Post AR9b7hZfS4T0hsDy40 by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
 (DIR) More posts by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
 (DIR) Post #AR9b7geEtaWtplM6YC by rysiek@mstdn.social
       2022-12-31T00:02:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       New York Times seems really hell-bent on publishing as many absolutely shit hot-takes before the year ends as possible. Or more.First the Signal one, now this:> Hard-Line Positions by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talkshttps://web.archive.org/web/20221229072005/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.htmlDemanding a violent invader leaves your house is not a "hard-line position." "Russian forces need to stop invading our land and killing us" is not a "hard-line position."What the fsck is wrong with these people.
       
 (DIR) Post #AR9b7h8j4EurMJcS4O by kemayo@hachyderm.io
       2022-12-31T03:28:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @rysiek on the one hand, I guess it’s true that both sides having strong positions that they won’t back down from makes a peace settlement difficult. On the other hand… carefully avoiding *any* reference to whether one party might be in any way morally in the wrong is very realpolitik of them.
       
 (DIR) Post #AR9b7hZfS4T0hsDy40 by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
       2022-12-31T03:57:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kemayo @rysiek The difference is that RU's position is one which is entirely of its own choosing. For all Sergei Lavrov tries to obfuscate things, RU violated some extremely solemn covenants with no material casus belli. Whether or not to back down from this position is a question of how many inner-circle supporters suffer strokes or falls before they decide to put Johnson Wax on the stair-treads in the Kremlin.
       
 (DIR) Post #AR9bdcZ3c6rkR49vMm by kemayo@hachyderm.io
       2022-12-31T03:58:40Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @publius @rysiek like I said, very realpolitik.
       
 (DIR) Post #ARAetptuI88XS2IL9k by rysiek@mstdn.social
       2022-12-31T11:55:01Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kemayo @publius it's not realpolitik. It's bothsideism.
       
 (DIR) Post #ARAetqMGagp0rzYzMO by kemayo@hachyderm.io
       2022-12-31T14:38:24Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @rysiek @publius bothsideism would be if the article was focused on the causes and was implying an equivalence between them. But it’s not; it’s entirely focused on “in the current situation what can practically be done, regardless of what’s moral”, and that’s the very definition of realpolitik.
       
 (DIR) Post #ARAetqmqzq5aCS0Dnk by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
       2022-12-31T16:14:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kemayo @rysiek Delusional would be a better word.The situation is strongly analogous to the one which obtained in 1917, when Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was summoned before the Reichstag to answer the question "what are Germany's war aims?"He answered that, even if he could say, it would be treasonous to do so, as that would allow the enemy to end the war by conceding!At that point it became clear that a negotiated end to hostilities was impossible. The war was the point.