The essence of negotiations
In the light of today as the topic of “negotiations” is continuously being wiped off the table with arguments like “Putin started this war” and “Why should Ukraine aspire surrender while they’ve been attacked?” - let’s recall why negotiations are held at all in war scenarios.
When do officials and representatives hold them with representatives of the opponent?
Huh?
First and foremost, it’s not a question of giving up immaterial “values” and virtues” that one side thinks to have on its side - it’s not a question of ideology and idealism.
Plainly, it’s a matter of pragmatism.
Negotiations over truces and “peace” are being held if one side recognizes that it’s about to lose and being crushed, so the smarter people among the state officials figure they’ll be better off stopping to try to win the war by force and rather try to save the slice of the cake that they still have under their control instead of eventually maybe ending up with none of it.
The essence of sitting down to hold negotiations is not surrendering and handing everything over to the enemy that it wants, but more than that securing some little bits of what one still has instead of losing everything and then depending on the arbitrariness or mercy of the winning opponent what few bread crumbs will be granted to oneself.
You practically do that by trying to find things to offer to the enemy fraction for which it shows itself willing to give up the demands for another item. And you do that up until the enemy fraction becomes content and leaves again.
It’s no different than negotiating a price in a handshake deal.
A buyer has interest in obtaining a particular item, the seller tells you the price, but the buyer doesn’t have enough money or doesn’t want to pay that much, so it needs to approach the seller and see if they are hardened in their stance or if there’s some room that can be debated over.
In that case, it’s “only” that the item that you want to buy is “peace” - or at least a truce so that the fighting and the destruction stops.
Negotiating is a tactic that is known in wars and armed conflicts for centuries. As old as such scenarios.
So this isn’t like an “absolutely crazy idea” in this conflict.
Rather it should be asked: What speaks objectively so much against it?
(Unless the explanation is that there are very stubborn humans involved in this specific case that are occupied by ideology and emotional biases who have a very distorted understanding about war at all - that all that there is to obtain is winning, like in a manic fanatic attitude heading for a crusade, heading towards total war, not just mere self-defense.)
When do officials and representatives hold them with representatives of the opponent?
Huh?
First and foremost, it’s not a question of giving up immaterial “values” and virtues” that one side thinks to have on its side - it’s not a question of ideology and idealism.
Plainly, it’s a matter of pragmatism.
Negotiations over truces and “peace” are being held if one side recognizes that it’s about to lose and being crushed, so the smarter people among the state officials figure they’ll be better off stopping to try to win the war by force and rather try to save the slice of the cake that they still have under their control instead of eventually maybe ending up with none of it.
The essence of sitting down to hold negotiations is not surrendering and handing everything over to the enemy that it wants, but more than that securing some little bits of what one still has instead of losing everything and then depending on the arbitrariness or mercy of the winning opponent what few bread crumbs will be granted to oneself.
You practically do that by trying to find things to offer to the enemy fraction for which it shows itself willing to give up the demands for another item. And you do that up until the enemy fraction becomes content and leaves again.
It’s no different than negotiating a price in a handshake deal.
A buyer has interest in obtaining a particular item, the seller tells you the price, but the buyer doesn’t have enough money or doesn’t want to pay that much, so it needs to approach the seller and see if they are hardened in their stance or if there’s some room that can be debated over.
In that case, it’s “only” that the item that you want to buy is “peace” - or at least a truce so that the fighting and the destruction stops.
Negotiating is a tactic that is known in wars and armed conflicts for centuries. As old as such scenarios.
So this isn’t like an “absolutely crazy idea” in this conflict.
Rather it should be asked: What speaks objectively so much against it?
(Unless the explanation is that there are very stubborn humans involved in this specific case that are occupied by ideology and emotional biases who have a very distorted understanding about war at all - that all that there is to obtain is winning, like in a manic fanatic attitude heading for a crusade, heading towards total war, not just mere self-defense.)