I once went to Tijuana. While shopping in the market, I found a vendor of Mexican blankets. I found one I liked and asked the shopkeeper how much.
"$65," he said in English.
I put it down and started walking to the door and he yelled out "$5!"
We eventually agreed on $4.
The point is that the "going in" position in negotiations is rarely the ending position. The Russians particularly liked to grossly overstate their demands at the beginning, then gradually whittle down their conditions and use the whittling as a demonstration that they are reasonable and negotiating in good faith: "See, I have already given in on X, and Y. Now, give me Z. I'm willing to settle for only Z."
Russia demands Ukraine retreat from Ukrainian-occupied portions of Kherson, Dniepro, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkov, as well as Donetsk and Lugansk.
Ukraine counters with "How about you you get your filthy hands off all of your territory?"
In the end, I would bet that they will settle for each side holding what they now have. and the confrontation line gets frozen.
Russia demands the de jure cession of all that territory. Ukraine counters with "How about you get your filthy hands off all the Ukrainian territory you have stolen?"
They settle for de facto partition, but Ukraine does not legally cede any territory to Russia. (Throughout the Cold War, the US officially treated Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as "temporarily occupied by the Soviets." Look at a US government printed map from the Cold War and you will see that. Eventually, the US realized its position: an independent Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.)
Russia demands reparations.
Ukraine demands equal reparations.
They settle for nobody pays anybody reparations (but Europe helps rebuild Ukraine).
Or Option B, they keep fighting until somebody cracks and we just hope it is not the Ukrainians. A lot of people are going to die in Option B.
Last edited:
