Publication in Russian on the Zen blog
https://dzen.ru/a/Z63XdpRhLgJ_t_RV
My publication argues that the initial conditions for negotiations with Russia should be clearly defined in accordance with international law and fundamental principles of justice. The United States, in particular Washington, takes a different approach.
In particular, Russia's complete withdrawal from all occupied Ukrainian territories should be a prerequisite for any diplomatic discussions. Only after this condition is fulfilled can negotiations take place on damages, security guarantees, and broader diplomatic solutions.
What's worse is that Washington doesn't understand the whole point of the issue and how setting fair starting conditions actually helps make the world a better place. The facts, based on history and an understanding of international law, indicate that the current negotiations on negotiations have been distorted by Russian narratives that are trying to redefine the initial conditions in such a way as to legitimize territorial gains.
However, international law, including United Nations resolutions, the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Agreements, establishes a clear legal framework: territorial aggression cannot be rewarded. The adoption of any alternative baseline conditions can lead to the normalization of violations of sovereign borders and undermine the principles of State sovereignty and territorial integrity. I use my critical thinking to analyze the current negotiations, simply demonstrating through logic and analogies how Russia has strategically shifted the global dialogue towards acceptable conditions.
If we want to make the world a better place, we must really live up to the ideals of goodness and justice, demanding the full restoration of Ukraine's internationally recognized borders.
Let's talk about the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States and what it means to establish a baseline in these negotiations. This is similar in both economics and medical science, if your baseline blood pressure is 120 over 80, then this is a reasonable baseline based on statistics, probability, and long-term research. But despite this, if you suddenly declare that now your base level is 200 over 120, or something is completely wrong, and you say that this is the norm, this is the average value for a biological object to strive for, then it will go sideways. Therefore, my statement is that the initial level that is set for negotiations is like having a pressure of 200 to 120, and the world must admit that it is being sold the wrong waybill, a set of things that are wrong morally and ethically, economically, and geopolitically. The wrong idea is that the basic line of negotiations should start in accordance with international law, the UN resolution and common morality and what was signed on a piece of paper on which it should be written: "Russia, come home first." Before starting negotiations, talking and discussing something with Russia, you need to say: "Get out of Crimea", "Get out of Donbass", "Eliminate all acts of aggression" - this is the base, this is the starting point, which makes international law. It's a word, a promise, and an honor, it's an honor for the United States to sign the document on paper and for countries like the United Kingdom, Russia, and so on to sign. You know that a person is as good as his word is good, and you know that the country represents a person on paper. And the basic point is that by signing the document, Russia should go home, get out of Crimea, get out of Ukraine, and only then can we talk about anything, and only then should the discussion be like how much reparations Russia should pay, whether Russia will remove all nuclear arsenals or keep a few ordinary ones. Or maybe, like in Japan after World War II, there should be a security force of 100,000 troops, an internal police force. Or maybe Russia should be divided into 10 or 20 countries. I think there should be negotiations, but the baseline should be similar to blood pressure. Or as in economics, when before conducting econometric or statistical research, you do not know the source data, and they sell us the source data that is close to the Moscow level. People cut down the level and think they are making some progress, which is not true. Objectivity is the essence of intelligence, reflect on this idea. If a woman meets a guy with whom she had a relationship and they haven't seen each other for five years, and the guy says that he's better now. You know, no, it's not better. And this is the whole idea of the Tsar of Russia. And if you've noticed, I'm not mentioning his name, or even the name of the Guy from Washington, not because I'm too superstitious, but because I don't want to draw attention to myself, because what we say and do echoes through Eternity. I would have preferred something like "I don't know Mother Teresa, St. Thomas Aquinas," but not that name. When a weirdo from Russia tries to pretend to be a reasonable guy, you know, let's just stop this nonsense about death and so on. Obviously, this is a wolf, and people who don't perceive it that way are sheep, because the world will have to learn another hard lesson. Right now, let's say North Korea is developing a program with uranium and missiles, and it will spread through other powers, be it the United States, Iran, North Korea, China, and Moscow. And if you're going to accept this wolf, then you're a sheep. Perhaps Washington's allies are sheep, people close to the leader of the sheep in Russia, which is a very dangerous precedent. Today's Washington does not understand the concept of the baseline, which they never seem to have studied. I studied natural sciences and mathematics a bit, I don't always do well in languages, I even pronounce words incorrectly in English. I make grammatical mistakes, but I have well-developed certain logical thinking, such as chess, mathematics, and the basics of natural sciences, but none of the guys from Washington around me, be it the Minister of Defense, secretary, advisers, I won't even mention names, they don't have any discipline in the exact sciences, and they do not understand that it is necessary to think objectively about such things as, for example, where the starting point should be and where they should end up, and they cannot project this onto a geopolitical idea. There were a lot of conversations between the Guy from Washington and the Guy from Moscow, and the Guy from Washington acknowledged that, and whatever it was, it was a pretty bad precedent because he didn't tell the whole world clearly what was considered right and fair for all people from Russia to return home, and then we would start with that. that he is a tough guy who is a good negotiator. But we see that someone is giving up, someone is weak, someone is afraid of bad publicity, someone is afraid of being left without a victory. And as I have said and say, I do not believe in leaders, I practically live apart from what is happening, I do not engage in politics, but from the point of view of leadership, I would advise you to pay attention to those people who have ideals. These same leaders have their thoughts in the foreground when they talk about how to move forward in negotiations with a despotic leader, and that's where we'll stop.
Robbers can always meet with property owners and police officers to discuss what loot they can keep for themselves before leaving the premises.
Russia has illegally occupied most of Ukraine. Serious negotiations require at least some form of symmetry, meaning that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine before any negotiations can take place. Starting negotiations from the current front line means irresponsibly rewarding aggression, which the civilized world will deeply regret later.
If Russia enters into negotiations with Washington, the world will enter a new phase of history, the uranium phase. In fact, we are talking about the future of humanity, which is at stake. However, I am afraid that the West will not show determination. Lack of relevant (and necessary!) The underlying indicators will only set the stage for future failures.
Many people can say that they are choosing between two evils to at least end the war. History shows that when it comes to territory, it's a mistake. Churchill noted that countries that are defeated in battles return, while those who negotiate disappear. I like the quote by Hannah Arendt: "If you are faced with two evils, the argument goes, it is your duty to choose less, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose at all. The weakness of this argument is always that those who choose the lesser evil quickly forget that they chose evil." The United States has the opportunity not to choose evil, but the leader does not want to.
Russia's return home should be the starting point, and I'm right about that, based on morality and ideals and a desire to make the world a better place.
I write and shoot. Join me
Author's video content CMCproduction & SmartREC video studios
https://www.youtube.com/c/ViolettaWennman
Highly Social on Zen
https://dzen.ru/shipshard
I invite you to the uncensored telegram channel.
https://t.me/shipshard
