Putin's suggestion of Ukraine ceasefire rejected by United States, sources say

I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians will cease firing once the Russians leave their country and stop trying to murder them.
- If you believe this, then you're completely ignorant of the events that led to this war in the first place.
- Here's a question nobody has been able to answer for me yet.
  Why would Russia abandon a 2 year long military operation they're winning.
  Literally just because a bunch of American libs said they should online?
  All reports are pointing to it not being the russians that would benefit from a ceasefire.
  
  Nobody expects that they actually will do so willingly. Just that Russia should because, y'know, starting wars to annex territory is not something most people like. That's why Ukraine should be armed until it can make Russia leave.
  That said, Russia would absolutely benefit from a negotiated settlement right now. This war is taking a lot of Russian lives and resources, so if it can persuade either Ukraine to agree to enough concessions or Ukraine's backers to stop backing it, Russia could benefit enormously. Even if Russia actually manages to completely overrun Ukraine in the future, actually having to fight to the end will be an extremely costly ordeal.
- Because no fighting was happening in Ukraine before the Russians entered the country, right? The war just fell out of a coconut tree?
- Sure, as long as the US permits them to accept a ceasefire.
  
  What's the US going to do if Ukraine negotiates a ceasefire?
  
  This entire response here was ostensibly in respect to Ukraine.
  From the article, which you clearly didn't read:
  A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.
  
  It was Russia that tried to negotiate a treaty with the US. And the US said 'fuck you, ask Ukraine, not us'. Its Russia treating Ukraine like a puppet state, not the US.
- I'm pretty sure the
- I'm pretty sure the Russians will cease firing once the Ukrainians stop trying to murder them.
  
  The invading Russians also need to leave Ukraine, Crimea, etc.
- Ukraine should leave Donbas because they're clearly not wanted there.
- Aren't Ukrainian drones attacking Russian civilian targets now?

That’s really bizarre because why does America have a say in Russo-Ukrainian affairs? Shouldn’t a ceasefire be determined by the two parties not currently at a ceasefire?
Somebody who is good at geopolitics explain
- Yeah why is it that also other western leaders like johnson visit ukraine and suddenly peace talks stop? https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/ Why are they encouraging a war where Ukraine would depend on even more western military and economic aid?
  Somebody who navigates all this please help us understand
- Ukraine is a US puppet

Don't know why the United States would have any say in Putin pulling the Russian paramilitary out of Ukraine. Ceasefire is simple, back your ass out of Ukraine, back to 2013 borders.
- They (the US) don't, and they acknowledge that.
  In the interview with fucker carlson, Putin said that Ukraine is a vassal of the US and Russia does not negotiate with Ukraine as it's useless, they want to only negotiate with the puppet master.
  Hence the offer, hence the rejection. It's geopolitical theatre.
- They said that about keeping them at bay, keeping control of the black sea and countless other things.

oh for fucks sake, putins russia has never once 'negotiated' in good faith. they just use it to buy time to resupply and relocate. every peace deal theyve made, THEY broke. ukraine gets to decide when it's time to talk. the US cant stop them
- In bad faith to buy time, you say? That’s rich: Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up. It’s almost as if every accusation is a confession.

Was it conditional? Or was it just a straight up offer of a temporary cease fire?

I question why the US is doing the rejection rather than Ukraine (and similarly, why the UK rejected the last peace talks...)
- The article you posted: "The Americans refuse to talk unless the Ukrainians are also invited"
  You, for some reason: "Why is America deciding for Ukraine?"
- There's more expiring guns to be given away yet, and more Ukrainian property to be bought at the firesale*
  https://privatization.gov.ua/en/
- It's one of Putin's strategies: To make it look like it is a conflict between the US/NATO and Russia, not between Ukraine and Russia. He also tries to diminish Ukrainian sovereignity by making it appear as if the US is the overlord, as if Ukraine is an American puppet. It's all about making Ukraine look like it isn't its own country. That's why we get those bullshit historic lessons by that pathetic man-child.
  
  I agree that the history lessons from Putin are bs, but hard disagree that this isn't NATO/Russia but Ukraine/Russia. Do you know what a proxy war is?
  
  Ukraine lost its sovereignty back when the coup happened. The war is absolutely between NATO and Russia, and lots of NATO officials have said this fairly openly at this point. People who keep pretending otherwise are utterly disingenuous.
- Didn't read the article you posted eh?
- From the article:
  A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

"sources" eh? more like lies manufactured wholesale

Yeah. I suppose this is also bidens fault. /s

So possible options as I see them:
Biden's USA is stubborn and nihilistic and just wants to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as possible before Trump comes in and forces Ukraine to accept a treaty
USA (and Ukraine) knows that Putin hasn't changed its demands at all so any talks are pointless
USA (and Ukraine) knows that Russia is losing and doesn't want to negotiate
Biden forgot how to use a phone and is too embarrased to ask
I'm personally going with 2 with a sprinkle of 4 and 1. In my happy dreams, 3.
- Why are so many people here from Lemmy.ml and Hexbear assuming Putin and Russia offered an amicable ceasefire? When has Putin EVER shown he would ever want such a thing?
  You people have worms in your brains.
- Why would Russia change its demands? It's winning. If the other side is winning, you want to negotiate because the terms will only get worse.
  
  Winning? By whose metric lol
  
  That would imply that Ukraine and USA should be asking for negotiations.
- The one thing that the Liberals have decided to take a stand on, "Russia Bad!", to the point that they'll keep the war machine churning through Ukranian bodies until its some other administration's responsibility to turn off the US money spigot. Then they'll squeal about it being a Putin Puppet's doing or some shit.

Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?
Original comment:
I'm going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):
Putin's investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries' military investments.
Reasoning:
Russia's actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
Sweden and Finland's potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.
Considering Occam's razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?
- but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?
  I'll give it a shot.
  First off, any payoff from Russia investing in NATO defense is massively offset by the untold damage this war is doing to Russia's economy and population. This still holds true if it's just putin's investment, although if he were really bent on profit from that he probably could. But there are other, more lucrative and less damaging avenues to profit for a guy with as much money as he has.
  Secondly, the war isn't pointless. Occams razor suggests the simplest reason is often the truth. The simplest reason is that Crimea provides Russia a western seaport that isn't frozen half of the year, and taking eastern Ukraine provides a path to that port.
  
  Thank you for telling why I'm wrong :)
  I agree with you partly on your first point. Putin has other ways of making his fortune. BUT that doesn't mean that he couldn't also do this. Maybe it's not the primary reason, but if Putin doesn't care about Russia or the Russian people, then money could be a motivator.
  On your second point IDK though. Russia still has a pretty large black sea port in Novorossiysk to the south east of Crimea. That port is on the mainland, has a rail connection, and doesn't rely on an explosion prone bridge. Sevastopol may be an important port, but important enough to go to war over? Besides, the black sea ports aren't the only warm water ports west of the Urals. Not counting the unconnected port in Murmansk, on the Baltic sea there's Kaliningrad and the three large ports near Saint Petersburg. On wikipedia's list of largest ports in the Baltic sea, the three at Saint Petersburg are in the top four.
  So why go to war for a fifth port? Was Novorossiysk operating at capacity? I dont buy it. The war wasn't for a path to Sevastopol alone.