15 years ago Yglesias was pushing the idea that all health and safety regulation [1] was social-wealth-destroying and should be repealed so poor people would have more opportunity to build steel mills in their backyards. Then he went off on people who criticized Bill Clinton and neoliberalism, using the then-popular tactic of claiming their was no such thing as neoliberalism and that it was just "a slur" that the "the left" used to criticize anyone or any policy it didn't like.
Neither of those takes held up very well. So I'm surprised he's doing a retrospective.
[1] particularly those he had neither the technical education nor practical field experience to understand, such as plumbing and sewer regulations.
JD Vance is one of those Republicans who likes to live like a Democrat. This includes a working spouse in a profession that demands long hours. This has certain child-care implications that I'm not sure he would want to admit to.
Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that there is a certain "obtuseness" in this reading, as well. It is not mistaken to suggest that "Ukraine would have been very foolish to give up its demand for a real security guarantee", but the same token Russia would have been equally foolish to accept the terms of the agreement without at least *some* degree of control over how that "guarantee" would come into play.
If we begin with the premise that at least a major factor in Russia's actions was the desire to prevent a(nother) NATO/hostile state on its borders, then Russia would want at least some way to guarantee that this would not come to pass. A promise not to expand NATO activity that is unenforceable is not something that Russia could reasonably accept - particularly given the history of NATO expansion and the fact that NATO/Ukraine joint exercises had already taken place. If such an agreement would be made, then at some point in the future Ukraine could be offered NATO membership and there would be basically nothing that Russia could do to prevent it other than going to war with NATO, given that the "security guarantee" already in place was effectively equivalent to NATO membership, at least in terms of defense guarantees.
If "a ceasefire was merely an opportunity for Putin to back off and try again at a more opportune time", then equally the "real security guarantee" as proposed would be viewed by Russia as merely an opportunity for NATO to back off and later make Ukraine's NATO membership a fait accompli. As such, it seems to me obtuse to believe that Russia could agree.
Assuming that you've correctly stated Russian reasoning -- I don't think you have, but I'll assume it -- you left out the most significant factor: Russia's own actions which led to the current situation, namely invading Ukraine not once but twice. And that's putting aside lots of other factors such as interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs, committing war crimes repeatedly, etc. Given Putin's oft-stated goals and his repeated bad faith, a NATO guarantee seems like the only "deal" Ukraine could accept.
I don't know if there is a good reason for Ukraine to accept less.
But the context of my comment was the statement about "not groking that a ceasefire was merely an opportunity for Putin to back off and try again at a more opportune time." And noting the fact that the agreement as demanded by Ukraine was merely an opportunity for NATO to back off and try again at a more opportune time.
15 years ago Yglesias was pushing the idea that all health and safety regulation [1] was social-wealth-destroying and should be repealed so poor people would have more opportunity to build steel mills in their backyards. Then he went off on people who criticized Bill Clinton and neoliberalism, using the then-popular tactic of claiming their was no such thing as neoliberalism and that it was just "a slur" that the "the left" used to criticize anyone or any policy it didn't like.
Neither of those takes held up very well. So I'm surprised he's doing a retrospective.
[1] particularly those he had neither the technical education nor practical field experience to understand, such as plumbing and sewer regulations.
JD Vance is one of those Republicans who likes to live like a Democrat. This includes a working spouse in a profession that demands long hours. This has certain child-care implications that I'm not sure he would want to admit to.
Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that there is a certain "obtuseness" in this reading, as well. It is not mistaken to suggest that "Ukraine would have been very foolish to give up its demand for a real security guarantee", but the same token Russia would have been equally foolish to accept the terms of the agreement without at least *some* degree of control over how that "guarantee" would come into play.
If we begin with the premise that at least a major factor in Russia's actions was the desire to prevent a(nother) NATO/hostile state on its borders, then Russia would want at least some way to guarantee that this would not come to pass. A promise not to expand NATO activity that is unenforceable is not something that Russia could reasonably accept - particularly given the history of NATO expansion and the fact that NATO/Ukraine joint exercises had already taken place. If such an agreement would be made, then at some point in the future Ukraine could be offered NATO membership and there would be basically nothing that Russia could do to prevent it other than going to war with NATO, given that the "security guarantee" already in place was effectively equivalent to NATO membership, at least in terms of defense guarantees.
If "a ceasefire was merely an opportunity for Putin to back off and try again at a more opportune time", then equally the "real security guarantee" as proposed would be viewed by Russia as merely an opportunity for NATO to back off and later make Ukraine's NATO membership a fait accompli. As such, it seems to me obtuse to believe that Russia could agree.
Assuming that you've correctly stated Russian reasoning -- I don't think you have, but I'll assume it -- you left out the most significant factor: Russia's own actions which led to the current situation, namely invading Ukraine not once but twice. And that's putting aside lots of other factors such as interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs, committing war crimes repeatedly, etc. Given Putin's oft-stated goals and his repeated bad faith, a NATO guarantee seems like the only "deal" Ukraine could accept.
But that doesn't answer the question: why would anyone think that Russia would accept such an agreement?
The proper question is "why should Ukraine accept less?".
I don't know if there is a good reason for Ukraine to accept less.
But the context of my comment was the statement about "not groking that a ceasefire was merely an opportunity for Putin to back off and try again at a more opportune time." And noting the fact that the agreement as demanded by Ukraine was merely an opportunity for NATO to back off and try again at a more opportune time.