The Argentine Government has repeatedly attacked Judge Griesa ad hominem, disobeyed a final sentence and done everything as possible not to reach an agreement during the procedural iter. There is a legal side to this discussion, whether the sentence was fair (to Argentina) or convenient (to future bonds issued under NY law) worth deep analysis but... from a negotiation perspective it has been a slaughter. Why? To what purpose? Is it a political strategy? What could have been done better and/or at a lower cost? Many other questions also pullulate my mind. This is an important, challenging and difficult case of aborted negotiations, over a meaningful and politically charged issue. Anyone interesting in doing a proper analysis from the negotiation theory perspective and perhaps co-author a paper or post? If so, do let me know. In any case all comments, insights and suggestions are more than welcome!