60%? 40? What’s the right figure?
“All the land,” he exclaims in dramatic shock-horror. Yes all the land that Putin invaded – what’s the shock-horror about? If somebody breaks into your house do you feel obliged to give up the living room and kitchen before calling the cops?
It’s terrifying how captured these people are.
So when Venezuela and Cuba invade the USA I’m sure Lutnick and the other Trumpists will be falling over themselves to sue for peace on any terms. Sure, have New Mexico, Southern California, Texas and Florida. We’ll toss in grain rom the midwest and we don’t want any reparations. Yeah, right. It’s so foul and stupid it’s beyond belief. How Trump I and II can make Reagan and Bush Jnr look like good Presidents is mind boggling.
The problem is that “all the land plus 300B” is the kind of concession demanded by the victor in a conflict. There’s no way in hell that’s going to fly with Putin, and even entertaining such an offer would make him look like a weak loser. So the demand isn’t just a non-starter; it’s actively detrimental to the process of achieving a diplomatic end to hostilities.
Nullius, you always start with your highest demand when you negotiate. If he started where they want, they would add more and more, and there would be no negotiation. Besides, what motivation does he have to give anything away now? Without promises of our security, and promises he can trust, why should he play? That’s what they’re counting on – he will have to give them what they want because otherwise we are not on his side. He’s dealt with Trump before; he doesn’t trust him.
That’s true, high initial demands can usually serve as an anchoring strategy, influencing the final settlement in your favor. But there’s a but. A well-calibrated high demand keeps the other party engaged, even if they initially push back. If the opening is too extreme or offensive, it can cause the other party to either walk away or adopt an adversarial stance, making any future compromise much harder. In other words, the highest demand you start with is the highest you think won’t get your negotiating partner to either walk away entirely or, even worse, become a spiteful negotiator. A strong opening offer forces the counterparty to respond with reasoned counteroffers. An inflammatory statement provokes an emotional response, making rational negotiation impossible. In repeated negotiations (or any situation where reputation matters), an insult-laden approach signals bad faith, reducing future opportunities. A tough-but-reasonable initial demand, however, maintains the possibility of a favorable deal without long-term damage. When dealing with unstable, vengeful, murderous narcissists with sensitive egos, even a single step too far could sabotage the entire process.
That’s all to say there’s a difference between starting with your highest demand and starting with, “So Vladchik, have you admitted to everyone that you’re a [insert Russian/Ukrainian misogynistic/homophobic insult] who does [insert effeminate thing]?”
I think Putin has already adopted an adversarial stance though.
*shrug* Fair. Negotiation is inherently adversarial, but there are degrees, and we should want Putin to be receptive to some sort of deal. The prima facie injustice of being forced to negotiate with one’s attacker is kind of baked into the whole idea of peace talks.
What is there to negotiate about anyway? As Anne Applebaum has argued, part of Putin’s motive for attacking Ukraine in the first place was to show the so-called “democratic world” that Russia no longer cares about our idea of human rights, national sovreignty, the binding nature of international treaties etc., and as Timothy Snyder has pointed out, he has never abandoned or modified his official position that the end goal is for Ukraine to disappear from the map as an independent nation. Trump is not going to guarantee Ukraine’s security for any reason, and even if he did we already know what his word is worth.
Whatever remains of the “democratic world” needs to just write off America and carry on alone. Unfortunately Europe has been betting everything on the expectation that the U.S. was going to be on our friend and ally and protector forever, and now we are paying the price for our own stupidity. If we’re going to survive, we have some serious catching up to do. Of course Europeans are nothing if not divided and hardly known for their collective decision-making capabilities. And with pro-Russian Right-wing populist parties on the rise everywhere…
What sort of deal would you propose, Nullius? Particularly in the case of a person who has shown time again that he is not going to respect any ‘deals’ he has signed up to. Lord Halifax was a British politician who advocated for making a ‘deal’ with Hitler. Meanwhile, Hitler & his cronies were laughing all the way to the death-camps over all the ‘deals’ they had signed up to and broken. I am sorry, but when your adversary does not negotiate in good faith & is wholly untrustworthy, things are not so simple as your logic appears to lead you to suppose. Tidy logical. arguments that appeal to some sort of ideal world, on one hand, and reality on the other do not necessarily coincide.
Sorry, this is late, but I am extremely angry, since I have never seen such a contemptible and disgusting performance as was put on by Trump and his sidekick Vance, and I should like to ask this question of Nullius, since it is not only a matter of Putin’s record of betrayal, refusal to honour agreements, murder. torture, kidnapping thousands of Ukrainian children, etc, etc: Does Nullius seriously suppose that Zelensky, or anyone, has any reason to trust Donald Trump? A man who, in his first presidency sought to extort Zelensky into providing ‘dirt’ on Biden and held up aid to Ukraine for months when Zelensky refused and so made things more difficult for Ukraine. The latest pitch about getting rare earths from Ukraine in return for the assistance the USA has to date provided (Europe has, as a matter of fact, provided more), while offering no safeguards for Ukraine’s sovereignty, is no less a despicable attempt at extortion. Trump is now again holding up assistance to Ukraine. I have never done this before — and I apologise in advance to all the fair-minded people, American and otherwise, who comment here, as well as to Ophelia, whose writing I respect and admire, but I want to say now that I speak as a European who has considerable knowledge of European history (and not just western European history), and I find the naiveté and ignorance of a certain kind of American extraordinary. And I find extraordinary the abstract level on which such people like to discuss things, without ever deigning to look at, and to respect, realities. Trump is not interested in peace at all, just as Putin is not: he is interested in making a buck and giving the appearance of being ’successful’, and in order to make a buck, he is delighted to exploit and to bully someone whom he perceives to be in a weak position. I should appreciate a serious response from Nullius.
That’s a fair challenge. What do you do with someone like Putin, who’s got a track record of breaking promises and acting in bad faith? My logic, while neat and rational, might not survive contact with a guy who sees treaties as toilet paper. I mean, you’re not wrong to question the feasibility. Putin’s history—whether it’s the crumbled Minsk agreements or his pattern of denying Russian involvement in conflicts until the evidence is undeniable—doesn’t inspire confidence. The Halifax-Hitler analogy isn’t perfect (Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were on a different scale), but it’s apt enough: why trust a scorpion not to sting? Our reality might be a game where only one side plays by the rules.
But my position isn’t as naive as you suggest. I’m not arguing for blind trust or an “ideal world”—I’m pointing out the practical flaw in demanding terms so lopsided they’d never be accepted and even to me read like an insult, never mind to a psychopath protective of his image. The “all the land plus $300 billion” idea isn’t just unlikely to work; it’s a fantasy that could prolong the fight by pissing Putin off more. Pointing out his lack of integrity doesn’t really counter that—it just shifts the focus to “well, he’s untrustworthy anyway, so what’s your plan?” We can shout that he’s evil all day, and fair enough, he certainly is, but that doesn’t really get us anywhere. We’re still stuck with the choice between endless war or a diplomatic end through some kind of deal.
So, what sort of deal could one propose? The ugly truth is any workable deal would have to be minimal, bitter, and pragmatic—something that gives Putin enough to claim a win without rewarding him so much it greenlights more aggression. Maybe it’s freezing the current lines, no reparations, and a demilitarized buffer, with Ukraine getting security guarantees from NATO but not full membership yet. It’s not justice—it’s a stalemate. He’d still crow about “protecting Russian speakers” or some nonsense, but it’s less than he wants. Enforcement would rely on hard deterrence—sanctions, military buildup—not his word, since you’re absolutely right he’d break the agreement if it suited him.
The Halifax lesson isn’t irrelevant, but it’s not the full picture. Chamberlain’s mistake wasn’t just trusting Hitler; it was misreading his bottomless appetite and Britain’s weak leverage at Munich. Here, Putin’s not invincible—he’s bogged down, economically strained, and facing a (sort of) unified West (mostly) (if you squint). A deal isn’t about faith; it’s about cold calculation, balancing what he’ll take versus what he’ll risk by fighting on. This logic isn’t blind to reality—it’s just wrestling in the muddy mess of it.
I also recommend reading Nick Cohen’s latest piece on his Writing from London website: ‘Why is it so hard to believe that Trump is a Russian asset? Kompromat and the betrayal of the West’.
And watching this on Youtube (by an American, Jayar Jackson): ‘Russian Media TAUNTS Trump’s Return With Scandalous Melania Montage’
https://youtu.be/OQk12ww4oVs?si=bxST3Bicdo-icGV_
:
You have carefully avoided the central question of why Trump should be trusted. Also, I was not discussing Neville Chamberlain, but Lord Halifax. You are being evasive.
Also, you are being naive if you suppose that Putin will not stop his aggression. It’s not a matter of ‘green lights’ (which I think Trump would have no problem with). You have a regime in power in the USA (I shall not grace it with the name of ‘government’ or ‘administration’) that has so far done this, to quote Nick Cohen:
“On her first day at work, Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general ordered the closure of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which combatted illicit Russian influence in American politics.
“Bondi also disbanded Task Force Kleptocapture which seized the assets of Russian oligarchs. Meanwhile Trump’s appointees purged the CIA and exposed the identities of CIA agents to public view.
“Russia must also have been delighted by Trump’s cuts to the US aid programme because they took money away from projects that protected Ukraine’s energy infrastructure from Russian attack. While I was researching this piece, Pete Hegseth Trump’s useful idiot of a defence secretary, ordered a halt to U.S. cyberoperations against Russia. A few hours later Trump stopped the arms supply to Ukraine.”
And yet you blather away as if this were some academic debate. I am not interested in infantile ‘debates’, which too many Americans seem to fondly believe necessarily result in truth winning out in the end.
You’re coming at me like I’m waving a Trump flag or pretending Putin’s some misunderstood choirboy—I’m not, and I haven’t. You didn’t ask why Trump should be trusted in the comment I was replying to. Apparently you wrote a second while I was replying. You’ll forgive me for not noticing. There was no evasion here. My point was never about trusting anyone, least of all a guy who’s spent years playing footsie with Moscow. It was about why “all the land plus $300B” is a fantasy that’d make Putin laugh, not sign. You’re right—Halifax, not Chamberlain, was your reference. My bad on the name, but the appeasement parallel still fits: misjudging leverage screws you, whether it’s 1938 or 2025.
The Nick Cohen rundown? Grim stuff. If Trump’s team is gutting the FBI’s Russia desk, spiking oligarch seizures, and pulling Ukraine’s plug—yeah, that’s not a green light; it’s a neon “go nuts” sign for Putin. No argument there. But I’m not “blathering” in some ivory tower. I’m saying the demand you’re mad about doesn’t work in this reality—where Putin’s a bastard and Trump’s apparently handing him the keys. You’re not wrong that he won’t stop unless he’s forced to. I get it. My stab at a deal wasn’t about trust—it was a cold, ugly pause to buy time, not a victory lap.
You’re not here for “infantile debates”—fine, neither am I. But if you think I’m dodging the mess or pretending this ends in a handshake, you’re misreading me. I’m just pointing out what’s dead on arrival. Trump’s moves might be torching any chance of even that, and that’s a shitshow worth raging about. Just don’t peg me as the cheerleader for it.
Thank you, Nullius, for making your position clear,
But I should also like to add – late, forgive me, but I am busy with many things – that your assertion that ‘the demand you’re mad about doesn’t work in this reality’ is a self-serving misrepresentation of what I wrote. Where, in what I wrote, can you find me saying this? Could you quote words of mine in which I state, or even intimate, what you are accusing me of writing? What I, as well as Bjarte Foshaug (another European), who brings in Anne Applebaum as well as Timothy Snyder, were saying is that it is pointless to negotiate with Putin, since he is wholly untrustworthy. And that when the ‘negotiations’ on the other side are being conducted by the wholly untrustworthy and traitorous Trump, the whole pretence at negotiation is a brutal farce. Please do not misrepresent what I or others say.
I also suggest, Nullius, that you take the trouble to read Anne Applebaum’s latest piece in The Atlantic:
“The Rise of the Brutal American: This is how the bad guys act.”