A Brief Note on the Difference Between Negotiation and Extortion
Let's think about the word 'negotiating.' All wars end with it, according to the popular saying, but rarely does the aggressor come to the table demanding territory that it doesn't actually control. Usually, the belligerents discuss which military gains should be formalized and which should be reversed. Vladimir Putin, however, has consistently demanded more land than his military has been able to bring under its control in the three and a half years since Russia's full-scale invasion began. During his summit with Trump in Alaska on Friday, Putin appears to have made a small concession: He is still demanding more land than he has occupied, but not as much as he used to demand. But less is still more.
So let's talk about 'land swap.' This phrase seems to refer to Putin's offer to take a piece of Ukraine in exchange for not threatening an even bigger piece of Ukraine. This is not what we normally think of as a swap. It's what we think of as extortion.
Let's also talk about the word 'land,' or 'territory,' which the leaders gathered at the White House on Monday used a lot. Zelensky referred to a map Trump apparently provided to facilitate discussion of 'territory.' Trump promised to get him a copy.
But 'territory' is not an outline on a map. It's cities and towns and villages where people still live — even near the front line, even now. Before the full-scale invasion, the populations of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, the two Ukrainian cities on land Putin is demanding, were 200,000 and 100,000, respectively. We don't know how many people live there now — some people surely fled, some came from occupied territories, some died — but the number is almost certainly tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.
To propose to cede the land to Russia is to propose either subjecting those residents to Russian occupation — which in other cities has involved summary executions, detentions and torture — or displacing them forcibly. Either would be a crime — a crime in which Trump is asking Zelensky to become an accomplice.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams donates to ‘good causes' after BBC pays 100,000 euro damages
Gerry Adams has said he has made donations to 'good causes' after the BBC paid the former Sinn Fein president 100,000 euro (£84,000) in defamation damages. The broadcaster lost a defamation case earlier this year after Mr Adams took them to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme and an accompanying online story. They contained an allegation that Mr Adams sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson. Mr Adams denied any involvement. In May, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euro (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. Johnsons Solicitors, which represented Mr Adams in his action, confirmed that the BBC has discharged the order of the court in relation to the compensation to their client. Mr Adams said he intended to donate any damages awarded to good causes. The law firm said donations have been made to 'Unicef for the children of Gaza', local GAA organisations, a support group for republican prisoners and their families called An Cumman Cabhrach, to the Irish language sector, to the 'homeless and Belfast based-youth, mental health and suicide prevention projects' and others. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs, potentially in the order of millions. However, it is understood the final amount of costs have yet to be determined.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elections watchdog agrees to help Kyiv counterpart plan for post-war votes
Britain's elections watchdog has agreed to help its Ukrainian counterpart plan for post-war votes. The co-operation deal will see the Electoral Commission share with Kyiv best practice on cybersecurity and voter education when Ukrainians next go to the polls. Elections are on hold in Ukraine while the country is under martial law, following Russia's invasion in February 2022. 'The delivery of well-run elections that command public confidence and trust is crucial to a healthy and free democracy,' said watchdog chief executive Vijay Rangarajan. He added: 'We are proud to welcome our colleagues and friends from Ukraine to the UK and sign this agreement of co-operation. 'There is a lot that we can learn from each other and deepening the ties between us will help us share expertise and learning in the coming years. 'We stand ready to support Ukraine as it prepares for future post-war elections.' The memorandum of understanding with the Central Election Commission of Ukraine, signed in London, will see the two organisations share information intended to assist the Ukrainian authorities in planning for future post-war elections. The Ukrainian delegation took part in several meetings while in the UK, according to the watchdog, on mis-information, foreign interference, physical security and cybersecurity, as well as discussions about political finance regulation. 'I would call the signing of the memorandum between our institutions a landmark moment that will promote our co-operation and, through the exchange of experience and the adoption of best practices, will help to strengthen democratic values in Ukraine,' chairman of the Ukrainian commission Oleh Didenko said. 'As we prepare for challenging post-war elections, establishing co-operation and familiarising ourselves with important processes such as voting abroad and combating disinformation will enable us to prepare effectively and efficiently for the most challenging elections in our country's history.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats need to start using AI to help save democracy
As American democracy unravels at the hands of President Trump and his enabling congressional and Supreme Court majorities, millions of Americans are desperate to identify whatever possible countermeasures remain to slow the country's descent into fascism. The outcome of the 2026 midterms is unlikely to produce meaningful change, even if the Democrats take control of the House. Without a cooperative Senate, it will be impossible either to pass legislation or secure a conviction on impeachment charges. Oversight hearings can bring public attention to things like rampant corruption, but the threats Trump poses to the rule of law and democracy are already well-known. The courts can only do so much. There's another emerging tool, however: artificial intelligence. Trump seems to understands the transformative power of AI. Last month, the administration announced an ' AI Action Plan ' for 'winning the AI race.' Among other measures, it promises to remove 'onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' As part of this initiative, the General Services Administration and OpenAI announced earlier this month that the company will be 'providing ChatGPT to the entire U.S. federal workforce' under a 'first-of-its-kind partnership.' Participating agencies will pay a nominal cost of $1 each for the first year to enable federal employees to 'explore and leverage AI.' The company is also 'teaming up with experienced partners Slalom and Boston Consulting Group to support secure, responsible deployment and trainings.' Last week, the AI company Anthropic likewise announced it had struck the same deal with GSA to enable federal agencies' access to its Claude model. The Trump administration's effort to streamline the federal government with AI models makes some sense. Research has shown that generative AI — particularly large language models, which consume vast amounts of data to understand and generate natural language content — can enhance government efficiency in data processing, analysis and drafting, among other potential advantages. But AI systems also increase the risk of widespread government surveillance, personalized misinformation and disinformation, systematic discrimination, lack of accountability and inaccuracy. According to a recent academic paper, 'although many studies have explored the ethical implications of AI, fewer have fully examined its democratic implications.' Trump's alliance with OpenAI head Sam Altman goes back to start of his second term, when he announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank to build up to 20 large AI data centers. Trump called the venture 'Stargate.' The deal's details are murky, including who will have access to Stargate and how it will possibly benefit taxpayers. Although a spokesman for OpenAI told Fox News Digital that 'Sam Altman sort of planted a flag on democratic AI versus autocratic AI,' let's not forget that Altman is not a government official or employee. As a legal matter, it is unclear whether these ' fast-tracked ' deals will fully comply with traditional oversight and procurement laws and procedures. No major AI company is currently approved under the Federal Risk And Authorization Management Program, for example, which is the process for authorizing the use of cloud technologies by federal agencies. According the GSA website, the program aims to ensure 'security and protection of federal information' by imposing strict cybersecurity controls to protect against data breaches, hacking and unauthorized access, and requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. Given that the GSA is reportedly working on 'developing a separate authorization' for generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude, the potential threats to national security and private citizens' personal information are significant. The Trump administration's lack of transparency also risks creating a black-box government run by proprietary algorithms that the public cannot inspect — centralizing control over federal AI in two companies whose interests clearly lie in market dominance, not the public good. This is why these kinds of decisions are best made through established legal procedures — including the Federal Competition in Contracting Act (requiring fair and open competition), the Privacy Act of 1974 (limiting how agencies can collect and disclose personal data), the Federal Records Act (requiring the proper retention and archiving of public records) and the Administrative Procedure Act (requiring public comment and input into major policy decisions). For now, OpenAI has promised that its 'goal is to ensure agencies can use AI securely and responsibly. ChatGPT Enterprise already does not use business data, including inputs or outputs, to train or improve OpenAI models. The same safeguards will apply to federal use.' This promise from Altman's company is no substitute for actual legal standards enforced by the federal government. Whether AI tools embedded in federal government systems could one day be used to sway elections to favor Trump and his cronies is a vital question. For now, what's clear is that Democrats need to get into the AI game, and fast. A Democratic political action committee called the National Democratic Training Committee recently unveiled on online course entitled 'AI For Progressive Campaigns,' which is designed to teach candidates how to use AI to help create social media content, draft speeches, craft voter outreach messaging and phone-banking scripts, conduct research into their constituencies and opponents, and develop internal training materials. The founder and CEO of the group, Kelly Dietrich, stated that 'thousands of Democratic campaigns can now leverage AI to compete at any scale.' This effort, although laudable, does not go far enough to capitalize on AI's potential to help outmaneuver authoritarianism in the U.S. There's much more that might be done, including using AI to educate citizens on the benefits of democracy, how institutions work and the facts underlying important issues; to create large-scale, moderated public deliberation and consensus around divisive issues; to detect and alert the public to manipulated media, thus combatting misinformation and disinformation and fostering public trust in an alternative to Trump; and to create and implement effective messaging strategies for alternative visions for the future of the country. AI could be American voters' best friend, not their enemy. It just needs to be asked.
