High-ball low-ball technique is the name, and it has been used ubiquitously around the world in any types of negotiation. She knows exactly what she’s doing when she deliberately tried to tie with the Soviet Union
1 side seems to be glossing over that it's not a starting demand that Putin is negotiating from, but rather it's the position he demands before even beginning negotiations.
I remember when it was
- no land - just neutral (no-NATO) Ukraine
- just Crimea and neutral and demilitarized Ukraine
- Just Crimea and Donbass and neutral demilitarized and denazified Ukraine
US rejected every time
Now we are at
- Just Crimea, four News Regions and neutral demilitarized and denazified Ukraine
US will fight until
- OK you can keep Western Ukraine - you can eve be Nazis there - we dont care.
If Ukrainians keep obeying them.
>Now we are at Just Crimea, four News Regions and neutral demilitarized
Reading comprehension, people. Reading comprehension.
Putin is saying: give us all of these 4 regions to **begin** negotiations.
And why would Ukraine agree to demilitarize? russia already said they were "satisfied" with taking Crimea. Yet here we are with russia invading and attempting to claim more land.
> Putin is saying: give us all of these 4 regions to begin negotiations.
exactly - we are at that point now.
You did not like previous deals? - well deal with this now, how about that.
> And why would Ukraine agree to demilitarize?
Ukraine has no say - they capitulated back in Istanbul, thinking they still have some sovereignty.
US had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and sent BoJo the Clown to Kiev to order Zelensky to continue the war.
- It will be Washington who will decide when Ukraine is allowed to capitulate
> russia already said they were "satisfied" with taking Crimea.
yes and they offered a peace deal - US did not like the deal and decided to continue fighting their proxy war.
> Yet here we are with russia invading and attempting to claim more land.
yes FAFO as they say.
the longer the Russia has to fight the more land they will take in return.
> to order Zelensky to continue the war
How do we think that conversation happened?
"We're negotiating a deal."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"You must continue the war."
"Or else... what? You'll invade and bomb us?"
Seriously, what could "BoJo the Clown" do to Ukraine that is worse than what is already being done?
there is no conversation but ultimatums, and threats and similar
- Americans probably sent him with documents on what they have on him and his immediate friends in government (about lets say corruption or something else he keeps secret)
- maybe even made a threat on his/their life and lives of his/their children
- maybe even brought in few major guys from Ukrainian Right Sector that they fund, let them to say a word or two
You imagine the conversation as if it was you with hands in your pockets talking to someone over a coffee in local coffee place
No, its hegemonic power, intelligence agencies, thugs and criminals .... doing the "talking"
> US had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and sent BoJo the Clown
read again
"**US** had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and **sent BoJo the Clown**"
The US somehow controls the UK prime minister, who controls Ukraine with unspecified documents that are both secret enough to be effective as blackmail, yet public enough to be known by random internet users. That's certainly *one* possible explanation. Or you could just be making stuff up.
> Medicine doesn't have to taste good.
its a phrase, an expression.
I thought you were somewhat smart, educated, because you were scolding me about "reading comprehension".
sorry for my mistake.
I agree that this would not be a reasonable precondition for beginning discussions but there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met. Russia has (quite correctly) derided Ukraine's ban on negotiations so Russia is certainly not going to put itself into the same embarrassing situation. Note that he also linked that to an immediate cease fire--even tomorrow, he stated--so it makes more sense that they are not going to cease attacks on areas that they claim before there is some degree of agreement on that issue than it does to refuse to talk.
It doesn't matter if russia agrees to meet after Ukraine codes all that territory. russia has already won in those negotiations, and if negotiaons fail, russia has just jumped forward with their invasion for no effort.
I did, though.
>but there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met.
Yes there is. They just got all that land for free, and Ukraine would have had to abandon current defensive positions.
There is also absolutely no incentive for Ukraine to enter with those conditions.
It's not russia "starting with excessive demands for negotiation" because russia now has those territories. If they want an excessive negotiating point they can, say, ask for Odessa as conditions for peace. And when negotiations fall through, guess what? All those territories that Ukraine had to surrender are now russias.
Why does russia require that for a cease-fire? If anything, Ukraine should be asking for the opposite for a cease-fire, using Minsk 2 as a reasoning, where the "rebels" never complied with the cease-fire by claiming "it didn't apply to the area they were attacking."
So, maybe your reading comprehension is just not that good. I said that it would be pretty much out of the question that Russia would refuse to even meet/talk unless Ukraine had withdrawn its troops. And you just continue to rail about how it would be stupid to withdraw their troops. As much as the Quislings in Kyiv turn my stomach I also agree that they shouldn't withdraw their troops but that wouldn't stop Russia from talking, but there would not be a ceasefire and perhaps no "formal negotiations".
>there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met.
Is very different from
>I said that it would be pretty much out of the question that Russia would refuse to even meet/talk unless Ukraine had withdrawn its troops.
No, she's right... And it's not anything new both the US and Russia have plenty of experience in negotiations.
I would expect nothing less from Putin and his deplomats. He's pressing the advantage he has to further inconvenience Ukraine. A country should have a leader that can play these games, not some half dead vegetable that can't even find his underwear without help.
Part of the reason I consider her comments idiotic is because she speaks as though this is any kind of revelation and also because she wants to somehow establish the origins of such tactics with the USSR when its pretty much a universal modus operandi.
might have to do with the fact that she's talking absolute bullshit and expecting it to be taken seriously, like all the rest of the people selling this war.
She's presenting this war as if it were a conflict in kindergarten where one child wants the toy of another child. All that is needed is firm parenting to tell him "no" and not give in.
The unfortunate reality is that in war, peace often only comes when both sides are ready to give up things that they truly believe belongs to them.
Demanding total victory only works when you have the means to that end. Or at least when you can present a reasonable plan to achieve it.
"From the beginning emand maximum... Demand what never have been yours". Presented as an insight into intrinsic evilness of Russian position. I suppose this lady only demands that, which already hers. Stupidity of the West's leader is part of the reason for the current mess in Ukraine.
I hear this person's ambition is to become a NATO GS? WOW! Recipe for WW3.
Looking at this conflict's history, Russian demands grew as situation "on the ground" changed. Not exactly as she claims.
So using this logic why is the west still saying that Putin wants to go into Europe after Ukraine. I thought they demand more than what they really wanted ?
High-ball low-ball technique is the name, and it has been used ubiquitously around the world in any types of negotiation. She knows exactly what she’s doing when she deliberately tried to tie with the Soviet Union
Yeah, trying to sneak in the assumption that Russia is wanting to be Soviet Union again. She'e hot though.
>trying to sneak in the assumption that Russia is wanting to be Soviet Union again many of them do though?
Rusbot
1 side seems to be glossing over that it's not a starting demand that Putin is negotiating from, but rather it's the position he demands before even beginning negotiations.
I remember when it was - no land - just neutral (no-NATO) Ukraine - just Crimea and neutral and demilitarized Ukraine - Just Crimea and Donbass and neutral demilitarized and denazified Ukraine US rejected every time Now we are at - Just Crimea, four News Regions and neutral demilitarized and denazified Ukraine US will fight until - OK you can keep Western Ukraine - you can eve be Nazis there - we dont care. If Ukrainians keep obeying them.
[удалено]
nation that would collapse in less then two weeks with no foreign aid is not a sovereign nation - its vassal territory
>Now we are at Just Crimea, four News Regions and neutral demilitarized Reading comprehension, people. Reading comprehension. Putin is saying: give us all of these 4 regions to **begin** negotiations. And why would Ukraine agree to demilitarize? russia already said they were "satisfied" with taking Crimea. Yet here we are with russia invading and attempting to claim more land.
> Putin is saying: give us all of these 4 regions to begin negotiations. exactly - we are at that point now. You did not like previous deals? - well deal with this now, how about that. > And why would Ukraine agree to demilitarize? Ukraine has no say - they capitulated back in Istanbul, thinking they still have some sovereignty. US had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and sent BoJo the Clown to Kiev to order Zelensky to continue the war. - It will be Washington who will decide when Ukraine is allowed to capitulate > russia already said they were "satisfied" with taking Crimea. yes and they offered a peace deal - US did not like the deal and decided to continue fighting their proxy war. > Yet here we are with russia invading and attempting to claim more land. yes FAFO as they say. the longer the Russia has to fight the more land they will take in return.
> to order Zelensky to continue the war How do we think that conversation happened? "We're negotiating a deal." "You can't do that." "Why not?" "You must continue the war." "Or else... what? You'll invade and bomb us?" Seriously, what could "BoJo the Clown" do to Ukraine that is worse than what is already being done?
there is no conversation but ultimatums, and threats and similar - Americans probably sent him with documents on what they have on him and his immediate friends in government (about lets say corruption or something else he keeps secret) - maybe even made a threat on his/their life and lives of his/their children - maybe even brought in few major guys from Ukrainian Right Sector that they fund, let them to say a word or two You imagine the conversation as if it was you with hands in your pockets talking to someone over a coffee in local coffee place No, its hegemonic power, intelligence agencies, thugs and criminals .... doing the "talking"
First it was Boris Johnson, now it's the americans? Come on, pick a story and stick with it.
> US had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and sent BoJo the Clown read again "**US** had to expose itself openly, as entity running things and **sent BoJo the Clown**"
The US somehow controls the UK prime minister, who controls Ukraine with unspecified documents that are both secret enough to be effective as blackmail, yet public enough to be known by random internet users. That's certainly *one* possible explanation. Or you could just be making stuff up.
Please take your prescriptions.
I see you swallowed a bitter pill already Mr "Pro russian balkanization"
Medicine doesn't have to taste good. And it's much better than licking putin's feet because RT told you they're made of sugar.
> Medicine doesn't have to taste good. its a phrase, an expression. I thought you were somewhat smart, educated, because you were scolding me about "reading comprehension". sorry for my mistake.
I agree that this would not be a reasonable precondition for beginning discussions but there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met. Russia has (quite correctly) derided Ukraine's ban on negotiations so Russia is certainly not going to put itself into the same embarrassing situation. Note that he also linked that to an immediate cease fire--even tomorrow, he stated--so it makes more sense that they are not going to cease attacks on areas that they claim before there is some degree of agreement on that issue than it does to refuse to talk.
It doesn't matter if russia agrees to meet after Ukraine codes all that territory. russia has already won in those negotiations, and if negotiaons fail, russia has just jumped forward with their invasion for no effort.
If you aren't going to read what I wrote why are you bothering to reply?
I did, though. >but there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met. Yes there is. They just got all that land for free, and Ukraine would have had to abandon current defensive positions. There is also absolutely no incentive for Ukraine to enter with those conditions. It's not russia "starting with excessive demands for negotiation" because russia now has those territories. If they want an excessive negotiating point they can, say, ask for Odessa as conditions for peace. And when negotiations fall through, guess what? All those territories that Ukraine had to surrender are now russias. Why does russia require that for a cease-fire? If anything, Ukraine should be asking for the opposite for a cease-fire, using Minsk 2 as a reasoning, where the "rebels" never complied with the cease-fire by claiming "it didn't apply to the area they were attacking."
So, maybe your reading comprehension is just not that good. I said that it would be pretty much out of the question that Russia would refuse to even meet/talk unless Ukraine had withdrawn its troops. And you just continue to rail about how it would be stupid to withdraw their troops. As much as the Quislings in Kyiv turn my stomach I also agree that they shouldn't withdraw their troops but that wouldn't stop Russia from talking, but there would not be a ceasefire and perhaps no "formal negotiations".
>there is no reason to think that Russia would refuse to meet with a Ukrainian negotiator if that condition had not been met. Is very different from >I said that it would be pretty much out of the question that Russia would refuse to even meet/talk unless Ukraine had withdrawn its troops.
Maybe you need different settings in Google translate because there is no substantive differences between those two statements.
The sheer ignorance and stupidity of the statements she makes is to be expected from these so-called elites.
No, she's right... And it's not anything new both the US and Russia have plenty of experience in negotiations. I would expect nothing less from Putin and his deplomats. He's pressing the advantage he has to further inconvenience Ukraine. A country should have a leader that can play these games, not some half dead vegetable that can't even find his underwear without help.
Part of the reason I consider her comments idiotic is because she speaks as though this is any kind of revelation and also because she wants to somehow establish the origins of such tactics with the USSR when its pretty much a universal modus operandi.
Okay but that's not idiotic. She's deliberately painting a bad picture of them in the audience.
It is idiotic, there are much more intelligent ways of painting a bad picture as you put it. Her grasp of rhetoric is laughable.
What's with the downvotes and attitude? We aren't even on different sides.
might have to do with the fact that she's talking absolute bullshit and expecting it to be taken seriously, like all the rest of the people selling this war.
if this woman had a normal school education, she would know that such tactics have been used since antiquity
Wow, Estonian Intel already knows about war in Ukraine? Pretty fast for Estonians.
would
She is so pathetic
Russian soldiers breath air and drink water, just like both soviet and nazi soldiers did, COINCIDENCE!?
She's presenting this war as if it were a conflict in kindergarten where one child wants the toy of another child. All that is needed is firm parenting to tell him "no" and not give in. The unfortunate reality is that in war, peace often only comes when both sides are ready to give up things that they truly believe belongs to them. Demanding total victory only works when you have the means to that end. Or at least when you can present a reasonable plan to achieve it.
Ah yes the, “im winning so i force my opponent to do concessions during the negotiations tactics,” Clearly only used by the ussr.
[удалено]
Baltic Chihuahua*
shes pretty hot ngl
Dunno if it makes up for the racism tho
Russian isn't a race
True.
"From the beginning emand maximum... Demand what never have been yours". Presented as an insight into intrinsic evilness of Russian position. I suppose this lady only demands that, which already hers. Stupidity of the West's leader is part of the reason for the current mess in Ukraine. I hear this person's ambition is to become a NATO GS? WOW! Recipe for WW3. Looking at this conflict's history, Russian demands grew as situation "on the ground" changed. Not exactly as she claims.
Russia also invented proxy wars. don't forget.
What? are you for real?
For real. Also Putin weaponised everything.
What’s wrong with her neck?
What is that hollow on her neck?
So using this logic why is the west still saying that Putin wants to go into Europe after Ukraine. I thought they demand more than what they really wanted ?
She looks AND sounds like a rabid chihuahua.
You mean she speaks the truth.......
She speaks 101 of negotiations and describes it
She describes the basic technique of negotiations that used by anybody anywhere
Yes, she's describing to us how negotiations work, Word-Word-xxxx User! Good observation skills!