comment: >
  
  We can say whatever we want. Ukraine doesn't control us. Like or what buddy?
context: Russia is up for grabs after this, and China will be doing the grabbing >
  
  "Grab them by the Siberia."
  :P >
  
  Not exactly. But China is watching the Csto dissolve and are eyeing up the former Soviet Asian republics and are rubbing their hands. They won’t invade an annex, they’ll just turn them into client states. >
  
  China visited Armenia recently
  It's BRI project is going right through Russia's old sphere >
  
  China, India, and Turkey are vultures circling. >
  
  Imperialism: 2023 Eastern Style 👈😎👉 >
  
  They aren’t going to invade or annex anyone. But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia are anxious to get out from under Putin’s thumb and with all Ukraine has cost him, they see a chance-and other hungry parties see their opportunity. Turkey has been flexing their diplomatic clout over Sweden and Finland joining nato, over Cyprus, and over Syria. >
  
  
  But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans
  
  At the risk of being "that guy", no Balkan state was ever a member of the USSR but your point still largely stands. All Balkan countries are in NATO bar Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia >
  
  Would you consider Moldova to be "Balkans?" I could see it being argued as such. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  "There is still the same expectation that he can be dealt with," Ukraine's ambassador to the U.K., Vadym Prystaiko, told Newsweek in an interview at Kyiv's embassy in London, just hours before Putin announced a unilateral 36-hour ceasefire-rejected by Ukraine-to mark Orthodox Christmas, which his forces then repeatedly violated.
  "He's still perceived as the reasonable guy to talk to because people want to believe that he's a reasonable guy," Prystaiko said.
  Prystaiko-who led the Ukrainian delegation in negotiating the Minsk agreements, which paused fighting in the east of Ukraine following Russia's 2014 invasion but ultimately failed to peacefully resolve the conflict-said there is no indication Putin is ready to compromise, and little hope he would honor anything agreed in future talks.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Prystaiko^#1 Putin^#2 Russian^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Russia^#5 >
  
  We must stop pretending any autocratic president-for-life is reasonable. >
  
  A very reasonable request I’d think >
  
  When was the last time the west pretended Putin was reasonable? >
  
  Chomsky argues that the entire war could have been averted if the US had only not stepped on Russia's toes and that a diplomatic option may still be possible if only the west withdraws support from Ukraine. Kissinger argues that there it is incumbent on the west to allow concessions to Russia in terms of land to maintain some sort of balance of power. Both of their arguments are predicated on Russia being rational and an honest actor, which is demonstrable not true. Both are highly influential. >
  
  That's not Chomsky's position at all. He tends to speak in positive terms about military support for Ukraine, in the sense that he thinks it's better for Ukraine to be able to defend itself than not being able to.
  He is just critical about the lack of diplomatic efforts and that the U.S. has gotten in the way of diplomatic solutions, both before the invasion and seemingly after it. He also never claims that Russia will do the right thing. He keeps saying that there's only one way to find out whether Russia can be negotiated with, and that is to try. If it fails, that's on Russia. If we don't try it ourselves, then it's also on us. >
  
  Chomsky has blamed NATO for Russias invasion since the outbreak of the war and has said that Ukraine needs to surrender it's territory to Russia. He claims the US continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons so they can fight for their freedom is what is preventing peace because his idea of peace is surrender. >
  
  He has had proper takes on the history of imperialism which makes him averse to organizations like NATO that collectively enforce western interest on the global stage. The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia who is actively engaging in overt imperialism on a sovereign nation that they themselves have a favoring towards the west has been odd to me as a long time fan of his. He is in his 90s, though, so who knows what's going on with him. His subreddit has been taken over by Russian apologists, too, so it could also just be the kind of media outlets covering his quotes since the West has pretty much blacklisted him from their media since the 2000s. >
  
  
  The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia [...] has been odd to me as a long time fan of his.
  
  Some long time fan of Chomsky you were if you completely misunderstood his role as a political dissident:
  
  See, I focus my efforts against the terror and violence of my own state for really two main reasons. First of all, in my case the actions of my state happen to make up the main component of international violence in the world. But much more importantly than that, it's because American actions are the things that I can do something about. So even if the United States were causing only a tiny fraction of the repression and violence in the world-which obviously is very far from the truth-that tiny fraction would still be what I'm responsible for, and what I should focus my efforts against. And that's based on a very simple ethical principle-namely, that the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated consequences for human beings: I think that's kind of like a fundamental moral truism... Again, it's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions.
  
  
  Noam Chomsky, 1989 >
  
  A read a few of his books a long time ago when I was in college and have checked in every once in a while since. I'm not claiming to have heard everything out of his mouth, but I appreciate the quote. It does make more sense now. >
  
  And stop pretending he's the "ONLY" problem with that country. If he dies any of the thousands of other insane and possibly worse ones may take over. >
  
  Agreed. Russia has experimented with democracy a handful of times, but guys like Putin always come out on top. >
  
  I suspect it is because Russians are so used to corruption that they don't see it as a big deal.
  This leads to weak checks and balances on rulers who can swiftly take power.
  I don't really see a way for them to fix the corruption that has become a part of their DNA. I'm thinking outside the box here, but maybe having a supreme court located in a third-party country could help stifle corruption. >
  
  Peter Pomerantsev once characterised corruption in Russia as a way to “buy into” and become part of the system. It is a desirable goal because with it comes privilege, power and a higher status over others. >
  
  Tldr for gamers: pay2win >
  
  Wait a minute, isn't that everywhere? >
  
  Yes but Russia bad and we're all armchair experts posting from squeaky clean countries that are only led by innocent rational actors. Like America >
  
  I mean, yes, Russia bad. >
  
  If Norm MacDonald was still alive we'd hear "I'm beginning to think he's not a nice guy"
  I miss those times >
  
  
  "He's still perceived as the reasonable guy to talk to because people want to believe that he's a reasonable guy," Prystaiko said.
  
  i politely disagree. he's talked to because he's the president of russia, not because anyone believes he's reasonable. change the former and the talking will stop very quickly. >
  
  He is also coherent.  He has goals, interested, and plans that are understandable and consistent over time.  He has a playbook for how he behaves to get those goals, and he follows it.  That is someone you can negotiate with in theory 
  Unfortunately, his playbook includes making deals then breaking them as soon as it is on his interest to do so.  That costs him credibility, and absent credibility you need security and enforcement mechanism in deals: and that's difficult and complex.  
  Worse for Putin, right now the only options he had all run counter to his goals and objectives.  So this is going to be a really hard knot to untie. >
  
  Well, you contradicted the conclusion of your first paragraph in your second paragraph - it is impossible to negotiate with someone, who does not honor any agreements, can't keep the story straight and continues lying despite knowing that you know that he is lying.
  Also I would disagree about his level of coherence: the man's objective of rebuilding the USSR and establishing himself as one of the most prominent figures in Russian history is both irrational and unachievable and his choice of methods (19th century style war, terrorism, genocide) is absurd in the 21st century setting. Also he clearly does no adapt well - his demands do not waiver despite all the failures. He just wants "his" Ukraine no matter the consequences.
  Edited: replaced chapter with paragraph. >
  
  I call his goal of neo USSR in question. IMO his only goal is to stay in power any means necessary. 
  I have a very different opinion on this war. IMO Putin is lying through his teeth when he says he's there to defend russians or rebuild USSR. He himself said "He without a heart doesn't miss USSR. He without a brain will attempt to remake it." People are actually not really happy with him, hasn't been for quite a while, his return in 12 wasn't all that well received. But he rallied the country around the flag with Crimea. Only this rallying cry has died out, especially with people not happy with the COVID response. Putin ratings reached the absolute lowest in February 2022 before the invasion. Of course 48 is still really high, but Putin ratings are a peculiar thing. So I think he wanted to repeat the Crimea miracle. But it all went very wrong for him. >
  
  
  IMO his only goal is to stay in power any means necessary. 
  
  If his goal was to stay in power he could have spent the rest of his life as the wealthiest man in the world sitting in his palace licking bourbon off of a gymnast's navel and russia would have still been seen as a regional power and nobody would have given a fuck. But no. He went out of his way to stir the pot. to change the status quo. To ensure that he and his whole country are worse off for decades to come and ultimately meet a violent end. And for what? Greed? Oh, that's right. Hate. He hates his own countrymen and everyone else so much that he is willing to put all his wealth, his power, his position in the world, the very existence of his mother land on the line in order to give out a final "fuck you". >
  
  Except that doesn't work that way. His wealth is ill gained. What will happen if someone else comes around and mismanages Russia to the point the government becomes legitimate? He will be in prison immediately. All his mansions confiscated, all his friends and family in prison on corruption charges. Or what if the new guy has ambitions? A few moves and Putin will be cut from everything, hoping to God the new guy doesn't come for him. He will be in his mansion going to his multimillion dollar bed each night with the fear of not waking up. 
  Just see Tokaev in Kazakhstan. He renamed the capital in his boss name. Now he's elbowing Nazarbaev friends and family out.
  At this point I doubt Putin trusts his own shadow. But he will have to step down sooner or later. >
  
  He could have stayed in power until death without starting this war.
  Your answer seems to assume that if he stopped being president he would be in danger, and therefore he had to start the war, which makes no sense. Why does he have to step down? Did Stalin step down? Do you think Xi will ever step down? Plenty of dictators died in office, and no reason to think different of this one. >
  
  This is the most apocryphal exchange I've ever heard. Goes up there with "he's not even the best drummer in the Beatles" >
  
  How could it be apocryphal if it's a direct quote from one of the two persons involved? >
  
  I once told Nelson Mandela in the 60s he should keep his chin up and that one day Morgan Freeman would play him in a Clint Eastwood movie, and he gave me a thumbs up.
  Can't be dubious about that since I said I said it. >
  
  By that logic you cannot believe anything that isn't notarized and even then.
  Until about 2016 POTUS would have been near the top of the list of people one might expect just not to blatantly make shit up. >
  
  Nixon:
  
  I can say categorically that… no one in the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.
  
  Clinton:
  
  I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
  
  Reagan:
  
  In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.
  
  FDR:
  
  I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.
  
  LBJ:
  
  As President and Commander in Chief, it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.
  
  G HW Bush:
  
  Read my lips: no new taxes
  
  G W Bush:
  
  In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
  
  Presidential history goes back a ways, it's a pretty interesting subject if you look into it.
  Here's some music to get you in the mood. >
  
  Tell that to these so-called “pacifists” in my country, most notoriously a certain woman named Wagenknecht. Twitter is horribly infested with these fools and I get an aneurysm every time I attempt to browse a thread below something she’s posted. The amount of likes on the replies favouring her there feel like a gut-punch too. I just can’t with these people anymore.
  Blergh. >
  
  I feel like pretending your counterparts are reasonable is like 75% of diplomacy. Once you violate that conceit, all you have left is, as Clausewitz says, the "continuation of political intercourse, with other means." >
  
  outside of macron, i'm not sure anyone else in the west thinks putin is reasonable. >
  
  You can watch the documentary with the leaked phone calls. I don't think he seemed naive at all, and was not softballing anything.
  They even stated just straight up at some point that nothing Putin can say can be trusted, as he is a liar, and that was even before the war started. >
  
  sure, but every so often macron comes out and says something like ukraine needs to talk to putin, or be ok with giving up land etc. as if any of that would stop putin. which is pretty much the ambassador's point, that macron pretends putin is unreasonable but in actuality he knows putin isn't reasonable at all. >
  
  I mean he’s probably right. Putin may be unreasonable, but if Ukraine is serious about regaining its territory, including Crimea, on the battlefield and not negotiating in any capacity this war is going to last a decade. Putin is not reasonable and not to be trusted, but he is still the President of Russia and Ukraine needs to have some kind of diplomatic dialogue to work on a potential treaty however futile that might be. >
  
  Ukraine already has a treaty with Russia about territorial inviolability, it was signed in 1994. I guess this time Putin could take that document and sign it with "But no, seriously, this time for real". >
  
  Parts of the west have to stop trying lick the soles of putin’s feet first >
  
  Already at war with nato?  I think not 💩tin if that was the case your military would have been destroyed by now. What a cock. >
  
  I mean, they are pretty much in a soft war with NATO.
  If it wasn't for western/NATO arms and support, Ukraine would have folded ages ago.
  Also, western arms manufacturers have a vested interest in seeing this conflict stretch out as long as possible.
  Putin may be unreasonable, but defense contractors profit from his unreasonableness. >
  
  So Putin can be armed by anyone: Iran, North Korea, China, etc without criticism but if Ukraine gets armed suddenly you are “concerned?” Uh ok. >
  
  Did I say that?  Nice attempt at a straw man.
  But sorry, the way I see it, is that arms manufacturers on both sides will profit from a prolonged conflict that doesn't spill over into all out war.
  Hence why the west won't actually play its full hand and why Putin won't just flatten Ukraine.
  Older tech is being cycled to either side to make room for a new fleet of things that will be sold off in this slow burn.  This leads to stronger lobbying by these powers and more consolidation of their influence on global politics. >
  
  The West knows Putin is unreasonable.
  They're (a) Playing the same games back at Russia with double-speak, and (b) giving him an off-ramp. >
  
  Putin? Reasonable? haha, good one but this isnt comedy club >
  
  IIRC Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler on a couple of occasions and insisted he was sane and was only going to occupy Poland. He had no plans for war.
  He then bombed the shit out of London and much of the rest of Europe. Fuck Putin >
  
  The UK was not ready for a war with Germany. This bought valuable time to prepare. >
  
  For some reason, when I read the title at first I thought it was about Kanye West. >
  
  Well, it probably applies to him too. >
  
  
  “It's silly to try to escape other people's faults. They are inescapable. Just try to escape your own.” 
  
  — Marcus Aurelius >
  
  I strongly think this is another fake quote.  
  I did a CTRL+F and I cannot find this quote in Meditations. >
  
  The west is not pretending Putin, or Russia, is reasonable.  If the folks east of Ukraine were "reasonable" they would have changed their ways before allowing the USSR to collapse.  Not in their mindset.  They will continue down this path regardless. >
  
  Ukraine is right and shouldn’t have to keep repeating the obvious. One reason it was such a relief to have Biden in office is it put an abrupt end to Putin’s hypnotic hold on US so-called leadership and the minds of its supporters. It’s so tiresome trying to follow imbeciles dragging their butts in circles of F’ing oblivion. (: D) >
  
  Any time I hear some politician say "at some point they have to start talking", I roll my eyes. They can talk when Russia is defeated and out of all Ukrainian territory. 
  Any talking before that is just a delay for Putin to try to unfuck his debacle. >
  
  How you defeat a country with nuclear weapon ? Talking is literally the only solution. You can beat them out of ukrainia but they will still have the possibility to escalate more one way or another. After  and if they conquere back ukrainia , they will have to talk. >
  
  MAD has this far been enough to prevent that. Russia doesn't need to be defeated in that Russia needs to be invaded. It just needs to have it's forces in Ukraine expelled. And it's highly unlikely that Putin will use a nuclear weapon to prevent that. 
  Russia will likely be defeated but they will never pay for what they did, beyond the cost of the war and the sanctions. And the sanctions will probably go away shortly after the war ends.
  So that's not to say the war hasn't cost Russia. Indeed, it likely Russia's economy won't recover for decades. >
  
  Yeah he's a cunt. We all know it. >
  
  Russia should never have invaded Ukraine! >
  
  Are we pretending he is reasonable? If we thought he was reasonable we would have sent in our armies to stop the invasion at the start. We didn’t because we know he’s crazy and he has nukes. >
  
  Who thought he was reasonable? Haven’t we been worried about his mental health and the possibility that he’s physically sick and massively paranoid too? >
  
  I mean, only propagandists and Putin himself have been pretending Putin is reasonable. We've all known for decades that he's not. >
  
  That has become much more evident to everyone more recently. >
  
  Who is pretending Putin is reasonable apart from a couple of corrupt governments? >
  
  Did I miss someone in the west thinking Putin was reasonable/rational?  I mean, it's a part of why NATO has been hands off here.  They know Lil' Putie is coo-coo for cocoa puffs and has nuclear armaments. >
  
  Was there ever a point when Putin was anything else other than a tyrannical autocrat? >
  
  Last time I seen putin he was gripping a table for dear life. He's not in any condition to lead a country let alone an invasion. >
  
  West: Hello Russia, can we talk?  
  Putin: Err, yes hello? This is the true world leader talking.  
  West: Ooof, er, can we talk to somebody else in charge over there?  
  Putin: Yes of course, let me step aside comrade! >
  
  But Orange angry man says he very smart! >
  
  I don’t think they believe he’s reasonable. It’s more of a crisis control management approach. >
  
  I didn’t know we thought he was reasonable at all. >
  
  Anyone else think they were talking about Kanye for a second? >
  
  We have a small problem. Our conservatives love Putin for some reason. They have turned the war in Ukraine into a wedge issue somehow. If you ask a one of them if they would fight for their home they would say yes. They want to own libs and they think letting Russia destroy Ukraine is one way to do it. They are hypocritical betas, who want to be led by strong men. They bow down to who ever projects that image. >
  
  
  Our conservatives love Putin for some reason.
  
  In those circles, there seems to be a certain glorification of... idk, breaking the rules?  When you know in your gut what's right, you can't let those effete bureaucrat's slavish devotion to proper procedures get in the way.
  Jack Bauer's always the hero... never mind whether he's committing torture, murder, etc. >
  
  Yea but Russia has nukes. So the West needs to keep pretending even when they know he's full of shit. >
  
  Thankfully, the only part where Putin still seems to be reasonable is the part where he won't commit suicide by nukes. If you can even call that reasonable. >
  
  I'm worried that we could still be getting there. The man is dying of cancer, has basically lost this war. The best he can do is fight one country to a stand still. He's a huge narcissist so when he is on his death bed he'll push the button just to go down in history. >
  
  There won't be any more history if he does. >
  
  Or that he keeps his promises.
  Or that he abides by contracts. >
  
  Or the Russian apologists, fascists here in the US and abroad. >
  
  Precisely.
  They want him to be reasonable - to see reason, so they'll keep on talking and hoping that things will go back to the old status quo.
  It's the same kind of backwards thinking that eventually led to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement... and we all know how well that turned out.
  Don't expect a warmongering dictator with culture-destroying, border-changing dreams to just turn around and play nice. >
  
  Putin isn't reasonable... or he would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.
  His 2014 separatist Ukraine insurrection was failing and he had a fat war chest from all the oil money.  It was a conscious decision to invade when he did and to lie about it the whole time.
  People like that can't be reasoned with. >
  
  He is a lying murdering piece of shit and he should not be trusted at all. >
  
  In case you needed a reminder of why centralizing authority is a bad idea. There’s a lot of people who fetishizes hierarchies, and it’s all well and good until your countries leader or companies CEO goes nuts >
  
  My dyslexia read “responsible” and I said, out loud, WHAT. >
  
  Sorry I missed it, who in the west thinks Putin is "reasonable"? >
  
  oh I thought the title meant Kanye West because it sounded like something he would say >
  
  I don't even know why he has to come out and say that. So sad. It's clear Putin us unreasonable, just like the US Republican Party is. but somehow a lot of older weaker Democrats always try to give them the benefit of the doubt. STOP. >
  
  Even assuming Putin is reasonable he has ever incentive to pretend he isn't and act like it.  He doesn't want to make it seem like you can kill enough Russians to make him go away. >
  
  Lmao look how pathetic Putin is in that picture. >
  
  When interacting with a stupid or unreasonable person who is also dangerously powerful, it can be wise to flatter him with the idea that he's rational, in the hopes that he'll believe you and choose the less-destructive path. >
  
  We need to stop pretending a whole lot of politicians world wide are reasonable...Rather the right people need to stop and do something about it, besides joining them. Many of us have figured that out long ago. >
  
  Can we also slip a memo to the folks on Fox News and on the far-right and far-left in the U.S? I don’t think they have got it, and continue to pretend that Putin is a sane man who wants to negotiate. >
  
  I agree. Call his fucking bluff already. Shit will just drag on forever. >
  
  I think it's more that we're hoping he's reasonable. Maybe if we hope hard enough, he won't be a nutcase. >
  
  Don’t forget how friends act >
  
  He is reasonable….for those you know politics truly…they know why >
  
  The one time I would want cancer to win is for you Putin!! >
  
  We know he's not reasonable. He's an unreasonable man WITH NUKES. We have to be careful; one misstep and we ALL die. >
  
  have we been? I know some have called for a ceasefire, but lets be real here, most of the west is happy to watch ukraine kick russias ass >
  
  The west does not want a ceasefire yet.
  They want Ukraine to give Putin’s Russia a big kicking.  They want Ukraine to win, but then they pull their punches by trickling supplies into Ukraine. >
  
  but this is what politics and diplomacy are based on - to pretend that you believe in reason and logic >
  
  ...were we doing that? >
  
  Is there anyone claiming that he is reasonable? >
  
  When have we ever done that? The guy’s been a violent tyrant since day one. >
  
  I would be okay if all of the republics split off and became separate countries finally. Omg finally free. >
  
  It's actually prolonging the war.  I know this sounds completely stupid, but if you think about it, negotiating with Russia is like trying to reason with a child having a tantrum. 
  Think about it this way, if the whole world shuts Putin out, nobody talks to him, well, probably his underlings will kill him quickly, but we wouldn't know about it.   Regardless, this would be good for the rest of the world. >
  
  Yes, we've met Putin before, thanks. >
  
  He is rational regarding one thing: his survival. Once the war started by misjudgment or whatever, he is acting very rational re: survival but irrational re: everything else. >
  
  Pooty keeps forgetting to take his meds . >
  
  I'd settle for stop pretending Putin is competent.
  And a big fat Apology Cake with the words "Sorry We Kept Saying Vladimir Putin Isn't A Goddamn Moron For Twenty Years, You Were Totally Right About Everything, LAVATORR" written in blue and yellow frosting. >
  
  We can solve this by dissolving the Russian Federation >
  
  Lmao we warned you russia was going to invade and you called us fearmomgers >
  
  Each time I see his face I see an pig-rat hybrid coming out from a lab! LOL >
  
  Yeah, they should probably start doing this for all the other fascists too. >
  
  Nobody (including  his own country) thinks he is reasonable! >
  
  I don’t think anyone thinks this man is reasonable.. we all think he’s an absolute piece of dog shit. >
  
  I’m unsure who in the West think Putin isn’t anything other than a raving lunatic. Oh, I forgot the Republicans. >
  
  I don't think the west is pretending Putin is reasonable. >
  
  Putin only understands consequence.  Reason and “right” have nothing to do with any of it all.  His only calculus is what risk he can get away with, and what consequences he will suffer if he fails.   
  Dealing with a Hitler-style gambler like that is straightforward.  Create massive and harsh consequences. >
  
  We need to ensure that Putin loses - and although the west has done a lot to help - it’s been too little too slowly.
  It’s like the west wants this to take 4 or 5 years.. Where as Ukraine can’t really afford for it to take that long. >
  
  I completely agree. 
  However, in doing so would also force the United States to take the same approach to republicans. >
  
  Individual leaders at various points have represented various positions. Hawkish. Dovish.  Off ramps and no embarrassment rules from one voice, one day. "We will fight them on the beaches" talk on others. 
  In aggregate, the west has been tactical and resolute. Fighting and bravery has been all Ukraine. The west was on point with intelligence, tactical diplomacy, solidarity and high stakes strategy. 
  Russia was not playing a dead hand. They had Europe's whole energy system by the nuts going into this. They have a nuclear arsenal. There are sharp divisions in western societies. Between NATO allies. Between the us and China. 
  Putin is incredibly bad at war. Bad generalship and long term military neglect gave Ukrainians a fighting chance. A Bully's conceit. They took them. Putin is not bad at politics, espionage or economics. He's good at those. He came prepared.  Russia did not concede any economic or political losses except by force. 
  Sinking the black sea fleet and flying SEAD had unacceptable risks. Nuclear Appocalypse. It couldn't be done. 
  The path take preserved and enhanced Ukraine's fighting chances. We're near a point where western arms can (a) be practically fielded by Ukrainians and (b) risk escalation is moderate. 
  That's almost an overstatement, because risk of nuclear war is higher now than almost ever. This war is incredibly dangerous and difficult to navigate. This is many times harder than the Cuban missile crisis. 
  Surprising as it is, Biden has shown a lot of ability at the "free world bigchief" job. From the way intelligence was leveraged during the first days to now. The last competent commander and chief was og bush. The last 4 were bumbling fools, in practice... IMO.
  Whatever Putin is, he knows damn well that a ceasefire is attainable on the basis of a pre-innvasion lines. Not guaranteed, but attainable. It may not be face saving but it is a viable off ramp. It saves a lot, stoping the bloodshed and perhaps even saving the still intact russian economy. He knows all this. >
  
  You just gotta say, “It’s not our fault you invaded another country, no you can’t keep it” >
  
  It would be funny if the important world leaders publicly answered it in the same way the request is worded: "I disagree! I think we should keep pretending he is reasonable!" >
  
  He's a self obsessed, narcissistic megalomaniac and sociopath. But don't for one second write him off as mad or stupid. >
  
  I do not see any positive relationship with Russia while Putin in the leader. I also do not see the possibly of another leader while Putin is living. 
  We have missile with knives that can take out a terrorist with pin point accuracy. Someone get putins address and send it. >
  
  Well, what can The West do?
  Honestly. Realistically. Politically. Practically.
  The only countermeasure we have is NATO and MAD. We can joke all we want about how their nuclear silos are probably full of rusted non-viable missiles and empty vodka bottles, but we don't know that. 
  When Russia starts encroaching on non-NATO countries we can't get involved without declaring war on Russia. We can't do that. We had an entire Cold War where we explored every goddamn possibility under the sun. We have no nuclear deterrent except to not go to war. 
  We know Putin is not reasonable. We know he's a fucking lunatic. We know he's unhinged. That's why we have to treat him like he's not. The last thing we need is for a cancer-ridden psychopath to feel like his macho alpha-male dirtbag fee-fees are being hurt by other world powers. We're worried that he's gonna start shooting nukes for the hell of it, because he has nothing left to lose. We have to at least openly pretend that negotiations are possible and go through the motions so he doesn't start acting like a cornered dog.
  Remember that scene in Wrath of Khan where he goes all Captain Ahab in his final moments? That's what we're trying to avoid right now. >
  
  It is well known that he is not, but the media still acts like he is. And of course the Republicans think he walks on water. >
  
  Blame traitors like Tucker Carlson for spreading Russian disinformation to millions of gullible Americans every single night. >
  
  Putin looks disgusting >
  
  Always. >
  
  I think the west are giving in to Putin like they did with hitler through appeasement >
  
  Oh, we knew that 20 years ago. >
  
  I ain't pretending that >
  
  And we should stop pretending that those outside of Russia, in the Americas and Europe’s, who idolize Putin and want to model their governments after his, are reasonable. They are not and have no desire to be reasonable. They want what they want regardless of how many people they murder along the way. >
  
  The West needs to take the gloves off and stop this trickle of more powerful weapons. The US needs to grow a pair and show Russia full on commitment to this fight. Military Bases around the country should be openly training ground forces as fast as possible. Stop half measures and go full send. Russian Forces are KIA immune so the logical counter is to increase the amount of KIA's that UAF can inflict. >
  
  The only ones pretending are the Far Right. The M. (wherever) Great Again and Truck Convoy types. >
  
  Oh, we aren't fooled. Well, the Right's leadership and propagandists love him, but only out of political expediency. The masses on the right think their leaders are serious and cheer for Putin while booing our own government. They are the proletariat authoritarians' dream of. So. Bottom line? Vote as if your Democracy depends upon it. Because it does. >
  
  
  Top Ukrainian diplomat who once led peace talks with Moscow has warned Kyiv's foreign partners not to count on rational dialogue with President Vladimir Putin, as the Russian leader is "unreasonable" and increasingly isolated from reality.
  
  Yet Redditors insist on maximalist terms for ending the conflict while blithely dismissing the risk of nuclear war, assuming Putin will be constrained by MAD. >
  
  I think Macron is doing a kind of 'good cop, bad cop' thing with Putin, where he is still polite with him to keep communication lines open.
  However, from watching the documentary on the phone calls, he is not naive at all of who Putin is, and was not in any way a pushover. >
  
  
  no one with any IQ would ever think Putin was reasonable. He is a former KGB thug with the grandiose plans that so many of those scum have with restoring the Great Soviet empire...same empire that sheepherders kicked their asses in late 1980s/
  a thug is a thug >
  
  Well he is reasonable… in the sense that his political (and likely his life) depends on the Russian ecosystem still believing in an - unlikely - victory
  It is the ghadafi precedent: there is no alternative for a dictator but to die in peace or bring everyone with him to avoid what happen to Ghadafi >
  
  I don't think the US gov't is pretending he's reasonable. When your enemy is digging their own grave, sometimes you just quietly let them do it. Personally I would favor getting more involved than we already are, but I'm just an average American and I'm not the government. I have two mouths to feed, I have to go to work every day. But at least I order stuff from St Javelin, and I'll gladly import some Zelenskyy vodka if they would just ship it here. >
  
  I would agree we in the west need to stop believing Putin is reasonable but we still have folk that think Trump is too. But Ukraine Ambassador I do recall the Wesr warning you of what Putin was going to do when he masted his army on your borders and you told the west it wouldn't happen. >
  
  At this point, Igor Sechin looks like a viable choice to replace Pootin. The West needs to give him more motivation to pull the trigger - both figuratively and literally… >
  
  Putin should be treated as a common criminal. >
  
  Democrats must stop pretending Republicans are reasonable: Progressives. >
  
  I think most democratic politicians have gotten there.
  Democratic voters - And, most importantly - The newsmedia have not.
  In order to appear to lack "bias" the newsmedia is desperate to pretend Republicans are "reasonable" so they can "present both sides" - Even though one side is completely whackadoodle. >
  
  They really ought to come out and say one side is wackadoodle.. >
  
  Same could be said for the GOP and Donald Trump >
  
  We can say whatever we want. Ukraine doesn't control us. Like or what buddy? >
  
  I mean, he's not reasonable but he's also a crazy man with nukes. I'm inclined to pretend, at least publicly. >
  
  give us more money! >
  
  We aren’t. We are literally sending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of artillery and ammo to kill 100k+ young Russian men led by Putin. >
  
  We can't, we're still getting over Trump.
  We had over 600 mass shootings in 2022. 
  Anything could be reasonable to us. >
  
  Macron is probably the most guilty of it, he kept calling Poo well after the war started, hoping that a reasonable discussion can solve it. >
  
  We should stop deluding ourselves into thinking any level of fascism and/or authoritarianism is ever, EVER reasonable. >
  
  Ah yes, let’s act as if one half of the equation is completely irrational. There’s no way this leads to escalation or bad outcomes >
  
  I'm so tired of this flaccid leadership in the west. It's like a few decades ago we stopped being ruled by actual leaders, and started getting ruled by fraudster lawyers. >
  
  West must stop pretending it's hands are clean in causing this whole tragedy. >
  
  Reverse every headline you see about Putin on reddit and you'll be closer to the truth >
  
  The Corporate West sees anyone willing to use their products to wage war as reasonable. This is a large part of the problem. >
  
  Your problem is that people outside of Russia just aren't dumb enough to believe that stuff like the people in Russia.  The west didn't invade Ukraine, Putin and his fascist regime invaded Ukraine.  That's why Ukraine has most of the world behind it and Putin only has Iran, North Korea, and you. >
  
  Idk why people thought the Soviet mindset ever died. >
  
  Not gonna happen unfortunately. Just like Democrats are going to continue taking Republicans at face value when they know they are liars, and how Republicans keep acting like they are somehow reasonable when they are delusional nutjobs who have no shame spreading lies and propaganda that only keeps their politicians in financial prosperity and not themselves >
  
  The west doesn't think Putin is reasonable, what he's trying to snipe at is America first conservatives and they don't like Putin at all either, the problem is we are also sick and tired of sticking out noses into every conflict around the world. So while we, America first people, hope the best for Ukraine, we would rather spend the money on helping our own citizens get out of poverty and building our own infrastructure. >
  
  
  America first conservatives and they don't like Putin at all either
  
  You might consider getting your eyes and ears checked. >
  
  Go ahead and show me someone that supports Putin. I'll wait. >
  
  Did you sleep thru Trumps presidency?  Wish I couldve…. >
  
  Russia is up for grabs after this, and China will be doing the grabbing >
  
  "Grab them by the Siberia."
  :P >
  
  Not exactly. But China is watching the Csto dissolve and are eyeing up the former Soviet Asian republics and are rubbing their hands. They won’t invade an annex, they’ll just turn them into client states. >
  
  China visited Armenia recently
  It's BRI project is going right through Russia's old sphere >
  
  China, India, and Turkey are vultures circling. >
  
  Imperialism: 2023 Eastern Style 👈😎👉 >
  
  They aren’t going to invade or annex anyone. But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia are anxious to get out from under Putin’s thumb and with all Ukraine has cost him, they see a chance-and other hungry parties see their opportunity. Turkey has been flexing their diplomatic clout over Sweden and Finland joining nato, over Cyprus, and over Syria. >
  
  
  But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans
  
  At the risk of being "that guy", no Balkan state was ever a member of the USSR but your point still largely stands. All Balkan countries are in NATO bar Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia >
  
  No but they were part of the Eastern Bloc which were Soviet in all but name. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  "There is still the same expectation that he can be dealt with," Ukraine's ambassador to the U.K., Vadym Prystaiko, told Newsweek in an interview at Kyiv's embassy in London, just hours before Putin announced a unilateral 36-hour ceasefire-rejected by Ukraine-to mark Orthodox Christmas, which his forces then repeatedly violated.
  "He's still perceived as the reasonable guy to talk to because people want to believe that he's a reasonable guy," Prystaiko said.
  Prystaiko-who led the Ukrainian delegation in negotiating the Minsk agreements, which paused fighting in the east of Ukraine following Russia's 2014 invasion but ultimately failed to peacefully resolve the conflict-said there is no indication Putin is ready to compromise, and little hope he would honor anything agreed in future talks.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Prystaiko^#1 Putin^#2 Russian^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Russia^#5 >
  
  He has a legion of PR monkeys who keep screaming that he must nuke the West and other shit so that he can say no and seem like the reasonable guy. He is not, he is a monster. Pure evil by now. >
  
  A very reasonable request I’d think >
  
  When was the last time the west pretended Putin was reasonable? >
  
  Chomsky argues that the entire war could have been averted if the US had only not stepped on Russia's toes and that a diplomatic option may still be possible if only the west withdraws support from Ukraine. Kissinger argues that there it is incumbent on the west to allow concessions to Russia in terms of land to maintain some sort of balance of power. Both of their arguments are predicated on Russia being rational and an honest actor, which is demonstrable not true. Both are highly influential. >
  
  That's not Chomsky's position at all. He tends to speak in positive terms about military support for Ukraine, in the sense that he thinks it's better for Ukraine to be able to defend itself than not being able to.
  He is just critical about the lack of diplomatic efforts and that the U.S. has gotten in the way of diplomatic solutions, both before the invasion and seemingly after it. He also never claims that Russia will do the right thing. He keeps saying that there's only one way to find out whether Russia can be negotiated with, and that is to try. If it fails, that's on Russia. If we don't try it ourselves, then it's also on us. >
  
  Chomsky has blamed NATO for Russias invasion since the outbreak of the war and has said that Ukraine needs to surrender it's territory to Russia. He claims the US continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons so they can fight for their freedom is what is preventing peace because his idea of peace is surrender. >
  
  He has had proper takes on the history of imperialism which makes him averse to organizations like NATO that collectively enforce western interest on the global stage. The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia who is actively engaging in overt imperialism on a sovereign nation that they themselves have a favoring towards the west has been odd to me as a long time fan of his. He is in his 90s, though, so who knows what's going on with him. His subreddit has been taken over by Russian apologists, too, so it could also just be the kind of media outlets covering his quotes since the West has pretty much blacklisted him from their media since the 2000s. >
  
  
  The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia [...] has been odd to me as a long time fan of his.
  
  Some long time fan of Chomsky you were if you completely misunderstood his role as a political dissident:
  
  See, I focus my efforts against the terror and violence of my own state for really two main reasons. First of all, in my case the actions of my state happen to make up the main component of international violence in the world. But much more importantly than that, it's because American actions are the things that I can do something about. So even if the United States were causing only a tiny fraction of the repression and violence in the world-which obviously is very far from the truth-that tiny fraction would still be what I'm responsible for, and what I should focus my efforts against. And that's based on a very simple ethical principle-namely, that the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated consequences for human beings: I think that's kind of like a fundamental moral truism... Again, it's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions.
  
  
  Noam Chomsky, 1989 >
  
  A read a few of his books a long time ago when I was in college and have checked in every once in a while since. I'm not claiming to have heard everything out of his mouth, but I appreciate the quote. It does make more sense now. >
  
  And stop pretending he's the "ONLY" problem with that country. If he dies any of the thousands of other insane and possibly worse ones may take over. >
  
  Agreed. Russia has experimented with democracy a handful of times, but guys like Putin always come out on top. >
  
  I suspect it is because Russians are so used to corruption that they don't see it as a big deal.
  This leads to weak checks and balances on rulers who can swiftly take power.
  I don't really see a way for them to fix the corruption that has become a part of their DNA. I'm thinking outside the box here, but maybe having a supreme court located in a third-party country could help stifle corruption. >
  
  Peter Pomerantsev once characterised corruption in Russia as a way to “buy into” and become part of the system. It is a desirable goal because with it comes privilege, power and a higher status over others. >
  
  Tldr for gamers: pay2win >
  
  Wait a minute, isn't that everywhere? >
  
  Yes but Russia bad and we're all armchair experts posting from squeaky clean countries that are only led by innocent rational actors. Like America >
  
  I mean, yes, Russia bad. >
  
  If Norm MacDonald was still alive we'd hear "I'm beginning to think he's not a nice guy"
  I miss those times >
  
  
  "He's still perceived as the reasonable guy to talk to because people want to believe that he's a reasonable guy," Prystaiko said.
  
  i politely disagree. he's talked to because he's the president of russia, not because anyone believes he's reasonable. change the former and the talking will stop very quickly. >
  
  He is also coherent.  He has goals, interested, and plans that are understandable and consistent over time.  He has a playbook for how he behaves to get those goals, and he follows it.  That is someone you can negotiate with in theory 
  Unfortunately, his playbook includes making deals then breaking them as soon as it is on his interest to do so.  That costs him credibility, and absent credibility you need security and enforcement mechanism in deals: and that's difficult and complex.  
  Worse for Putin, right now the only options he had all run counter to his goals and objectives.  So this is going to be a really hard knot to untie. >
  
  Well, you contradicted the conclusion of your first paragraph in your second paragraph - it is impossible to negotiate with someone, who does not honor any agreements, can't keep the story straight and continues lying despite knowing that you know that he is lying.
  Also I would disagree about his level of coherence: the man's objective of rebuilding the USSR and establishing himself as one of the most prominent figures in Russian history is both irrational and unachievable and his choice of methods (19th century style war, terrorism, genocide) is absurd in the 21st century setting. Also he clearly does no adapt well - his demands do not waiver despite all the failures. He just wants "his" Ukraine no matter the consequences.
  Edited: replaced chapter with paragraph. >
  
  I call his goal of neo USSR in question. IMO his only goal is to stay in power any means necessary. 
  I have a very different opinion on this war. IMO Putin is lying through his teeth when he says he's there to defend russians or rebuild USSR. He himself said "He without a heart doesn't miss USSR. He without a brain will attempt to remake it." People are actually not really happy with him, hasn't been for quite a while, his return in 12 wasn't all that well received. But he rallied the country around the flag with Crimea. Only this rallying cry has died out, especially with people not happy with the COVID response. Putin ratings reached the absolute lowest in February 2022 before the invasion. Of course 48 is still really high, but Putin ratings are a peculiar thing. So I think he wanted to repeat the Crimea miracle. But it all went very wrong for him. >
  
  
  IMO his only goal is to stay in power any means necessary. 
  
  If his goal was to stay in power he could have spent the rest of his life as the wealthiest man in the world sitting in his palace licking bourbon off of a gymnast's navel and russia would have still been seen as a regional power and nobody would have given a fuck. But no. He went out of his way to stir the pot. to change the status quo. To ensure that he and his whole country are worse off for decades to come and ultimately meet a violent end. And for what? Greed? Oh, that's right. Hate. He hates his own countrymen and everyone else so much that he is willing to put all his wealth, his power, his position in the world, the very existence of his mother land on the line in order to give out a final "fuck you". >
  
  Except that doesn't work that way. His wealth is ill gained. What will happen if someone else comes around and mismanages Russia to the point the government becomes legitimate? He will be in prison immediately. All his mansions confiscated, all his friends and family in prison on corruption charges. Or what if the new guy has ambitions? A few moves and Putin will be cut from everything, hoping to God the new guy doesn't come for him. He will be in his mansion going to his multimillion dollar bed each night with the fear of not waking up. 
  Just see Tokaev in Kazakhstan. He renamed the capital in his boss name. Now he's elbowing Nazarbaev friends and family out.
  At this point I doubt Putin trusts his own shadow. But he will have to step down sooner or later. >
  
  He could have stayed in power until death without starting this war.
  Your answer seems to assume that if he stopped being president he would be in danger, and therefore he had to start the war, which makes no sense. Why does he have to step down? Did Stalin step down? Do you think Xi will ever step down? Plenty of dictators died in office, and no reason to think different of this one. >
  
  We must stop pretending any autocratic president-for-life is reasonable. >
  
  Fuck Putin but that is one badass comeback >
  
  It's kinda edgelord-y.  Like his pictures shirtless on horseback >
  
  I mean he's definitely an insecure drama queen but Bidens line was so dramatic he just had to do it >
  
  Honestly the whole thing sounds like a fake accounting.  I find it hard to believe Biden would have said that, while VP, to another leader of a foreign power.
  But yeah if it's true then what else could you reply with. >
  
  Agreed. Probably just political fanfiction. >
  
  I feel like pretending your counterparts are reasonable is like 75% of diplomacy. Once you violate that conceit, all you have left is, as Clausewitz says, the "continuation of political intercourse, with other means." >
  
  Tell that to these so-called “pacifists” in my country, most notoriously a certain woman named Wagenknecht. Twitter is horribly infested with these fools and I get an aneurysm every time I attempt to browse a thread below something she’s posted. The amount of likes on the replies favouring her there feel like a gut-punch too. I just can’t with these people anymore.
  Blergh. >
  
  outside of macron, i'm not sure anyone else in the west thinks putin is reasonable. >
  
  You can watch the documentary with the leaked phone calls. I don't think he seemed naive at all, and was not softballing anything.
  They even stated just straight up at some point that nothing Putin can say can be trusted, as he is a liar, and that was even before the war started. >
  
  sure, but every so often macron comes out and says something like ukraine needs to talk to putin, or be ok with giving up land etc. as if any of that would stop putin. which is pretty much the ambassador's point, that macron pretends putin is unreasonable but in actuality he knows putin isn't reasonable at all. >
  
  His position is Putin is lucid. And he is. At this point Putin is delusional in a way a person doesn't see the reality. And Putin doesn't. At this point corruption is so deep FSB fabricated a whole different reality. Reality of FSB reports where russian army is strong and Ukranian citizens will throw flowers under the feet of russian army. In one recent meeting Putin outright admitted it's not going well by saying "it will take a while".
  Also from my understanding Macron more talked about Russia. Although I haven't followed his talked for a while. In may he said not to humiliate Russia. Which can be read 2 ways. Either he's talking about Putin. Then I disagree. Or the other reading.  
  
  "never give in to the temptation either of humiliation or of a spirit of revenge". He referred to the "diktat" imposed on Germany in 1919 by the victors of the First World War, with heavy territorial losses and reparations, which led to a new world war in 1939-45. 
  
  Because if Russia will be shunned after Putin fall it will only lead to a new dictator. Another German example, after Germany fell in WW2 the world decided to beed it dry as a punishment, but quickly realised the err of this approach and switched to integration. Which worked. It's a bit harder with Russia, it's very rich in natural resources, so autocratic states are kinda natural progression, because the main resources are fossil fuels and not people. >
  
  Parts of the west have to stop trying lick the soles of putin’s feet first >
  
  Already at war with nato?  I think not 💩tin if that was the case your military would have been destroyed by now. What a cock. >
  
  I'm so overtired from work, my brain read this as "shit-tin" before recognizing "poo-tin" >
  
  same >
  
  The West knows Putin is unreasonable.
  They're (a) Playing the same games back at Russia with double-speak, and (b) giving him an off-ramp. >
  
  Putin? Reasonable? haha, good one but this isnt comedy club >
  
  IIRC Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler on a couple of occasions and insisted he was sane and was only going to occupy Poland. He had no plans for war.
  He then bombed the shit out of London and much of the rest of Europe. Fuck Putin >
  
  The UK was not ready for a war with Germany. This bought valuable time to prepare. >
  
  For some reason, when I read the title at first I thought it was about Kanye West. >
  
  Well, it probably applies to him too. >
  
  
  “It's silly to try to escape other people's faults. They are inescapable. Just try to escape your own.” 
  
  — Marcus Aurelius >
  
  I strongly think this is another fake quote.  
  I did a CTRL+F and I cannot find this quote in Meditations. >
  
  Ukraine is right and shouldn’t have to keep repeating the obvious. One reason it was such a relief to have Biden in office is it put an abrupt end to Putin’s hypnotic hold on US so-called leadership and the minds of its supporters. It’s so tiresome trying to follow imbeciles dragging their butts in circles of F’ing oblivion. (: D) >
  
  The west is not pretending Putin, or Russia, is reasonable.  If the folks east of Ukraine were "reasonable" they would have changed their ways before allowing the USSR to collapse.  Not in their mindset.  They will continue down this path regardless. >
  
  We have a small problem. Our conservatives love Putin for some reason. They have turned the war in Ukraine into a wedge issue somehow. If you ask a one of them if they would fight for their home they would say yes. They want to own libs and they think letting Russia destroy Ukraine is one way to do it. They are hypocritical betas, who want to be led by strong men. They bow down to who ever projects that image. >
  
  They all ought to be voted out of office - if the electorate had any sense. >
  
  I agree. They are going to tank the government. They are going to actually destroy the economy. Cut social security, without paying back what the should owe for doing so. Conservatism turns my stomach. >
  
  Any time I hear some politician say "at some point they have to start talking", I roll my eyes. They can talk when Russia is defeated and out of all Ukrainian territory. 
  Any talking before that is just a delay for Putin to try to unfuck his debacle. >
  
  How you defeat a country with nuclear weapon ? Talking is literally the only solution. You can beat them out of ukrainia but they will still have the possibility to escalate more one way or another. After  and if they conquere back ukrainia , they will have to talk. >
  
  MAD has this far been enough to prevent that. Russia doesn't need to be defeated in that Russia needs to be invaded. It just needs to have it's forces in Ukraine expelled. And it's highly unlikely that Putin will use a nuclear weapon to prevent that. 
  Russia will likely be defeated but they will never pay for what they did, beyond the cost of the war and the sanctions. And the sanctions will probably go away shortly after the war ends.
  So that's not to say the war hasn't cost Russia. Indeed, it likely Russia's economy won't recover for decades. >
  
  Yeah he's a cunt. We all know it. >
  
  Russia should never have invaded Ukraine! >
  
  Are we pretending he is reasonable? If we thought he was reasonable we would have sent in our armies to stop the invasion at the start. We didn’t because we know he’s crazy and he has nukes. >
  
  Who thought he was reasonable? Haven’t we been worried about his mental health and the possibility that he’s physically sick and massively paranoid too? >
  
  I mean, only propagandists and Putin himself have been pretending Putin is reasonable. We've all known for decades that he's not. >
  
  That has become much more evident to everyone more recently. >
  
  Who is pretending Putin is reasonable apart from a couple of corrupt governments? >
  
  Did I miss someone in the west thinking Putin was reasonable/rational?  I mean, it's a part of why NATO has been hands off here.  They know Lil' Putie is coo-coo for cocoa puffs and has nuclear armaments. >
  
  Was there ever a point when Putin was anything else other than a tyrannical autocrat? >
  
  Last time I seen putin he was gripping a table for dear life. He's not in any condition to lead a country let alone an invasion. >
  
  It's actually prolonging the war.  I know this sounds completely stupid, but if you think about it, negotiating with Russia is like trying to reason with a child having a tantrum. 
  Think about it this way, if the whole world shuts Putin out, nobody talks to him, well, probably his underlings will kill him quickly, but we wouldn't know about it.   Regardless, this would be good for the rest of the world. >
  
  West: Hello Russia, can we talk?  
  Putin: Err, yes hello? This is the true world leader talking.  
  West: Ooof, er, can we talk to somebody else in charge over there?  
  Putin: Yes of course, let me step aside comrade! >
  
  But Orange angry man says he very smart! >
  
  I don’t think they believe he’s reasonable. It’s more of a crisis control management approach. >
  
  I didn’t know we thought he was reasonable at all. >
  
  Anyone else think they were talking about Kanye for a second? >
  
  Oh, we knew that 20 years ago. >
  
  I ain't pretending that >
  
  He is a war criminal, plain and simple.  A terrorist…. He should be treated as such. >
  
  Stand with Ukraine 🇺🇦 >
  
  Yea but Russia has nukes. So the West needs to keep pretending even when they know he's full of shit. >
  
  Thankfully, the only part where Putin still seems to be reasonable is the part where he won't commit suicide by nukes. If you can even call that reasonable. >
  
  Or that he keeps his promises.
  Or that he abides by contracts. >
  
  Or the Russian apologists, fascists here in the US and abroad. >
  
  Precisely.
  They want him to be reasonable - to see reason, so they'll keep on talking and hoping that things will go back to the old status quo.
  It's the same kind of backwards thinking that eventually led to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement... and we all know how well that turned out.
  Don't expect a warmongering dictator with culture-destroying, border-changing dreams to just turn around and play nice. >
  
  Putin isn't reasonable... or he would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.
  His 2014 separatist Ukraine insurrection was failing and he had a fat war chest from all the oil money.  It was a conscious decision to invade when he did and to lie about it the whole time.
  People like that can't be reasoned with. >
  
  He is a lying murdering piece of shit and he should not be trusted at all. >
  
  In case you needed a reminder of why centralizing authority is a bad idea. There’s a lot of people who fetishizes hierarchies, and it’s all well and good until your countries leader or companies CEO goes nuts >
  
  My dyslexia read “responsible” and I said, out loud, WHAT. >
  
  Sorry I missed it, who in the west thinks Putin is "reasonable"? >
  
  oh I thought the title meant Kanye West because it sounded like something he would say >
  
  I don't even know why he has to come out and say that. So sad. It's clear Putin us unreasonable, just like the US Republican Party is. but somehow a lot of older weaker Democrats always try to give them the benefit of the doubt. STOP. >
  
  Even assuming Putin is reasonable he has ever incentive to pretend he isn't and act like it.  He doesn't want to make it seem like you can kill enough Russians to make him go away. >
  
  Lmao look how pathetic Putin is in that picture. >
  
  When interacting with a stupid or unreasonable person who is also dangerously powerful, it can be wise to flatter him with the idea that he's rational, in the hopes that he'll believe you and choose the less-destructive path. >
  
  We need to stop pretending a whole lot of politicians world wide are reasonable...Rather the right people need to stop and do something about it, besides joining them. Many of us have figured that out long ago. >
  
  Can we also slip a memo to the folks on Fox News and on the far-right and far-left in the U.S? I don’t think they have got it, and continue to pretend that Putin is a sane man who wants to negotiate. >
  
  I agree. Call his fucking bluff already. Shit will just drag on forever. >
  
  I think it's more that we're hoping he's reasonable. Maybe if we hope hard enough, he won't be a nutcase. >
  
  Don’t forget how friends act >
  
  He is reasonable….for those you know politics truly…they know why >
  
  The one time I would want cancer to win is for you Putin!! >
  
  We know he's not reasonable. He's an unreasonable man WITH NUKES. We have to be careful; one misstep and we ALL die. >
  
  have we been? I know some have called for a ceasefire, but lets be real here, most of the west is happy to watch ukraine kick russias ass >
  
  The west does not want a ceasefire yet.
  They want Ukraine to give Putin’s Russia a big kicking.  They want Ukraine to win, but then they pull their punches by trickling supplies into Ukraine. >
  
  but this is what politics and diplomacy are based on - to pretend that you believe in reason and logic >
  
  ...were we doing that? >
  
  Is there anyone claiming that he is reasonable? >
  
  When have we ever done that? The guy’s been a violent tyrant since day one. >
  
  I would be okay if all of the republics split off and became separate countries finally. Omg finally free. >
  
  Yes, we've met Putin before, thanks. >
  
  He is rational regarding one thing: his survival. Once the war started by misjudgment or whatever, he is acting very rational re: survival but irrational re: everything else. >
  
  Pooty keeps forgetting to take his meds . >
  
  I'd settle for stop pretending Putin is competent.
  And a big fat Apology Cake with the words "Sorry We Kept Saying Vladimir Putin Isn't A Goddamn Moron For Twenty Years, You Were Totally Right About Everything, LAVATORR" written in blue and yellow frosting. >
  
  We can solve this by dissolving the Russian Federation >
  
  Lmao we warned you russia was going to invade and you called us fearmomgers >
  
  Each time I see his face I see an pig-rat hybrid coming out from a lab! LOL >
  
  Yeah, they should probably start doing this for all the other fascists too. >
  
  Nobody (including  his own country) thinks he is reasonable! >
  
  I don’t think anyone thinks this man is reasonable.. we all think he’s an absolute piece of dog shit. >
  
  I’m unsure who in the West think Putin isn’t anything other than a raving lunatic. Oh, I forgot the Republicans. >
  
  I don't think the west is pretending Putin is reasonable. >
  
  Putin only understands consequence.  Reason and “right” have nothing to do with any of it all.  His only calculus is what risk he can get away with, and what consequences he will suffer if he fails.   
  Dealing with a Hitler-style gambler like that is straightforward.  Create massive and harsh consequences. >
  
  We need to ensure that Putin loses - and although the west has done a lot to help - it’s been too little too slowly.
  It’s like the west wants this to take 4 or 5 years.. Where as Ukraine can’t really afford for it to take that long. >
  
  I completely agree. 
  However, in doing so would also force the United States to take the same approach to republicans. >
  
  Individual leaders at various points have represented various positions. Hawkish. Dovish.  Off ramps and no embarrassment rules from one voice, one day. "We will fight them on the beaches" talk on others. 
  In aggregate, the west has been tactical and resolute. Fighting and bravery has been all Ukraine. The west was on point with intelligence, tactical diplomacy, solidarity and high stakes strategy. 
  Russia was not playing a dead hand. They had Europe's whole energy system by the nuts going into this. They have a nuclear arsenal. There are sharp divisions in western societies. Between NATO allies. Between the us and China. 
  Putin is incredibly bad at war. Bad generalship and long term military neglect gave Ukrainians a fighting chance. A Bully's conceit. They took them. Putin is not bad at politics, espionage or economics. He's good at those. He came prepared.  Russia did not concede any economic or political losses except by force. 
  Sinking the black sea fleet and flying SEAD had unacceptable risks. Nuclear Appocalypse. It couldn't be done. 
  The path take preserved and enhanced Ukraine's fighting chances. We're near a point where western arms can (a) be practically fielded by Ukrainians and (b) risk escalation is moderate. 
  That's almost an overstatement, because risk of nuclear war is higher now than almost ever. This war is incredibly dangerous and difficult to navigate. This is many times harder than the Cuban missile crisis. 
  Surprising as it is, Biden has shown a lot of ability at the "free world bigchief" job. From the way intelligence was leveraged during the first days to now. The last competent commander and chief was og bush. The last 4 were bumbling fools, in practice... IMO.
  Whatever Putin is, he knows damn well that a ceasefire is attainable on the basis of a pre-innvasion lines. Not guaranteed, but attainable. It may not be face saving but it is a viable off ramp. It saves a lot, stoping the bloodshed and perhaps even saving the still intact russian economy. He knows all this. >
  
  You just gotta say, “It’s not our fault you invaded another country, no you can’t keep it” >
  
  It would be funny if the important world leaders publicly answered it in the same way the request is worded: "I disagree! I think we should keep pretending he is reasonable!" >
  
  He's a self obsessed, narcissistic megalomaniac and sociopath. But don't for one second write him off as mad or stupid. >
  
  I do not see any positive relationship with Russia while Putin in the leader. I also do not see the possibly of another leader while Putin is living. 
  We have missile with knives that can take out a terrorist with pin point accuracy. Someone get putins address and send it. >
  
  Well, what can The West do?
  Honestly. Realistically. Politically. Practically.
  The only countermeasure we have is NATO and MAD. We can joke all we want about how their nuclear silos are probably full of rusted non-viable missiles and empty vodka bottles, but we don't know that. 
  When Russia starts encroaching on non-NATO countries we can't get involved without declaring war on Russia. We can't do that. We had an entire Cold War where we explored every goddamn possibility under the sun. We have no nuclear deterrent except to not go to war. 
  We know Putin is not reasonable. We know he's a fucking lunatic. We know he's unhinged. That's why we have to treat him like he's not. The last thing we need is for a cancer-ridden psychopath to feel like his macho alpha-male dirtbag fee-fees are being hurt by other world powers. We're worried that he's gonna start shooting nukes for the hell of it, because he has nothing left to lose. We have to at least openly pretend that negotiations are possible and go through the motions so he doesn't start acting like a cornered dog.
  Remember that scene in Wrath of Khan where he goes all Captain Ahab in his final moments? That's what we're trying to avoid right now. >
  
  It is well known that he is not, but the media still acts like he is. And of course the Republicans think he walks on water. >
  
  Blame traitors like Tucker Carlson for spreading Russian disinformation to millions of gullible Americans every single night. >
  
  Putin looks disgusting >
  
  Always. >
  
  a lot of folks seeing China grabbing onto Russian natural resources. The one resource I don't see mentioned [more important IMO] is Ag land/production. China is lacking and as the world warms, Siberia will become arable with plenty of water
  As an aside, the first time I heard of warming in the 80's was when the Soviets said "bring it on, Siberia will become the bread basket of the world" >
  
  I think the west are giving in to Putin like they did with hitler through appeasement >
  
  Dude is a psyco, he stole Robert kraft's superbowl ring ffs.  Like tried it on and didn't give it back. >
  
  A cancerous mad man with nothing to  lose... sure he can reasoned with..... >
  
  Exactly this. He is pure evil by now. And a sneaky bastard. >
  
  I don’t anyone really thinks he’s reasonable. It’s a chess game. >
  
  The world stopped believing that a long time ago. The challenge is that the world also knows that he has nuclear weapons and lots and lots of oil and gas… >
  
  I support the ukraine >
  
  Who's pretending Putin reasonable? >
  
  I tend to think this more an issue for non-Western countries that still do business with Russia, like Turkey or Venezuela. >
  
  Fox and gqp must stop being assets to putin. >
  
  And we should stop pretending that those outside of Russia, in the Americas and Europe’s, who idolize Putin and want to model their governments after his, are reasonable. They are not and have no desire to be reasonable. They want what they want regardless of how many people they murder along the way. >
  
  The West needs to take the gloves off and stop this trickle of more powerful weapons. The US needs to grow a pair and show Russia full on commitment to this fight. Military Bases around the country should be openly training ground forces as fast as possible. Stop half measures and go full send. Russian Forces are KIA immune so the logical counter is to increase the amount of KIA's that UAF can inflict. >
  
  The only ones pretending are the Far Right. The M. (wherever) Great Again and Truck Convoy types. >
  
  Oh, we aren't fooled. Well, the Right's leadership and propagandists love him, but only out of political expediency. The masses on the right think their leaders are serious and cheer for Putin while booing our own government. They are the proletariat authoritarians' dream of. So. Bottom line? Vote as if your Democracy depends upon it. Because it does. >
  
  
  Top Ukrainian diplomat who once led peace talks with Moscow has warned Kyiv's foreign partners not to count on rational dialogue with President Vladimir Putin, as the Russian leader is "unreasonable" and increasingly isolated from reality.
  
  Yet Redditors insist on maximalist terms for ending the conflict while blithely dismissing the risk of nuclear war, assuming Putin will be constrained by MAD. >
  
  I think Macron is doing a kind of 'good cop, bad cop' thing with Putin, where he is still polite with him to keep communication lines open.
  However, from watching the documentary on the phone calls, he is not naive at all of who Putin is, and was not in any way a pushover. >
  
  
  no one with any IQ would ever think Putin was reasonable. He is a former KGB thug with the grandiose plans that so many of those scum have with restoring the Great Soviet empire...same empire that sheepherders kicked their asses in late 1980s/
  a thug is a thug >
  
  Well he is reasonable… in the sense that his political (and likely his life) depends on the Russian ecosystem still believing in an - unlikely - victory
  It is the ghadafi precedent: there is no alternative for a dictator but to die in peace or bring everyone with him to avoid what happen to Ghadafi >
  
  I don't think the US gov't is pretending he's reasonable. When your enemy is digging their own grave, sometimes you just quietly let them do it. Personally I would favor getting more involved than we already are, but I'm just an average American and I'm not the government. I have two mouths to feed, I have to go to work every day. But at least I order stuff from St Javelin, and I'll gladly import some Zelenskyy vodka if they would just ship it here. >
  
  I would agree we in the west need to stop believing Putin is reasonable but we still have folk that think Trump is too. But Ukraine Ambassador I do recall the Wesr warning you of what Putin was going to do when he masted his army on your borders and you told the west it wouldn't happen. >
  
  At this point, Igor Sechin looks like a viable choice to replace Pootin. The West needs to give him more motivation to pull the trigger - both figuratively and literally… >
  
  I mean, he's not reasonable but he's also a crazy man with nukes. I'm inclined to pretend, at least publicly. >
  
  Democrats must stop pretending Republicans are reasonable: Progressives. >
  
  I think most democratic politicians have gotten there.
  Democratic voters - And, most importantly - The newsmedia have not.
  In order to appear to lack "bias" the newsmedia is desperate to pretend Republicans are "reasonable" so they can "present both sides" - Even though one side is completely whackadoodle. >
  
  They really ought to come out and say one side is wackadoodle.. >
  
  Putin should be treated as a common criminal. >
  
  Same could be said for the GOP and Donald Trump >
  
  give us more money!