Thread by @TarikCyrilAmar

I Re #negotiations to end the #Russia-#Ukraine war now:
1) Those who are against them or for delay need to prove their case, because they argue for many more dead as well as a continuing, unmitigated escalation risk. 2) Put differently, in a sane world, negotiations are the...

II ... default. 3) That negotiations will be very difficult is no argument against them. Fighting is even harder and more destructive and more risky. Fighting is NOT a sane default. 4) Negotiations do NOT imply capitulation; they do imply the search for MUTUAL concessions. ...

III .... 5) Negotiations as such have no costs, only concessions would. 6) It is wrong to pretend that negotiating means abandoning #Ukraine: in reality, it is perfectly possible (in fact, rational) to devise a strategy that keeps supporting Ukraine AND negotiates. This would...

IV ...mean making that continuing support conditional on Ukraine entering negotiations (this time in good faith, not Minsk-style). That, again, is something the West has every right to do (not to even speak of interest) 7) Those rejecting negotiations now have to face the fact...

V ... that, willingly or not, they are playing into the hands of neo-con proxy war strategists who want to use up #Ukraine to weaken #Russia as much as possible. 8) Mediators are available (say, Turkey). That they are not constantly advertising that availability is due to the...

VI ... fact that they are not being asked enough. To turn this lack of advertising into an argument against negotiations is perverse. 9) Those who do still do not want negotiations because they argue it is too early, must give a specific account of the "later" they envision:...

VII ... Ukraine's complete victory, a stalemate but with many more dead again, Russia's victory (in one form or the other). Put differently: They must show that not negotiation now and waiting, as they want, is NOT likely to lead to worse outcomes, incl. for Ukraine, than now.