Regarding response 3 to Objection 1, regarding the assumptions about Russia's motivations - I disagree those are false assumptions about their motivations. Russia basically openly admitted that they wanted Ukraine back as a part of the Russian empire. The claim that Russia doesn't seem likely to want to aggress against other countries or expand their empire also doesn't mesh given their invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Also, regarding objection 3 - Russia functionally said that they would not accept a deal like this in their response to China's proposed peace plan, in which they essentially said that any peace plan would have to acknowledge "new territorial realities" in Ukraine - that is, saying that any peace plan would require Ukraine to cede additional territory. Additionally, there were rumors of backchannel conversations going on with Russia proposing similar things and Russia had no interest in them (caveat of course that they're just rumors that I remember reading some months ago, but still).
Furthermore, at least as far back as half a year ago, there was reporting about the US - counter to what one might expect - privately urging Ukraine to indicate to Russia that they were open to negotiate.
Regarding the first point, see the sources I linked for a defense of my thesis on why Russia invaded. These links should also make clear why the invasion of Georgia doesn't indicate that there will likely be more invasion in the event that a diplomatic settlement is reached. And regarding the claim that "Russia basically openly admitted that they wanted Ukraine back as a part of the Russian empire", I don't think that quotes from elected officials are very good evidence for any thesis regarding what's actually motivating said officials.
Regarding the point about Russia rejecting China's peace deal and saying that any peace plan would have to involve the ceding of additional territories, I'd say a few things. Firstly, I again wouldn't use quotes from elected officials as evidence regarding what those officials would actually accept- the negotiating process often involves being dishonest about what you'd be willing to agree to and so on. Secondly, the phrase "acknowledge new territorial realities" is quite vague, and under some construal's, the peace deal that Chomsky and I advocate for does fulfill this condition, as it involves Ukraine formally ceding Crimea. Also, even if Russia has rejected deals which are similar to the one that I and Chomsky advocate for from other countries (although for the record, the peace plan proposed by China doesn't have much similarity to that proposal), this isn't that strong of a sign that they would reject a similar deal if the US was actively pushing for it- the enthusiastic consent and compliance of the US with such a peace deal is likely very important to Russia. Russia has to worry that the Western powers could subvert a commitment to neutrality, and so they need reassurances from the west that this won't happen.
I agree that comments from elected officials is not inherently good evidence as to what's motivating them, but if they are admitting to something that would make them look bad and undermine the claim that NATO forced their hand or anything like that - I think that gives a lot more reason to trust that those are the things motivating. In other words, why would they lie about their motivations if the lie only makes them look worse and undermine the idea that Russia isn't an imperial aggressor? If they admit to something that makes them look bad, that gives significantly more reason to trust that they're telling the truth. Is it possible that they're lying, because they think it will make them look good within Russia, even if it undermines their case outside of Russia? Sure, but I don't think that's the case.
Is it possible that Russia is actually open to accepting that kind of peace deal? Sure. But the overwhelming majority of the evidence that is currently publicly available points in the opposite direction. As such, I lean much more heavily towards believing that no, they are not open to accepting it.
Regarding "acknowledg[ing] new territorial realities", if they only mean "Ukraine cedes Crimea" - then they're doing a great job of making their stance look much, much worse than it actually is.
Regarding the first point, you say that this admission would make Russia look bad, but to who? Such an admission might make Russia look bad to you or other people in the West, but it also might rile up the nationalist parts of Russia and make them more enthusiastic about the war, which could have been the intent of such signaling. It's important to note on this point that Putin has given different justifications for the war on different occasions to different audiences. He has signaled the kinds of things that you're talking about, and he has at other points mentioned NATO provocation in justifying the war.
Regarding the second point, I just dispute that the evidence to that effect is very strong, which is what we've been discussing. But as I said in the article, I don't think it's that important of a point- even if the chance of Russia accepting such a deal is rather small, the only way to verify whether or not they would is to try, and the cost benefit analysis seems to weigh pretty heavily in the direction of at least trying.
Finally, yes, as I've already mentioned, the negotiating process very frequently involves framing ones stance in a dishonest/misleading light.
Regarding your first point - I do mean to basically anyone not in Russia and that it might be a positive to some subset of particularly nationalist Russians, but it also very much could be a negative to many Russians - as it would be giving up the whole "the evil west forced our hand and we are just doing this to protect ourselves" angle. Heck, very early on in the war, when Russia still thought they were going to win within a couple days of invasion - Russian state media RIA Novosti accidentally published an article early, talking about their victory in Ukraine. They drop all of the pretexts about it having been about NATO and instead brag about it being about bringing Ukraine under the direct control of Moscow, and how this was Putin valiantly taking on the solution to the "Ukrainian question" and how this was to deal with the national humiliation of Russia having lost Ukraine in the past and being separate from them. And how this is Russia's way of signaling to the world that Russia is returning and is a major power.
It could be the case that this Russian state media piece was not actually reflective of the actual underlying beliefs of Putin when determining to invade, but again - this is just more evidence pointing in one direction.
Again, it's certainly possible that they could be lying, but with all of these points, I think that the evidence that Russia invaded for imperialist reasons is pretty strong, while the evidence that they invaded because of NATO is quite weak. Same thing regarding whether they would be willing to accept a peace deal.
While it's certainly possible that they were primarily motivated by NATO expansion and would accept a decently fair to Ukraine peace deal - the evidence is not there to make me believe that that's likely the case. Obviously I think that the US should push for a peace deal, but if Russia is not willing to accept one currently as it seems, and as the rumors of the backchannel negotiations suggest, and as Russia's response to China's proposed plan suggests - Russia is effectively already rejecting peace deals (and, again, there are rumors that the US has actually pushed Ukraine behind the scenes to try to be more willing to negotiate a peace agreement). Essentially, my take is that the thing that Chomsky says the US should push for likely has already been happening, and has been repeatedly rejected by Russia. And that, actually, the US further militarily supporting Ukraine in the manner they have been actually serves to further incentivize Russia to accept a potential peace deal (as well as strengthening Ukraine's position at the negotiating table).
Incidentally, if NATO expansion was the primary motivation for Russia's invasion - it was an incredibly dumb decision. All they've managed to do is strengthen NATO and ensure it expands more, and further incentivize other countries to want to join NATO to protect them from Russia.
Good article!
Regarding response 3 to Objection 1, regarding the assumptions about Russia's motivations - I disagree those are false assumptions about their motivations. Russia basically openly admitted that they wanted Ukraine back as a part of the Russian empire. The claim that Russia doesn't seem likely to want to aggress against other countries or expand their empire also doesn't mesh given their invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Also, regarding objection 3 - Russia functionally said that they would not accept a deal like this in their response to China's proposed peace plan, in which they essentially said that any peace plan would have to acknowledge "new territorial realities" in Ukraine - that is, saying that any peace plan would require Ukraine to cede additional territory. Additionally, there were rumors of backchannel conversations going on with Russia proposing similar things and Russia had no interest in them (caveat of course that they're just rumors that I remember reading some months ago, but still).
Furthermore, at least as far back as half a year ago, there was reporting about the US - counter to what one might expect - privately urging Ukraine to indicate to Russia that they were open to negotiate.
Regarding the first point, see the sources I linked for a defense of my thesis on why Russia invaded. These links should also make clear why the invasion of Georgia doesn't indicate that there will likely be more invasion in the event that a diplomatic settlement is reached. And regarding the claim that "Russia basically openly admitted that they wanted Ukraine back as a part of the Russian empire", I don't think that quotes from elected officials are very good evidence for any thesis regarding what's actually motivating said officials.
Regarding the point about Russia rejecting China's peace deal and saying that any peace plan would have to involve the ceding of additional territories, I'd say a few things. Firstly, I again wouldn't use quotes from elected officials as evidence regarding what those officials would actually accept- the negotiating process often involves being dishonest about what you'd be willing to agree to and so on. Secondly, the phrase "acknowledge new territorial realities" is quite vague, and under some construal's, the peace deal that Chomsky and I advocate for does fulfill this condition, as it involves Ukraine formally ceding Crimea. Also, even if Russia has rejected deals which are similar to the one that I and Chomsky advocate for from other countries (although for the record, the peace plan proposed by China doesn't have much similarity to that proposal), this isn't that strong of a sign that they would reject a similar deal if the US was actively pushing for it- the enthusiastic consent and compliance of the US with such a peace deal is likely very important to Russia. Russia has to worry that the Western powers could subvert a commitment to neutrality, and so they need reassurances from the west that this won't happen.
I agree that comments from elected officials is not inherently good evidence as to what's motivating them, but if they are admitting to something that would make them look bad and undermine the claim that NATO forced their hand or anything like that - I think that gives a lot more reason to trust that those are the things motivating. In other words, why would they lie about their motivations if the lie only makes them look worse and undermine the idea that Russia isn't an imperial aggressor? If they admit to something that makes them look bad, that gives significantly more reason to trust that they're telling the truth. Is it possible that they're lying, because they think it will make them look good within Russia, even if it undermines their case outside of Russia? Sure, but I don't think that's the case.
Is it possible that Russia is actually open to accepting that kind of peace deal? Sure. But the overwhelming majority of the evidence that is currently publicly available points in the opposite direction. As such, I lean much more heavily towards believing that no, they are not open to accepting it.
Regarding "acknowledg[ing] new territorial realities", if they only mean "Ukraine cedes Crimea" - then they're doing a great job of making their stance look much, much worse than it actually is.
Regarding the first point, you say that this admission would make Russia look bad, but to who? Such an admission might make Russia look bad to you or other people in the West, but it also might rile up the nationalist parts of Russia and make them more enthusiastic about the war, which could have been the intent of such signaling. It's important to note on this point that Putin has given different justifications for the war on different occasions to different audiences. He has signaled the kinds of things that you're talking about, and he has at other points mentioned NATO provocation in justifying the war.
Regarding the second point, I just dispute that the evidence to that effect is very strong, which is what we've been discussing. But as I said in the article, I don't think it's that important of a point- even if the chance of Russia accepting such a deal is rather small, the only way to verify whether or not they would is to try, and the cost benefit analysis seems to weigh pretty heavily in the direction of at least trying.
Finally, yes, as I've already mentioned, the negotiating process very frequently involves framing ones stance in a dishonest/misleading light.
Regarding your first point - I do mean to basically anyone not in Russia and that it might be a positive to some subset of particularly nationalist Russians, but it also very much could be a negative to many Russians - as it would be giving up the whole "the evil west forced our hand and we are just doing this to protect ourselves" angle. Heck, very early on in the war, when Russia still thought they were going to win within a couple days of invasion - Russian state media RIA Novosti accidentally published an article early, talking about their victory in Ukraine. They drop all of the pretexts about it having been about NATO and instead brag about it being about bringing Ukraine under the direct control of Moscow, and how this was Putin valiantly taking on the solution to the "Ukrainian question" and how this was to deal with the national humiliation of Russia having lost Ukraine in the past and being separate from them. And how this is Russia's way of signaling to the world that Russia is returning and is a major power.
It could be the case that this Russian state media piece was not actually reflective of the actual underlying beliefs of Putin when determining to invade, but again - this is just more evidence pointing in one direction.
(If you're curious about that article, here's an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
Or here's an english translation https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ )
Again, it's certainly possible that they could be lying, but with all of these points, I think that the evidence that Russia invaded for imperialist reasons is pretty strong, while the evidence that they invaded because of NATO is quite weak. Same thing regarding whether they would be willing to accept a peace deal.
While it's certainly possible that they were primarily motivated by NATO expansion and would accept a decently fair to Ukraine peace deal - the evidence is not there to make me believe that that's likely the case. Obviously I think that the US should push for a peace deal, but if Russia is not willing to accept one currently as it seems, and as the rumors of the backchannel negotiations suggest, and as Russia's response to China's proposed plan suggests - Russia is effectively already rejecting peace deals (and, again, there are rumors that the US has actually pushed Ukraine behind the scenes to try to be more willing to negotiate a peace agreement). Essentially, my take is that the thing that Chomsky says the US should push for likely has already been happening, and has been repeatedly rejected by Russia. And that, actually, the US further militarily supporting Ukraine in the manner they have been actually serves to further incentivize Russia to accept a potential peace deal (as well as strengthening Ukraine's position at the negotiating table).
Incidentally, if NATO expansion was the primary motivation for Russia's invasion - it was an incredibly dumb decision. All they've managed to do is strengthen NATO and ensure it expands more, and further incentivize other countries to want to join NATO to protect them from Russia.