Rossticus said:
Not for Russia, no, as they're imperialist aggro imbeciles with a tiny peepee complex. For Russia, diplomacy doesn't equate to good faith negotiation, as it does for those with a fully formed frontal lobe. But they don't have the leverage to secure what they want yet will self immolate in their continued evil attempt. Regardless, they've sealed their pathetic, disgusting, well earned fate.
Small pee pee....undeveloped brains...and sealed fate. Smells like weapons grade copium.
You seem to have very little insight into negotiations in general. On "february" you reject a proposition and that position is backed by a military, in "may" you no longer have a military, you have fewer cards on the table and your position is slipping day by day. The original proposition in February looks more and more feasible.
Your post seems to argue that one's position is detached from the real politik realities.
This
Vvvv
Will be the third time I've explained why eastern Europeans talk to their enemies while they have no intention to end a conflict. Americans are conditioned to believe that when you are at war, you cut off communication with the enemy. When communication is re-established the war is already decided. This is not how most the world works, it certainly isnt how eastern Europeans work.
War is an extension of politics and negotiations are subsumed under both. Everything is fluid. Positions change from day to day.
I cant tell you how many times in the Cold War Moscow agreed to something on Monday then by Wednesday they reneged. "Yes we agreed to that on Monday...and we meant it on Monday...but things have changed." The negotiations are not binding and that's not just the ruskies, ask poland if ukraine keeps their word. This is how they do politics over there. You can sit around daydreaming about russian wangs all day but it's clear you have no clear desire to know they enemy bc they are "evil" "pathetic" and "disgusting."
