Russia and Ukraine Current Events

Traditional military thought is that, all other things being equal, defenders have a 3:1 advantage, that is, you need 3x as many attacking troops than defenders to take a location.

Minor nit: 1.7x, as Lanchester's square law is in force.

Lanchester codified it (and an "old warfare" model, based on no range weapons, that's linear) in the 1900s, but I was taught that Nelson was aware of it, or at least its conclusion (survivors = sqrt(larger^2-smaller^2), assuming no advantage) if the battle runs to completion, before then. Military sims still use the model to this day, as the differential equations have remained the same, only the parameters have changed, and, even then, not by much. NATO's (DoD/RAND's) 2015 prediction that the Russians would be in Tallinn in 60 hours were the tanks to start rolling on our eastern border was based on it.
 
Traditional military thought is that, all other things being equal, defenders have a 3:1 advantage, that is, you need 3x as many attacking troops than defenders to take a location.
Minor nit: 1.7x, as Lanchester's square law is in force.

Without detracting from Phil's informative post, I hope planners use x1.7 rounded up to the nearest whole number:

article-2614565-0E1D4EE500000578-78_634x473.jpg
 
of course when I enter I will keep silent when need be - dont expect much updates

If you are heading for Ukraine, I wish you all the very best at this intensely difficult time.
I hope you and your future colleagues can prevail over any challenges that you might face, and that you all, in the fullness of time, can return unscathed to civilian life knowing that you contributed to defending a peaceful nation from a brutal aggressor.

I won't pretend to know about Ukraine personal security or operational security training, but unless told otherwise, if you're "in the field" it's probably best to go sterile- no (unissued) cell phone or tablet etc. Try not to store domestic numbers or photos.
And don't use any device unless your local commander has said it's safe to do so.

Anyway; with an uncomfortable transition to what must seem a wholly trivial matter,
the guy on the right is a non-actor he always plays the same role in all his appearances
If you mean the chap in the forage cap (without a peak), John Le Mesurier, he did lots of diverse acting:
External Quote:
He is probably best remembered for his comedic role as Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the BBC television situation comedy Dad's Army (1968–1977). A self-confessed "jobbing actor", Le Mesurier appeared in more than 120 films across a range of genres, normally in smaller supporting parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Le_Mesurier

The officer in the peaked cap was played by Arthur Lowe, who was also a prolific actor (and narrated the Mister Men cartoons):
External Quote:
His acting career spanned 37 years, including starring roles in numerous theatre and television productions. He played Captain Mainwaring in the British sitcom Dad's Army from 1968 until 1977, was nominated for seven BAFTAs and became one of the most recognised faces on UK television.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Lowe

...But I'm sure you have more important things to think about than 20th Century British actors.
 
If you mean the chap in the forage cap (without a peak), John Le Mesurier, he did lots of diverse acting:
Shades of Dad's Army, I chanced to watch an Agatha Christie movie today, which had Bill Pertwee in it, the guy who played their usual adversary in the Wardens.

My (oldest) uncle Andrew was in the Home Guard, and made the papers one day for having two vehicles, a car and a motorcycle, bombed out from under him on the same day.
 
Shades of Dad's Army, I chanced to watch an Agatha Christie movie today, which had Bill Pertwee in it, the guy who played their usual adversary in the Wardens.

My (oldest) uncle Andrew was in the Home Guard, and made the papers one day for having two vehicles, a car and a motorcycle, bombed out from under him on the same day.
"Sorry, Uncle Andrew, but I can't go to the ballgame with you today.
I, uh, uh, have to get a block of ice for the icebox...yeah, that's it!"
 
What could he have or should he be doing differently?
Ukraine's problem has been (is?) oligarchs, similar to Russia, and I understand Zelensky is tied into that system. In that respect, he's not the change that some people feel the country needs, but Ukraine is also at war, so... it's not so much what he's been doing, but what he represents (provided my understanding is correct).
 
For a guy so late to politics (Zelenskyy), to be skillfully navigating his vulnerable country
between a murderous thug of a dictator, and a dim, small-minded corrupt narcissist,
is extraordinary, IMHO...
And he's in a precarious position with the US administration now seemingly indifferent to his fate.
 
And he's in a precarious position with the US administration now seemingly indifferent to his fate.
"Indifferent" is probably too nice a word, but I feel you.
At any rate, Trump promised on the campaign trail that this would be resolved by January 21st.

Roughly 3 months past that deadline, his long-claimed deal-making prowess is, as usual, MIA:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio essentially admitted this week that the fact that a solution
was not anywhere near as easy as Trump claimed (like egg prices, etc., apparently),
means that the orange guy may soon completely lose interest.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/18/nx-s1-5369279/u-s-ukraine-peace-efforts-russia-rubio

(And though we're going through the motions, :rolleyes: again, of pretending to have a diplomatic
solution to Russia's violent aggression, the fact that our Sec of State isn't even attending the
London talks, makes obvious that the Trump Administration's heart isn't really in it...)
 
Last edited:
Indifferent" is probably too nice a word, but I feel you.
Yeah, it's softer than how/what I really think. The callousness of the US administration, their reticence on intelligence sharing, and their inability to strike a deal while supporting Russian interests, I think, means Zelenskyy doesn't have much time left. So, when it happens it will be a massive crisis for European leaders.
 
"Indifferent" is probably too nice a word, but I feel you.
At any rate, Trump promised on the campaign trail that this would be resolved by January 21st.

Roughly 3 months past that deadline, his long-claimed deal-making prowess is, as usual, MIA:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio essentially admitted this week that the fact that a solution
was not anywhere near as easy as Trump claimed (like egg prices, etc., apparently),
means that the orange guy may soon completely lose interest.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/18/nx-s1-5369279/u-s-ukraine-peace-efforts-russia-rubio

(And though we're going through the motions, :rolleyes: again, of pretending to have a diplomatic
solution to Russia's violent aggression, the fact that our Sec of State isn't even attending the
London talks, makes obvious that the Trump Administration's heart isn't really in it...)
Rubio's got far more important things to deal with, such as making sure billionaire US real estate magnates and russian sprott oligarchs (that's one person) don't suffer:
External Quote:
Rubio also told Breitbart News that when it comes to the Russians, it "will be part of a conversation" with them to pressure them to reverse Russian President Vladimir Putin's takeover of western companies particularly an American-owned company called Glavproduct. Glavproduct, a Russian canned foods company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of American company Universal Beverage, was effectively seized by the Russian government during the waning days of former President Joe Biden's administration in October, right before President Donald Trump defeated then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the election.
-- https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...raine-ask-nuclear-weapons-peace-talks-russia/

US-domiciled businesses matter more than bombed schools, hospitals, and churches.
 
Rubio's got far more important things to deal with, such as making sure billionaire US real estate magnates and russian sprott oligarchs (that's one person) don't suffer:
Listening to his 2014 speech about Ukraine and, in his words, the US's obligation to help stabilize it's democracy and protect it from Putin's "egregious and outrageous" actions that violate "international norms," it's difficult to think of a more stunning about face from a political "leader," (are there any more clear cut examples? I can't think of one).

"We can not do it alone, [impose sanctions and costs on Putin's Russia] but it can not be done without us".

As he says failure to act will show that "...America is no longer reliable economically, or militarily. And the consequences of that could extend far beyond Europe into other regions of the world..." [19:55], yet they are now actively embracing this position.
For any young person thinking of entering politics Rubio's utter hypocrisy should be seen as the gold standard of what not to become.

Source:
Source: https://youtu.be/rFqvErYqFRs?si=VxpUU8wl3KaZgeB5
 
Trump, who apparently never heard of Danegeld, has decided that peace can be obtained by capitulation to Russia's demands.

External Quote:
The U.S. expects Ukraine's response Wednesday to a peace framework that includes U.S. recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and unofficial recognition of Russian control of nearly all areas occupied since the 2022 invasion, sources with direct knowledge of the proposal tell Axios.

The one-page document the U.S. presented Ukrainian officials in Paris last week describes this as President Trump's "final offer." The White House insists it's ready to walk away if the parties don't make a deal soon.
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/trump-russia-ukraine-peace-plan-crimea-donbas
 
Rubio's utter hypocrisy should be seen as the gold standard of what not to become.
it's not like he has a choice. the choice is Trump's.
The callousness of the US administration, their reticence on intelligence sharing, and their inability to strike a deal while supporting Russian interests, I think, means Zelenskyy doesn't have much time left.
zelensky's only hope is boots on the ground. and america is not willing to do that, or to be a backstop for europe countries starting a multiple-country war, over a few pieces of urkraine land.
So Zelensky would have to give Russia at least half of what i wants (probably more like 75%) since Russia is winning.

They (Biden and europe) waited way too long to try making a deal, so Russia now has no incentive to compromise much.
 
it's not like he has a choice. the choice is Trump's.

zelensky's only hope is boots on the ground. and america is not willing to do that, or to be a backstop for europe countries starting a multiple-country war, over a few pieces of urkraine land.
So Zelensky would have to give Russia at least half of what i wants (probably more like 75%) since Russia is winning.

They (Biden and europe) waited way too long to try making a deal, so Russia now has no incentive to compromise much.
Trump is president now, it's his war now, not Biden's.
Endless "coulda, woulda, shoulda" does not do anything to change what is happening right now and what should be done in the future.

Russia has, in some ways, already lost the war. Destruction of its armies modern weapons, they are using donkeys to deliver supplies now.
Hundreds of thousands of Rusians soldiers dead or maimed and traumatized for life. Russsian birth rate was already below replacement, this is going to accelerate Russias popluation decline.
Western European munitions development and production will be elevated for a generation, soon their militaries will be re-equipt with more modern weapons in larger quantities.
The drone war in Ukraine has changed the fundamental dynamics of military conflict, an effect that will be equal to the introduction of the airplane in WW1. A lot of things militaries used to plan to do simply won't work anymore.
And none of this would have happened if Putin was not bent on recreating the USSR.
 
Russia has, in some ways, already lost the war. Destruction of its armies modern weapons, they are using donkeys to deliver supplies now.
Hundreds of thousands of Rusians soldiers dead or maimed and traumatized for life. Russsian birth rate was already below replacement, this is going to accelerate Russias popluation decline.
I agree. "Russia is winning" is a myth, or a cheap excuse.
 
Listening to his 2014 speech about Ukraine and, in his words, the US's obligation to help stabilize it's democracy and protect it from Putin's "egregious and outrageous" actions that violate "international norms," it's difficult to think of a more stunning about face from a political "leader," (are there any more clear cut examples? I can't think of one).

Zillions. And way swifter than a decade.

Spoiler because:
Kier Starmer:
"transwomen are women" 2022/03/12 (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...ir-starmer-in-call-for-legal-reform-6rk9tpxsl)
"a woman is a biological woman" 2025/04/22 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro)
 
Kier Starmer:
But it's not like he was for it before he was against it (as, inversely, Rubio was with Russia). His answer on the transgender topic has always been vague.

Russia has, in some ways, already lost the war.
But now the US sees Russia differently. They see it as a vast marketplace and will look past the horrors of the war to ally themselves with it.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of doing180s:
Today Trump threw a tantrum, crying that Zelenskyy's claim that Crimea is Ukraine is a huge obstacle to letting Trump bring a Russia-friendly conclusion to Putin's war of aggression.
Of course, in 2018, the Trump Administration said exactly what President Zelenskyy says today.

https://www.rferl.org/a/pompea-crimea-ukraine-anniversary-russia-seizure-/30457169.html

"As underscored in our July 2018 Crimea Declaration, the United States does not and will not ever recognize Russia's claims of sovereignty over the peninsula. We call on Russia to end its occupation of Crimea," he said.

"Six years on, Russia continues to rely on lies and disinformation in its failed attempt to legitimize the illegitimate. Its efforts are doomed to failure," he said.

Pompeo said the world will never forget "Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine."

But evidently Trump will, if it helps him give big chunks of Ukraine to his crush, Putin.
 

Attachments

  • 2018 07 25 Sec Pompeo Crimea is Ukraine.jpeg
    2018 07 25 Sec Pompeo Crimea is Ukraine.jpeg
    139.4 KB · Views: 6
Speaking of doing180s:
Today Trump threw a tantrum, crying that Zelenskyy's claim that Crimea is Ukraine is a huge obstacle to letting Trump bring a Russia-friendly conclusion to Putin's war of aggression.
Of course, in 2018, the Trump Administration said exactly what President Zelenskyy says today.

https://www.rferl.org/a/pompea-crimea-ukraine-anniversary-russia-seizure-/30457169.html

"As underscored in our July 2018 Crimea Declaration, the United States does not and will not ever recognize Russia's claims of sovereignty over the peninsula. We call on Russia to end its occupation of Crimea," he said.

"Six years on, Russia continues to rely on lies and disinformation in its failed attempt to legitimize the illegitimate. Its efforts are doomed to failure," he said.

Pompeo said the world will never forget "Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine."

But evidently Trump will, if it helps him give big chunks of Ukraine to his crush, Putin.
To his credit, Zelenskyy responded to Trump's tantrum by (too?) quietly, gracefully posting on X a pic that identified the hypocrisy of the Trump Admin claiming moral high ground in '18, and how opposing Putin's Crimea aggression was the right thing to do, given America's values...only to shamefully take the opposite position now.

Source: https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1915120034487189631
 

Attachments

  • 2018 Crimea Declaration Zelenskyy posts on X.jpg
    2018 Crimea Declaration Zelenskyy posts on X.jpg
    240.1 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Edited to add: Was compiling this while @NoParty made the above two posts; I've inadvertently covered some of the same ground).

They (Biden and europe) waited way too long to try making a deal,

I don't think the countries / politicians supporting Ukraine were angling for a deal; they were hoping that the costs to Russia- economically, politically and in terms of casualties- would be sufficient to cause the Russian government to end its operations in Ukraine, or at least declare a (real) ceasefire; then negotiations might have begun.

Ultimately, most wars are settled or followed by negotiations, but not all.
No-one did a deal with Nazi Germany, and in reality Imperial Japan had no choice: They successfully negotiated that the Emperor would not be personally held to account (whether it was wise for the US to accept this is something historians still argue over) but otherwise accepted a total surrender and an allied (essentially American) occupation force with control over all aspects of government.

The Battle of Yorktown, which resulted in the victory of the American Continental Army over the British forces and their German allies, and in effect the founding of the United States of America, was conclusive. Although the terms of surrender were negotiated, there was no prospect of continued British action in the 13 colonies at any scale; a fleet sent to reinforce the British arrived too late, was outnumbered by French warships, and turned away. The Americans did not have to make a deal.
(Incidentally, not knowing much about the Revolutionary War/ AWI, had a quick read about Yorktown on Wikipedia. Surprised at the relatively small numbers involved and the relatively modest number of casualties in an event of such pivotal importance in world history, and that French troops outnumbered Americans, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown).

At the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ in 1954, Viet Minh (Communist Vietnamese) forces decisively defeated a large French force.
Again, although there were later negotiations and international accords, it was evident that the Viet Minh had won and that further French action was untenable- to a degree it didn't matter what politicians and diplomats agreed months down the line, the situation "on the ground" had largely been decided.

It seems unlikely that the current Ukrainian government and its allies (including the USA) ever believed that the Ukrainian forces could inflict a decisive defeat on Russian forces, though there might have been a brief gleaming of hope when initial Russian gains- particularly in the country north of Kiev- were rapidly reversed. There would be no Ukrainian Yorktown.

Instead, the underlying strategy was probably to continue resistance as effectively as possible, aiming to impose mounting financial and military costs on Russia.
The 1973 US end of combat operations in Vietnam and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 were not caused by defeat in battle, but by a perception by the leaderships of the USA and Russia respectively that the costs of continued warfighting outweighed any possible benefits.

The North Vietnam forces and Viet Cong were able to continue their eventually successful campaigns due to large-scale military support from the Soviet Union (and to some extent China); the Afghan Mujahedeen groups fighting the Soviets were supported with arms and cash mainly from the USA, Pakistan and several Arab states.
On a smaller scale, the British-French 1956 seizure of the Suez Canal was a military success, but (humiliatingly for the governments of both those nations) had to be reversed because of strong opposition and the possibility of financial sanctions from the USA, hostility from the USSR and almost universal condemnation by other nations- the invasion was seen as unjustified and a blatant disregard of Egyptian sovereignty.

Nations involved in warfare rarely say "Well, if the enemy keeps fighting perhaps we'll let them have this bit of our country",
and whatever the realities, their allies don't normally say such things in public: How do you motivate young soldiers to defend territory that their leaders, or their supposed friends, say might be given to the enemy?
Such declarations embolden the aggressor: "Keep fighting and we will get some of what we want, our enemy's allies have said as much."

This is at least partly why many European (and other traditionally pro-American countries, such as Canada, Australia, more discretely Japan, Taiwan) are so alarmed at some of the statements made by the current US administration; they appear to encourage Russia by saying, before any negotiations or concessions by that country, "you will get to keep some of what you've taken."
Not even "We might recognise your claims in time if there is a ceasefire now, you accept Ukraine has a right to exist, you enter meaningful negotiations and you return the thousands of Ukrainian children you have abducted."

Today, we have this news:

External Quote:

Trump criticises Zelensky over refusal to accept Russian control of Crimea

US President Donald Trump has accused Volodymyr Zelensky of harming peace negotiations, after the Ukrainian president said Kyiv would not recognise Russian control of Crimea.


Writing on Truth Social, Trump claimed a deal to end the war was "very close", but that Zelensky's refusal to accept US terms "will do nothing but prolong" the conflict.

Earlier, US Vice-President JD Vance laid out the US vision for a deal, saying it would "freeze the territorial lines [...] close to where they are today".
BBC News, 23 April 2025, 04:28 BST, Brandon Drenon https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78jx68d922o

Both the President and VP seem to be saying, "Russia can keep what it has seized by force", and that anyone saying otherwise is obstructing a "deal". Including the elected President of a nation that was attacked by Russia, where tens, possibly a hundred thousand or more people have been killed by Russia's unprovoked and illegal actions, and while thousands of Ukrainian children are held, with no contact with their families, in Russia.
It is, at least to me, astonishing.
 
But it's not like he was for it before he was against it (as, inversely, Rubio was with Russia). His answer on the transgender topic has always been vague.
No, his answer was clear and unambiguous, his opinion was vague.

His opinion seems to be "I'll unambiguously support whatever way some other authority decides", which seems to have as a potential corollary "and if the courts decide we should gas the Jews, I think we should gas the Jews".

EDIT: but the thread split you requested (yes, you did) should end here.

EDIT#2: I see the disagreement - please word it in a PM rather than polluting the thread.
 
Last edited:
Trump, 23 April, 2025:
"We are very close to a Deal, but the man with 'no cards to play' should now, finally, GET IT DONE."


Actually, Zelenskyy has many cards to play:
First, justice is on his side.
Second, his position aligns with traditional American values,
as Trump's own administration made clear in 2018.
Third, world opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of Ukraine receiving justice.


Don't forget, the convicted felon, also found liable for sexual abuse in a court of law,
whose crimes are too numerous to list, has a personal reason to attack Zelenskyy:
Trump's first :rolleyes: impeachment came from his failed 25 July, 2019 attempt to get Zelenskyy to lie for him (and dishonestly claim that Ukraine was investigating Biden). Zelenskyy, however, despite
being blackmailed with the military aid Ukraine needed (that Trump had no legitimate right to withhold; Congress had already authorized it), refused to be corrupted, by America's
king of corruption. Mr. "Article 2 allows me to do whatever I want," still can't believe that
his will to manipulate the 2020 election, behind the scenes, was shut down by little ol' Ukraine.

p.s.: And, not surprisingly, there is no evidence whatsoever that even the
"We are very close to a Deal" part is true, either.
 
Last edited:
It's very sad that, while Trump slamming Zelenskyy made a million headlines here in the U.S.,
the vast majority of stories on it did not mention that Zelenskyy wasn't saying anything that
Trump's own administration hadn't said in '18 (even though Zelenskyy quietly reminded them).

I don't think this is media bias...just laziness. Unfortunately, it's a crucial part of the story
to leave out, failing to show people how ridiculous Trump's current comments are.
 
I don't think the countries / politicians supporting Ukraine were angling for a deal;
they weren't. but they should have while ukraine still had some cards and Russia hadnt yet proved sanctions dont work, russia upped their military manufacturing and soldier count, and occupied even more land in ukraine.
(not that zelensky would agree to anything then either)

they appear to encourage Russia by saying, before any negotiations or concessions by that country, "you will get to keep some of what you've taken."
Russia is keeping what they've taken. so why pretend otherwise. unless europe puts boots on the ground with us backstops..it is what it is.

the only hope now is to stop the Russia line where it is now. ie so Russia doesnt grab even more of Ukraine. and hope that maybe Russia will concede SOME land back (never Crimea) in exchange for a No Nato in ukraine promise and rewriting the ukraine constitution to stop treating non-ukrainian ethnics like second class citizens etc.

I'm not saying Russia isnt bad. obviously they are, but its not like Ukraine hasnt done unseemly things too in the lead up. [ultimately i blame us and europe, as this really is a proxy war and we were just using ukrainian bodies for our own interests]
 
as this really is a proxy war
I disagree; the war started (notwithstanding the Russian annexation of Crimea and supporting separatists in the Donbass) with a large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin has made it clear he wants all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
The Ukrainians are fighting for the existence of their country, their personal freedoms, and quite possibly their families:
The Russian army and occupation authorities have kidnapped thousands of children. I know I keep raising this, but it is an appalling evil. It is utterly criminal, and a blatant breach of the Geneva conventions.

The war is between Russia and Ukraine, and was started by Russia without provocation.
 
just asking because if he takes all of ukraine then Nato will be on his border, so that doesnt make much sense.

We've gone over this before. Russia already has borders with NATO countries, and has had borders with NATO since 1947.
It's ridiculous for anyone to claim Russia having a border with a NATO country is somehow destabilizing to Russia, or a reason for Russia to attack that country.

Russia has borders with NATO members Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland


nato.png



Vladimir Putin has made it clear he wants all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
he has? when? where?
The attempt to take Kiev at the start of Putin's invasion (second half of February 2022) was pretty good evidence.

External Quote:
Already long before the Ukraine crisis, at an April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that "Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!" In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians "are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other." Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians "are one and the same people", and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference. Similarly, Russia's then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told a perplexed apparatchik in April 2016 that there has been "no state" in Ukraine, neither before nor after the 2014 crisis.
"There is no Ukraine": Fact-Checking the Kremlin's Version of Ukrainian History, Björn Alexander Düben, July 1st, 2020, London School of Economics (LSE). This was written some 17 months before the Russian invasion.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/...ng-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/

External Quote:

Putin said in a Monday speech: "Ukraine has never had its own authentic statehood. There has never been a sustainable statehood in Ukraine."

He argued that Ukraine was a creation of the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin, its first leader, despite extensive evidence of a distinctive Ukrainian culture before that.

Putin also made a claim that Ukraine was a part of Russia's historic territory.

He said in his speech: "Let me emphasize once again that Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space.

"These are our comrades, relatives, among whom are not only colleagues, friends, former colleagues, but also relatives, people connected with us by blood, family ties."
...And he's prepared to keep on killing them until they realise the depth of his feelings.

Quote from Business Insider, Sinéad Baker, 22 February 2022 https://www.businessinsider.com/put...n-empire-says-ukraine-not-real-country-2022-2
 
they weren't. but they should have while ukraine still had some cards and Russia hadnt yet proved sanctions dont work, russia upped their military manufacturing and soldier count, and occupied even more land in ukraine.
(not that zelensky would agree to anything then either)
They tried. Your claim is half true, however the proposed alternative is doubtful, and aligns with Russian rhetoric. You might as well say, "not that Putin would agree to anything then either".
Article:
The first meeting between Russian and Ukrainian officials took place four days after the invasion began, on 28 February 2022, in Belarus, and concluded without result. Later rounds of talks took place in March 2022 on the Belarus–Ukraine border and in Antalya, Turkey. Negotiations in Turkey created an agreement in which Ukraine would abandon plans to join NATO and have limits placed on its military, while having security guarantees from Western countries, and not being required to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. The draft treaty was almost agreed to, but disagreements over security guarantees and the Bucha massacre ultimately halted negotiations.

Following the talks, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned that Russia was only "pretending to negotiate", in line with a strategy it has used elsewhere.[64]

On 29 March, Estonian Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, indicated in agreement with French minister Le Drian that any Russian offers of peaceful negotiation about Ukraine, or withdrawal from Kyiv, should be regarded with diplomatic skepticism, based on a history of Russian unreliability in similar peace negotiations with other countries.[70][64]

Ahead of the 29 March meeting Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands.

Ukrainian lead negotiator (at this point) Davyd Arakhamia stated in an interview on 24 November 2023 that in March 2022 the Russian delegation had promised Ukraine peace for refusing to join NATO, but that Russia had not given any security guarantees and the Ukrainian delegation did not trust Russia to uphold such an agreement.

According to a May report from Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian side was ready for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but it later came to a halt after the discovery of war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in particular the Bucha massacre on 1 April. In a surprise visit to Ukraine on 9 April, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with," and that the collective West was not willing to make a deal with Putin. Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin stated publicly that talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end". Naftali Bennett said in 2023 that both sides had wanted a ceasefire, the odds of the deal holding had been 50-50, and that the Western powers backing Ukraine had stopped the deal.[81] Later he expressed doubts regarding the desirability of such a deal.

So it's true that the West basically stopped the negotiations.
But it's also true that the problem of how to guarantee peace for Ukraine has not been solved: what Russia would allow is not safe enough for Ukraine; and what Ukraine feels safe with, Russia won't allow. Zelensky put that forward in the televised White House meeting with Trump, earning accusations of disrespectfulness, but that problem has really been the lynchpin of the negotiations, and once it's solved, everything else is likely falling into place.

Russia is keeping what they've taken. so why pretend otherwise.
See Afghanistan? Or, perhaps, Syria.
oh good. so noone is blaming us this time. thats good news.
well, Trump blamed Biden, so essentially, your president blames yourselves. Most of the world blames Putin, though.

kalingrad doesnt count.
How convenient.

NATO could take Kaliningrad as easily as Russia has taken Crimea. Yet we don't. And that means something.
 
it's not like he has a choice. the choice is Trump's.

zelensky's only hope is boots on the ground. and america is not willing to do that, or to be a backstop for europe countries starting a multiple-country war, over a few pieces of urkraine land.
So Zelensky would have to give Russia at least half of what i wants (probably more like 75%) since Russia is winning.

They (Biden and europe) waited way too long to try making a deal, so Russia now has no incentive to compromise much.
Rubio knew Trump's position when he left his Senate seat to take the job. Accepting the job was his choice and he is massively compromising his prior stated conviction.
 
Back
Top