalism as a mode of governance over Big Man politics.
Rugian rank	Wed Nov 26 13:57:39 Seb Jergul is actually rather correct here (more or less). The phenomenon of Trump is hardly unprecedented in American politics. If you reject the use of FDR as an example, try Andrew Jackson instead. We've seen this sort of presidency before.
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 16:00:29 Rugian: Perhaps it's not unprecedented. But going back to the first half of the 19th c isn't exactly demonstrating strong stability. Jergul puts a lot of emphasis on what is codified vs what is convention, with the latter not being really important in his mind because it can't be enforced in courts. But you can also see how courts can be packed or bypassed. The failure mode is secondary, the prime cause is an abandonment of the whole idea of constraints, process etc. whatever its basis (convection or law). Anyway, the key point here is the primary dynamic of the US govt isn't now around rules, defined roles, accountability etc. - it's all about personal relationship to Trump.
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 16:01:25 It's a weakness and it's being very obviously exploited by your enemies.
murder rank	Wed Nov 26 16:02:07 "This will be painful if the US gets into a war with China. European participation will likely come with a bill." Europe needs to stay out of any conflict between the US and China. You have nothing to gain by involving yourselves, and frankly you can't bring anything to the fight anyway. Europe's best weapon is economic, and it would be foolish to cripple yourselves over Taiwan. -
Seb rank	Wed Nov 26 16:02:28 You can't run a 21st century state using these methods even if they were moderately successful in the early 19th.
jergul rank	Wed Nov 26 17:18:35 Seb My point was that convention is vulnerable to anyone wanting to roll back the clock and avail themselves to the powers originally bestowed on their position. Our democratic systems emerged from tyrrany and because of this, have mechanisms that mirror despotism in the name of practicality. This is not a bug, it is a feature. Imagine how hard it would have been to do many things you approve of if not for excessive powers reaching back to the days of direct royal rule? You are exagerrating the importance of Trump over Ukraine. That conflict is lost to Ukrainian war fatigue after years of attritional fighting. Trump is merely working on a soft landing for Ukraine. It is something that probably play out while the frontline still holds. As a side-note. The dnipro is not a major barrier to infiltration tactics with ranged support that both sides are currently working on. This is true of all river systems. Ukraine has a lot left to lose. Russian maximalist goals can easily include far more than what is currently on the table.
jergul rank	Wed Nov 26 17:18:56 should play out*
earthpig rank	Fri Nov 28 03:42:04 Rugian's observation that the democratic party is internally less democratic than the republican party is, for better or worse, a correct one. It's a major problem. In addition, the democratic party plays the game to feel good about themselves for doing the right thing, the republican party plays to win. A proxy measure for that is that the democrats chase the popular vote (the "right" thing to do), the republicans chase the electoral college (the *winning* thing to do).
Pillz rank	Fri Nov 28 04:17:06 "In addition, the democratic party plays the game to feel good about themselves for doing the right thing, the republican party plays to win. A proxy measure for that is that the democrats chase the popular vote (the "right" thing to do), the republicans chase the electoral college (the *winning* thing to do)." ep thinks this is both accurate and nuisanced Spoiler, it is neither
Seb rank	Fri Nov 28 09:36:15 Earthpig: Controversial opinion, but I think political parties that prioritise internal democracy tend to be dysfunctional. Party members tend to be weird people with weird ideas, and controlling the machine that chooses which individuals get to be on the menu for the country is putting a lot of actual state power into the hands of (from a statistical position) deeply odd individuals.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 28 13:06:56 Those that don't prioritise internal democracy are vulnerable to strong man or cabal dominance. I am unaware of any democratic system based on a party system. We all have representative systems based on an idea that we send somebody to the capital to, well, represent us. It does happen, independents are elected here and there, but not often enough to justify a first past the post system. It is pretty clear that the best democratic representation is given in scandinavian type models were party seats in parliament tend to reflect popular vote fractions. A proper modification given how dominant party politics are in most democracies. Single party systems we know. But 2 or 4 party systems are not much better.
Seb rank	Fri Nov 28 16:00:34 Jergul: "Those that don't prioritise internal democracy are vulnerable to strong man or cabal dominance" Generally less so, as the closer you get to the electoral machinary and actual candidates, the more you are aligned to the general population. Trump (and if you look at similar situations) captured the activist base, and through them the party as candidates have to get selected first so have to appease a relatively small population who are looking for ideological purity *before* they have to worry about persuading the general population. If you can capture the imagination of that small internal electorate you can quickly reshape the party in your image. Parties where the office holders and candidates themselves select their leaders tend to pick people who are good for their chances of winning the actual election, that tends to drive moderation. And while you can't certainly get cabal politics through that route the incentives tend to be better aligned to the wider electorates because that selectorate have skin in the game.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 28 16:25:50 Seb Not at all. The strongman or cabal gets their ultra-safe ridings, the rest can get elected with 34% of the vote in a three way race. Less if there are more parties splitting the vote. The strongman or cabal are thus free to dictate their own agenda. First past the post anywhere has all the flaws of the US system and none of its balancing elements.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 28 16:27:30 When is the last time a UK government has been aligned with the general voting population in the majority of things? 1971?
Seb rank	Fri Nov 28 17:47:12 Jergul: Now you asked when was the last time the UK govt was aligned to the population? Arguably, 1997-2003. But that's also when the conservatives (out of office during that period) and then Labour (under Milliband when out of office) introduced much greater internal democracy letting members start to have a greater say in the running of the party. Aside from a relatively brief period where Cameron was able to persuade the conservative members to moderate (largely because they trusted a nice posh plummy face and had been whipped into fear that Brown was an outright communist - not necessarily a very healthy basis for what was a better choice than Ian Duncan Smith), the conservatives have been making ever worse choices in leadership and policy. Labour have also suffered by consistently picking obviously terrible leaders (arguably Starmer wasn't quite so obviously terrible and looks like the kind of mistake a UK party pre 2000 would make from time to time). Now, this risk that a cabal gets in and takes the safe seats. Normally not a very stable approach. Cf. UK Conservatives current plight. Canals - whatever their route - tend to fail eventually though it normally takes a term in the UK. Johnson captured the party via the base in a way that had traditionally been incredibly hard because to become leader you needed to have the backing and respect of peer MPs who by necessity needed to have won lots of elections. When the conservatives switched to "internal democracy" that opened the way to a larger number of more narrow minded people to select the leader. Once the party becomes very narrow collapse in the polls often follows. Johnson hollowed out the party and completed his purge, but then pursuing his agenda became incredibly unpopular costing him his leadership. The membership then decided to elect a complete lunatic on a policy platform diametrically opposite to that its MPs stood on and well beyond public appetite or what most in competitive seats would consider sane - to predictable consequences. And her successor then lost the next election so badly it is possible the party may never return to power. Now, your argument is that a narrow minded cabal could have emerged among the party elites. That's certainly happened before (cf. Eurosceptics in the 90s/2000's) but while they had safe seats, they still hadn't got electoral success, and they got locked out of power for ages until they came to their senses (briefly) or perhaps made an ok choice by accident. Cabals tend to be self limiting and parties that make holding position of influence in the party dependent on electoral success tend to suffer the failure mode of being run by demented ideologues with no grasp of the elaborate less; though nobody is immune to failure. A similar dynamic has played out with Labour factionalism too, and there are examples in the US of course where the democrats are suffering due to a self selecting gerontocratic Cabal while the republicans have experienced a demagogic takeover via internal democracy. But is FPTP allowing either party's narrow minded cabals impose their narrow agenda on the country? Polls suggest no. We have a four way heat emerging. In the US, that isn't happening of course. But I think a backlash against the republicans is coming. Overall, I would suggest that unless you can keep your party membership large and broad enough and engaged enough; it's currently "internal democracy" that creates the worst incentives and risk of capture. Historically this hasn't been the case, because by necessity electorally successful parties in full participatory democracies *had* to have large broad engaged memberships or they didn't win elections. But now you can run political campaigns and engagement with a tiny outfit. Reform, for example, simply couldn't exist without social media; though it can win elections despite the party machine and membership being too small and shallow to even govern a council, and doesn't even try to be democratic internally. In this context structuring party governance around 1 member 1 vote offers the easiest path for entryists to capture and perverse incentives to allow the membership to drive of the cliff. There's no guarantee that parties can't fuck up one way or the other, but the best way to avoid it is to keep the selection of the party leaders closely correlated to the selection pressures the electorate exerts; and party members very often these days aren't. They are an echo chamber of obsessives who can easily be persuaded.
Seb rank	Fri Nov 28 17:53:12 It's also worth noting that even semi-successful moderates like Cameron are incredibly constrained by membership. Part of the reason Osborne couldn't take advantage of low interest rates to borrow to invest was that despite they obvious electoral appeal (if he could work the narrative up to explain it) is that the party membership would have had a fucking fit and burned the place to the ground. Despite her latter day reinterpretation as a totally inflexible ideologue, I suspect Thatcher would have grabbed the cash and gone on a construction binge, based in the votes from corporate and working class voters who got a slice, and called it good house keeping or something, while ignoring the howls of small-state obsessives in her party membership screaming about it being communist.
jergul rank	Fri Nov 28 19:52:11 Read and your positions noted. Appreciated.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: