Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov is saying that Zelenskyy is making any progress towards peace impossible. I'll fill in the blanks: 'The Ukrainians keep insisting that they own their own country. They won't agree that they should surrender to us and that Zelenskyy should resign. Therefore, we have no choice but to keep fighting.'

↪jorndoe Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov is saying that Zelenskyy is making any progress towards peace impossible. I'll fill in the blanks: 'The Ukrainians keep insisting that they own their own country. They won't agree that they should surrender to us and that Zelenskyy should resign. Therefore, we have no choice but to keep fighting.' — Wayfarer

Perhaps consider the critical thinking perspective, which you are clearly capable of on other subjects.

The first critical question is "why is it ok when the US does it".

The US uses its military power to coerce and if that doesn't work invade to implement their "national interests" all the time. As we speak the US has committed (either sent or sending) troops to violate both Mexican and Venezualan sovereignty, and recently threatened to take the Panama canal and all of Greenland, within the context of waging overt and covert wars all over the world.

Now, if you deplore US imperialism as much as Russian, then ok, great, we're on the same page.

If you take the next step of having a lucid view of things, the proximate cause of the war in Ukraine is US imperialism threatening Russian imperialism, soliciting a predictable response. If you want to argue the ultimate cause is Russian imperialism that was always going to try to take what it wants in Ukraine, then I'm not entirely convinced (the pre-2014 status quo could have perhaps continued for a long time; as Russia also benefited from the status quo in having a large Russian speaking voting block in Ukraine which served the purpose of maintaining the status quo) but I have zero problem accepting such a premise for the sake of argument.

For, when we look at this obvious clear reality we have two imperial powers and a smaller country in between that became the object of inter-imperial struggle.

In de-contextualized absolute terms the US is more powerful than Russia (population, economics, technology, satellites, military alliances and bases around the world, etc. with perhaps a few areas where Russia leads, like not having 37 trillion dollars of national debt), so on this basis it was argued that Ukraine can switch Imperial sides and this is a safe and wise move.

That is the fundamental premise of the whole war and events leading up to the war.

However, when context is taken into account, Ukraine is right on Russia's border and so Russia is the dominant Imperial power. As Obama (who had access to the raw in intel) informed us, whatever the US does in Ukraine can be overmatched 4 times by the Russians.

The idea that "Ukrainian sovereignty" is a a justification for fighting to a loss is simply pure propaganda.

In my military training (NATO military training) one of the bedrock moral principles we were instructed to follow, due to being common sense and the supreme law of the land by treaty (this is Canada where treaties like the Geneva conventions matter), is that the use of military force must be in service of an achievable military outcome; that it was not honourable to fight to the death for no purpose, and doing so not only caused more immediate damage (primarily to civilians who we're supposed to be fighting to protect) but also harmed the long term prospects for peace by causing further unnecessary animosity; for, not only does more harm cause more bad blood but it is easier to understand and forgive military action taken to achieve a rational military purpose than violence for the sake of violence.

While NATO encourages Ukraine to fight to the death, actual NATO training (obviously omitted from what was provided to Ukrainians) includes an entire multi-millenial war fighting philosophy in which the goal is to limit damage to civilians, international relations, and fight towards a lasting peace rather than inflicting vindictive harm on one's enemies.

It is the bedrock ethos of the professional Western soldier.

History demonstrates again and again that when the use of lethal force is used in a plausibly rational and justified manner, seeking to minimize harm to achieve reasonable military objectives, that healing the wounds of war is far easier.

War is by definition the breakdown of diplomatic dialogue in which differences can no longer be resolved by talking and therefore the facts on the ground will be determined by force.

How that force is used has an immense impact on the prospects of rebuilding a diplomatic process to avoid further warfare in the future. The reality is that rarely are two sides equally matched and fight to a standstill and then re-establish the status quo anti after a purposeless war that changed nothing and caused only harm. The reality is generally one side is stronger or then more committed and achieves military objectives while the other side loses, of course at great cost to both sides.

This is the actual issue. Ukraine cannot achieve further rational military objectives, and could not remotely plausibly achieve any further militarily achievable objectives since 2023.

And this is not just me saying this; General Milley expressed this basic war fighting philosophy regularly; for example:

“There may be a political solution where politically the Russians withdraw,” Milley said at a press conference Wednesday. “You want to negotiate at a time when you’re at your strength, and your opponent is at weakness. And it’s possible, maybe, that there’ll be a political solution. All I’m saying is there’s a possibility for it.” — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

“When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” Milley said at the time. — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

Instead of following in any remote sense this war fighting ethic carefully crafted over literally thousands of years so that the disaster that is war -- generally caused by delirious political leadership decisions on one or both sides -- serves a lasting peace to the extent that can be reasonably achieved in the brutal chaos of war and inter-state competition for raw power.

That is the issue, and if we take any similar situation where the US violates the sovereignty of smaller states for the political ambitions of its leadership, no one would be recommending that Mexico or Panama or Denmark fight the US to the death for no achievable military objective.

As a smaller state faced with imperial aggression, there's only 2 reasonable moves:

1. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then complete capitulation.

2. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then limited war fighting to return to negotiation and appeasement (demonstrate there is a cost to the use of force and it won't be "so easy"), and then if that fails complete capitulation.

Now, the rebuke to common sense strategy from a small-state point of view is that appeasement of Hitler didn't work and WWII happened anyways.

But that's not the same. That is an issue in which other great powers (and far greater powers at the time the appeasement strategy began; by definition starting with appeasing Hitler in remilitarizing in violation to Treaty of Versailles) that can credibly enforce their will on Germany and are deciding between appeasement and war.

To make an accurate analogy, we must recast appeasement in the scenario of the Sudetenland crisis as the situation being no one is about to go to war with Germany over Sudetenland but will send arms to Czechoslovakia so that they can fight the Nazi's alone.

Literally zero historians have taken the position in this debate that of course Czechoslovakian sovereignty is a categorical imperative for Czechoslovakian to fight for the death over and for the allies to send thoughts and prayers and arms (in a drip feed manner that wouldn't really threaten the the German's ability to take and hold the Sudetenland).

Had the allies made it clear they aren't about to fight the Germans over Sudetenland but they encourage the Czechoslovakians to do so, THAT IS CALLED APPEASEMENT! just with the extra setp of a lot of Czechoslovakians dying.

And that is the NATO policy vis-a-vis Russia since 2022: appeasement, just with the extra step of a lot of Ukrainians dying.

Would any historian make the case in such a scenario where the Allies make clear they won't fight the germans but smaller states should, with some arms (but shhh, even then not too many) ... would not be appeasement to Hitler as long as they talked tough?

Because that is the Western hypothesis: that others should fight the Russians for our moral beliefs, and that is not appeasement because we talk really, really, really tough ... except when it turns out indefinite conflict with the Russians isn't politically practical because the Ukrainians will lose and also Russia has stuff we want, then it's predictably time to cut loose the Ukrainians and recast ourselves as peace makers the whole time.

This is the issue: we appease the Russians, handle the war with kitten gloves to make sure we don't piss off the Russians too much (so avoid nuclear escalation but also to avoid too much bad blood that we can't access Russian resources when the time comes for that to be profitable and not putting at risk LNG exports to Europe, or get whatever else from Russia that has become expedient), and while we do that we vicariously live Churchillian non-appeasement through Ukrainians in a war they can't win and is horrendously damaging to them.

But would that be the feeling if we just propped up the Czechoslovakian's to be killed in large numbers and Hitler still get what he wanted? Would Western historians be like "fuck yeah, we really showed him" in a scenario that plays out like that without the US, France and UK ever declaring war on Germany?

Because that's what we're doing today but packaging it as brave.

In case the subtexts of the above argument is not clear, the point is not to recognize we need to finally stop appeasing Putin and start WWIII, but rather the point is the reality is simply that the propaganda framing that Putin is Hitler and that sending arms to Ukraine is Churchillian valour (the propaganda version of Churchill that ignores his own Hitlarian racist genocidal mania) is stupid and a vast majority of people in the West know that it's stupid and just something that we say but don't actually believe; for, if we did actually believe Putin was morally equivalent to Hitler and Russian's to Nazis, then the case for direct war would be incredibly strong and it would be clear to everyone that anything short of direct warfare would be appeasement.

But even that far more realistic view is still based in the proparanda framing that the West would care even if Putin was Hitler and actually was committing a genocide in Ukraine, for we have in parallel a genocide in Palestine and the support for the genocide far outweighs opposition from our political class, and the idea of putting a stop to it through the use of force is not even a possibility of consideration.

Which itself is still a propaganda framing that fighting WWII was about stopping Hitler and his genocide, and somehow that Western ethos has changed, rather than allied participation in WWII being about pursuing Western imperial interests that include plenty of genocide both before and after WWII and still today!

Point is, if you want to go all the way to the bottom of the West's propaganda "Inception" basement (which makes sense if you've seen the movie Inception), then those are some of the levels along the way.

For our purposes here, the reality is that the Western policy is:

1. Bribing the Ukrainian elites (a regime ruling one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and the largest black market arms dealer even before the war started) with flooding in cash and arms.

2. Suppressing any democratic sentiment (which kept on voting for peace with Russia and against further escalation of tensions) through the use of literal Nazi paramilitary organizations goose stepping hand in hand with Ukrainian intelligence.

3. Using steps 1 and 2 to ensure Ukraine fighting beyond any plausible rational military plan in order to:

a. Lock-in Europe into US liquified natural gas imports for mad profits.
b. Lock-in Europe into massive purchases of US arms.
c. Lock-in Europe into humiliated vassal status for the foreseeable future.
d. Uncouple Europe from Russia economically generally speaking, but setting up US-Russian economic collaboration down the line.
e. Defeat the Euro as a competitor to the USD.
f. Clarify the zones of influence in the emerging multi-polar world, with the remaining great powers being Russia and China, with the EU "off the table" and little chance of a general peace in which the great powers become less relevant and are forced to deal with domestic issues.
g. Most importantly of all, defeat European welfare state policies and practice as a model of economic development globally by simply fucking up Europe generally speaking.

Why would European leaders go along with this? Because they are literally in a satanic cult controlled by the financial powers that are in a position to assert said financial power to propel whoever they select to the bureaucratic positions of relevance (and satanic extortionary leverage being the best leverage but more importantly the satanic belief system encouraging sacrificing the interests of regular people and your whole country for whatever madness is popular in satanic circles these days); and if not a satanist literally murdering children on video, then at least someone totally incompetent and clueless and 100% a coward if ever they did get a clue.

allied participation in WWII being about pursuing Western imperial interests that include plenty of genocide bother before and after WWII and still today! — boethius

And the subtext of your subtext is that being the American-European lead West the greatest evil in history we Westerners (?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) should help Russia end American-European-lead West by spinning pro-Russian propaganda, right? And that's rational, right?

And the subtext of your subtext is that being the American-European lead West the greatest evil in history we Westerners (?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) should help Russia end American-European-lead West by spinning pro-Russian propaganda, right? And that's rational, right? — neomac

Reality and facts is not "pro-Russian propaganda". If the fact is that Russia can defeat Ukraine because Russia is bigger than Ukraine, and the fact is the West leaving Ukraine to fight the Russians alone is called appeasement, and the fact is the West has committed a disturbingly large amount of genocides and is committing genocide right now as we speak (arguably more than one), those are just the facts.

In terms of absolute amount of suffering caused, definitely the West is the most evil in History, due to scale.

And definitely we Westerners should feel bad about that suffering.

We should feel bad about the suffering of the Palestinians suffering a brutal genocide with on camera rapes of prisoners, burning and blown apart children, rapes of children we know about, starvation; really the most horrifying and humiliating conditions possibly in history, due to the essentially live-broadcast nature of the documentation of the horror.

Likewise, we should definitely feel bad about having bribed the Ukrainian elite into doing our dirty work to ensure the US can sell LNG to Europe at the cost of over a million dead Ukrainians (some estimates are approaching 2 million dead).

We manipulate and prop up the Ukrainians to take an absolutely brutal beating, dangle prospects of real help sometimes (like all that "no-fly-zone" talk, if you remember that) and the hypothesis is supposed to be we should feel good about that because we morally excoriated the Russians for following the exact same policies of Imperial domination we follow (just a lot more nobly due to pretty close adherence to the laws of war and not doing things like a genocide and starving civilian populations and lacking things like raping prisoners, and even recording the rapes, bragging about the rapes and defending the rapists)?

Reality and facts is not "pro-Russian propaganda”. — boethius

I do not take propaganda as the opposite of reality and facts. As I said many times propaganda can also be grounded on facts and reality. What makes political propaganda propaganda is the fact that people are pushing the audience to take political decisions based on a certain narrative about (actual or putative) reality and facts. And what I find questionable about certain propaganda is not necessarily about facts and reality per se, but about how propaganda selects and connects them to get to certain ideologically-motivated conclusions.
Once one is content with a narrative over facts for whatever reason then one can push it to the wider audience for political purposes by repeating and spreading their “gospel”, which is what you do and expressly intend to do. So yes you are a propagandist.
And also pro-Russian because OBJECTIVELY your narrative discrediting the West favours more Russia than the West, so much so that your narrative is parroting on many points Russian accusations and justifications against the West.
So, you are literally a pro-Russian propagandist. And my claim should not be taken as denigratory per se.

If the fact is that Russia can defeat Ukraine because Russia is bigger than Ukraine, and the fact is the West leaving Ukraine to fight the Russians alone is called appeasement, and the fact is the West has committed a disturbingly large amount of genocides and is committing genocide right now as we speak (arguably more than one), those are just the facts. — boethius

Let’s review your facts:
- The possibility of a military defeat. Its plausibility depends on many factors including the military capacity of Ukraine and Russia. One has to see the cost/benefit calculations as the war evolves and how other actors are moving wrt the conflict are other factors. Besides a military defeat or occupation do not fix political issues per se, especially in the long term.
- What people call “appeasement”. I think that your rendering doesn’t really capture what people mean by “appeasement” in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict which is more something like “the policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to Russia in hopes of avoiding further escalation or conflict, often viewed as placating Russian aggression at the expense of Ukrainian”. In some sense the Ukrainians want to fight alone in the current conflict, they do not need boots on the ground from other countries. They need a military, economic and humanitarian support at the expense of Russia. And this request is rationally compelling as long as Russia is perceived as a threat to European countries and the US.
- Dramatic events like genocides. To my understanding, there is a legal usage of the term “genocide”, there is a historical usage of the word “genocide”, and there is a political usage of the word “genocide” which can overlap to some extent but do not coincide. So we can still debate in what sense you talk about “genocide” and about its explanatory power.

Now, once we converge on a certain understanding of basic factual assumptions , we can then debate of what follows from them.

But propaganda can get in the way and use manipulative rhetorical tricks instead of offering clearer, more consistent analysis of facts and realities. I find that particularly nasty when careful analysis would be not only welcome but also kind of expected, as in a philosophical forum. Unfortunately, one can find early signs of such rhetorical manipulation even within your quotes.

In terms of absolute amount of suffering caused, definitely the West is the most evil in History, due to scale. — boethius

I don’t know how you made this calculation. But if I were to assess something, I would evaluate bad and good, costs and risks. Not just bad as you seem to do.
Talking about “causing” is ambiguous because it can be used both to explain without attributing responsibilities and then also to attribute responsibilities. So it is possible that the West in some explanatory sense has “caused” certain things, still it could be debatable if the West was responsible for it just because it “caused” them.

And definitely we Westerners should feel bad about that suffering. — boethius

OK your claim here is prescriptive not factual. Again I find it debatable, because the chance of following prescriptive claims depend on behavioural dispositions in human beings like the following: feeling bad about certain choices does not necessarily mean regretting those choices.
I’ll give you a dumb example: if I SHOULD save kid A and B from drowning and kid A is my son while kid B is your son, and I can’t save both. I will save mine and sacrifice yours. Would I feel bad about it? Sure. Would I regret my choice? Most certainly not.
In the same vain: if I SHOULD save kid A and one zillion of Palestinian kids from drowning and kid A is my son while one zillion of Palestinian kids are not, and I can’t save both. I will save mine and sacrifice one zillion of Palestinian kids. Would I feel bad about it? Sure. Would I regret my choice? Most certainly not.
What’s more is that even if you and many others feel differently about it, still there could be people whose feelings are of the kind I just described. And here is the political conundrum: politicians’ policies should be based on what people SHOULD feel or on what people ACTUALLY feel? Politicians are more credible and supported if they approve policies based on what people SHOULD do or on what people ACTUALLY do?

We should feel bad about the suffering of the Palestinians suffering a brutal genocide with on camera rapes of prisoners, burning and blown apart children, rapes of children we know about, starvation; really the most horrifying and humiliating conditions possibly in history, due to the essentially live-broadcast nature of the documentation of the horror. — boethius

This argument is good for moral appeal, not for clear analysis.
History is replete of brutal ethnic conflicts (which were perpetrated not only by the West) and probably that’s because human beings do not only feel the need for peace, but also because they need social identities. Unfortunately social identities come with all sorts of social discrimination between groups. This is a potential source of conflict that can spiral into a vicious circle and very easily so, since any defensive move against actual or potential hostilities by other groups can be perceived as aggressive by those groups. This vicious circle can escalate the conflict to brutal and disturbing consequences.
So if one wants to minimize their frequency and intensity everywhere one would need OVERWHELMING DISPROPORTIONATE POWERFUL means to ENFORCE peace and preserve/fuel such powerful means as long as possible and against competitors everywhere. What historical form could this situation take?
For example, once an international order of very powerful countries (NOT only the US) are committed to support and enforce human rights everywhere (starting from their own countries) then I can find it plausible that genocides will become less likely than otherwise.
“Genocidal” conflicts happen both in Palestine and in Ukraine. However the difference is that Russia is not fighting its war for the acknowledgement of its sovereign state by the Ukrainians. Russia aims to have its own sphere of influence beyond its borders, be influential on a global scale, be treated as a peer by the US (BTW if the US is an empire and Russia wants to be treated as a peer by the US than Russia wants to be treated as an empire too, right?). Israelis and Palestinians do.

Likewise, we should definitely feel bad about having bribed the Ukrainian elite into doing our dirty work to ensure the US can sell LNG to Europe at the cost of over a million dead Ukrainians (some estimates are approaching 2 million dead).

We manipulate and prop up the Ukrainians to take an absolutely brutal beating, dangle prospects of real help sometimes (like all that "no-fly-zone" talk, if you remember that) and the hypothesis is supposed to be we should feel good about that because we morally excoriated the Russians for following the exact same policies of Imperial domination we follow (just a lot more nobly due to pretty close adherence to the laws of war and not doing things like a genocide and starving civilian populations and lacking things like raping prisoners, even recording the rapes but defending the rapists)? — boethius

See, you started with some facts you likely believe to be “unquestionable” and then you conclude with facts which you can’t possibly believe they are “unquestionable” since they have been questioned. The idea that the Ukrainian have been propped up and bribed by the West has been repeatedly disputed (by me too). If one takes into consideration the historical evidence of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, one can find it rather plausible that Ukrainians had reasons to fight the Russians INDEPENDENTLY from any propping and bribing. This historical trend is not even unique to Ukraine, and it can be seen in many other neighboring countries of Russia. Ukrainians and many other Eastern European countries find Russia more oppressive than the US and act accordingly. And the war simply may have confirmed this perception. On the other side, the imperialist ambitions of Russia have also solid historical evidences (even prior the existence of the US) and are still cheerfully supported by Russian elites and intellectuals. So the propping and bribing by the West may not have enough explanatory power you seem to attribute to them. But you are less interested in analyzing facts and more interesting in judging and pinning responsibilities by carefully selecting certain convenient facts and overlook the rest.
From a geopolitical point of view, since Russia and Ukraine are not the only countries in the world, we should see how other countries position themselves wrt this conflict given their national interest. More powerful countries will likely approach the conflict in instrumental ways that are convenient to preserve or increase their power status for their security and prosperity, possibly at the expense of other rival powers. Now, since Russia can and did prop-up and bribe Ukrainians to make Russia happier the US is compelled to do the same to neutralise the asymmetric advantage Russia would otherwise have. Bribing and propping-up are tools politicians may need to rely on to beat rivals, still that’s not enough to explain certain historical trends or, even, to pin responsibilities.

See, so far my counter arguments are non-moral. They are grounded on what I believe “unquestionable” historical and anthropological facts, and neutral/pragmatic geopolitical reasoning. Even pro-Russian like you should be able to understand these arguments. And they should feel free to question them on their grounds which they typically avoid to do, because these arguments interfere with their rote counter-propaganda against the Great Satan. Their “analysis” is at best to find creative ways to link facts to the evil intentions of the Great Satan whatever they are. And then they call it critical thinking.
So my philosophical question to you is: should moral reasoning over the conflict between Ukraine and Russia take into account the anthropological and historical facts, and geopolitical reasoning I was referring to or not? If not, what is your argument? If yes, how?

Emphasis mine ...

As the President of the United States, I will stand up to Countries that attack our incredible American Tech Companies. Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology. They also, outrageously, give a complete pass to China's largest Tech Companies. This must end, and end NOW! With this TRUTH, I put all Countries with Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations, on notice that unless these discriminatory actions are removed, I, as President of the United States, will impose substantial additional Tariffs on that Country's Exports to the U.S.A., and institute Export restrictions on our Highly Protected Technology and Chips. America, and American Technology Companies, are neither the “piggy bank” nor the “doormat” of the World any longer. Show respect to America and our amazing Tech Companies or, consider the consequences! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA — Donald J. Trump · Aug 25, 2025

It's unclear what that will mean for ...

Russian attack on western Ukraine hits an American factory during the US-led push for peace (— AP · Aug 21, 2025)

What do you think will come of it (if anything)?
What should come of it (if anything)?

Russia’s top diplomat says Zelensky can’t sign Ukraine war peace deal because he’s ‘illegitimate’ (— New York Post · Aug 24, 2025)

secure elections can not take place with the ongoing war against Russia

He's legitimate. (Can the same be said for Putin?)

Q: "This past weekend, Sergey Lavrov was saying that Putin will not sign a peace deal with Zelensky because Russia views him as illegitimate."
President Trump: "It doesn't matter what they say. Everybody's posturing. It's all bullshit." — CSPAN · Aug 26, 2025

According to one commentator, the Kremlin's push is like a Trojan horse.

• would buy them time
• would give them an easy excuse to withdraw from negotiations at any time
• besides, they could always claim that such an election was illegitimate

Seems safe enough to say that the Kremlin does not^† particularly have peace in mind.
Rather, colonization^‡ at the expense of Russians and Ukrainians (and North Koreans).


^{† (some chronological evidence) 2014, 2014, 2019, 2019, 2022, 2022, 2023, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025}

_{‡ (some chronological evidence) 2020, 2022, 2022, 2023, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2025}

Obama, Trump, whoever, brought up for Europe (and Canada) to carry its NATO weight, as it were.
Defense increase seems to be happening, however scary.

Will war in Ukraine mark a new era for European defence research? (— Nature · Aug 17, 2022)
Europe needs to spend more on defence, not just pretend to (— The Economist · Mar 20, 2025)
French Automaker to Mass Produce MBDA’s ‘One Way Effector’ Missile (— DefenseMirror · Jun 15, 2025)
Europe builds for war as arms factories expand at triple speed (— Financial Times · Aug 12, 2025)

Russia might find itself well outgunned in Ukraine (+ deterrence works), but I'd suggest not forgetting more sanctions.



Pleasantries:

Chinese President Xi Jinping sends independence day greetings to Ukraine (— SCMP · Aug 25, 2025)

According to one commentator, the Kremlin's push is like a Trojan horse.

• would buy them time
• would give them an easy excuse to withdraw from negotiations at any time
• besides, they could always claim that such an election was illegitimate — jorndoe

Sounds plausible, but let's not forget that amongst the Russian declared objectives for the war, there was/is the denazification of Ukraine, namely, the removal of "the “drug addicts and neo-Nazis” who purportedly govern Ukraine. So acknowledging Zelensky as legitimate counter-part for a peace deal would be likely seen as a concession.

Continuing from earlier comments ...

SECURITY COUNCIL LIVE: Push for peace in Ukraine could rapidly fade if large-scale Russian attacks continue
^{— UN · Aug 29, 2025}

The assault of “629 airborne weapons” killed 25 people — including 4 children — and wounded 63 more, said Yulia Svyrydenko, including a girl “not yet three years old, born under Russian shelling in October 2022, and killed by Russian shelling in August 2025”.
Strikes also damaged the European Union Delegation and British Council premises - diplomatic sites, not military targets - “deliberate acts of terror”, she said, demanding stronger air defence and long-range capabilities to protect civilians, alongside tougher sanctions to deprive Moscow of funds for its war.
Citing the Russian Federation’s systematic abduction of children, forced adoption and identity erasure, she said: “Russia kills children from a distance with missiles and drones, and those who fall under its control it steals.”
She urged the Council to act, insisting that peace requires both bolstering its defence and intensifying pressure on Moscow until it shows genuine willingness to negotiate, stressing: "Aggression must be punished, never rewarded." — Yulia Svyrydenko

Such attacks targeted Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, including arms depots, airfields and UAV factories, not civilians, said the Russian Federation’s speaker.
Rather, civilian deaths resulted from Ukrainian air defences placed in residential areas, he said, stressing Kyiv is “shamelessly and criminally” using Ukrainians as human shields and such tragedies are “intentionally whipped up to blame the deaths of Ukrainian civilians on Russia,” to secure more Western arms and sanctions.
Moscow further accused the West of hypocrisy, ignoring Ukrainian drone and missile attacks on Russian Federation cities that, it said, killed and wounded scores of civilians in late August. The West’s selective blindness undermines its credibility, while reiterating demands for security guarantees that address the Russian Federation's concerns. He also accused Kyiv of “skyrocketing human rights violations”.
On the Alaska Summit, he said the Russian Federation remains open to negotiations, but only on terms that exclude North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion and recognize Russian interests, accusing Kyiv of blocking compromise and pursuing “PR over diplomacy”. — Dmitry Polyanski

“These are not military targets. Aerial attacks in massive waves on densely populated urban areas with explosive weaponry have no justification,” Slovenia’s representative said.
Reiterating condemnation of intensified attacks “while peace in Ukraine is being discussed”, she said they represent a blatant violation of international humanitarian law and “must not go unpunished”.
“2025 is rapidly becoming the deadliest year of this war,” she said, stressing: “We need to refocus our discussions on stopping the bloodshed. We need an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.” — Ondina Blokar Drobič

:chin:
Well, yes, something doesn't add up, though at least it consistently doesn't add up; in this UN forum, I guess all that can be done is calling it out.
House Trump was silent in this round, as far as I know ^{(2025Feb21, 2025Apr15, 2025Jun17)}; busy at home ^{(2025Aug12, 2025Aug29)}.