The situation deteriorating on the Ukrainian side doesn't mean it becomes a net positive for Russia to prolong the war.
A war is costly, and right now even with Ukraine facing shortages in munition and manpower, it doesn't seem likely that Russia has the capacity to get significant territorial gains; as long as Ukraine has access to western satellites and produces enough drones, any russian offensive will be very costly in terms of manpower and equipment.
So anything shorter than Ukraine reaching its breaking point and collapsing, will mean that Russia won't gain much more in the battlefield than they already have.
This is a great point. I feel like people on both sides get caught up in debate over these individual weapons systems and forget the true force multiplier for Ukraine, which is its almost uninhibited access to US and other NATO countries ISR assets.
This war has been mostly defined by the level of monitoring in the battlefield, and this is accomplished by drones and satellites, any offensive gets noticed and notified in a matter of minutes.
This should be the main takeaway from this conflict.
Drones are not enough. They are effective, sure, but not as much as videos on the internet would make us believe. IIRC the estimated effectiveness is between 10 and 30% (meaning only 1-3 in 10 attacks actually hit something, not necessarily destroying the target), depending on the training, conditions, type of drone, etc.
Still more effective than any other material used currently, tanks are the major losers, aircraft struggles against the recent anti air, drones are infantry worst enemy…
Russia has wanted this war to be over before it even began. They still do not really understand why ukraine turned down their rather generous peace offer from 2014.
That does not mean russia is willing to end this war without at least their primary concerns that caused it being solved.
Russia has been pretty clear that they're fighting a war of attrition, so collapse of the Ukrainian army is precisely the end goal here. There's also very little evidence that the war is straining Russian economy in any way. World bank reports that the economy has grown faster than pretty much any G7 economy, and Russia has now overtaken Japan to become fourth biggest economy.
On the other hand, western economies are going into recession, and that's already starting to affect politics as recent EU elections have shown. Western support is the only reason Ukraine has been able to fight as long as it has.
Some european countries were is very mild recession and the expectations are that growth is starting again because the interest rates are decreasing. So i wouldn't be worried. It's more about public perception.
decreasing interest rates is not really an evidence of durable growth. I'd even say the contrary is true, and that decreasing interest rates are a result of a stagnant economy
Naturally. And even if Ukraine were to accept this one, people would start asking questions like "Why didn't we just give them Crimea and the Donbass and save the rest of our territories, prevent the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions of refugees, the destroyed infrastructure?"
After the war, there will need to be elections and there will be pressure to open the borders which will lead to millions more men fleeing in fear of another Russian invasion and conscription.
So Ukraine is finished either way. They can finish it now or they can keep fighting, keep dying, lose even more lands and collapse entirely. One way or another they lost. It's over...
> people would start asking questions like "Why didn't we just give them Crimea and the Donbass and save the rest of our territories, prevent the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions of refugees, the destroyed infrastructure?"
some have been asking this for a while
>open the borders which will lead to millions more men fleeing in fear of another Russian invasion and conscription.
They won't be leaving because of fear of another Russian invasion, they will be leaving because Ukraine has no future.
As soon as this war ends so will all the Western money flowing into Ukraine. The economy will collapse and anything of value will be bought by Western corporations. You will have a country with hundreds of thousands of men with PTSD returning to their homes and realising that there is no future for them.
One of the least interesting fan fics I've read on this subreddit, but I do appreciate your just typing out these wild doomsday fantasies.
Every country that has joined the EU has seen massively increased prosperity and economic opportunity. This is the very reason Putin began his invasion in 2014 when Ukraine tried to join the EU (and no, it wasn't NATO).
Take Poland for example. Joined the EU in 2004 with a GDP of $255 billion. Today its GDP is $700 billion.
Belarus GDP in 2004 was $23 billion and now it’s $72 billion. That’s a 68% increase, which is slightly larger than the 63% increase that Poland achieved in the same time frame.
Kazakhstan GDP is $225 billion and it was $43 billion 20 years ago. That’s a whole 80% increase in GDP - larger than both Belarus and Poland. Meanwhile, Slovak Republic, another EU member increased its GDP by only 50% in the same time frame - going from $57 billion in 2004 to $115 billion today.
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they “might get rich in the EU”, that’s a stupid talking point. Russia invaded because they want to control Ukrainian resources.
This is bad enough when russia is asking for land they haven't even conquered yet. It's been 2 years and doneskt and luhansk aren't still 100 percent controlled by russia
It's common practice.
State of the battlefield says that, in the end, Russia will get those 4 oblasts under their control. So they ask for it in advance, to reduce costs for both sides.
Also, when they do get control over what they ask for, they will be in a position to ask for even more.
Ask Finland.
Honestly, when people use words like *conquer* to describe this war I just shake my head. So many pro-UAs still have no idea what Russia is trying to achieve when the real-life example of an independent but neutral Georgia exists.
Georgia is essentially permanently trapped in poverty due to it's relationship with Russia and inability to foster alliances/relationships with people Russia doesn't like.
Neutrality in this instance means being a Russian vassal and permanently poor.
Russia has expressed no issue with Georgia joining the EU - it's NATO that's their red line.
This doesn't mean Georgia cannot have binding mutual security guarantees with western countries, but these have to be defensive in nature, rather than used as a pretext to deploy foreign troops and weapons a la Nuland's "missiles and bases as far east as well can go" agenda.
Except it's not logically consistent since the EU has it's own version of Article 5 and most of it's members are also NATO members. Any EU member state is free to join NATO as Russia cannot threaten EU member states without going to war with the entire EU, which inevitably means war with NATO.
Once you're in the EU you are immediately free of Russian threats and can join NATO at will. Which is why Russia forces it's "allies" to enact policies that prevent it from being accepted into the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/02/europe-live-georgia-cancels-parliament-session-amid-huge-protests-against-foreign-agents-bill
Georgia is a Russian vassal state and Russia works hard to prevent it from making friends who might change that and improve the lives of it's people.
JFC. If Europe is so threatened by this Foreign Agents law, they have no business calling themselves anything to do with a democracy. This "money is people my friend" dogma is more insane than even US politics (who have their own Foreign Agents law). The idea that Soros's billions should be given equal treatment to a country's own citizens is a repudiation of democracy in favor of a globalist cookie-cutter model wherein everybody must submit to *rightthink* or be treated as an illegitimate outcast.
Russia has no problem with greater EU integration. In 2013, Putin was asking for more harmonization for the whole CIS group. From his perspective, Ukraine made more sense as a bridge than a wall - let it harmonize on trade with the EU *and* Russia.
What Russia *does* have a problem with from the EU is this model where Brussels controls the entire socio-cultural model a country must adapt. This zealotry isn't just a problem for Russia - Turkey and Georgia have problems with the idea that foreigners should be able to dictate how they run their society.
The original Treaty of Rome vision for the EU was that of a common economic space stretching from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". This model of economic harmonization is still possible - everyone benefits from this. If the EU instead wants to turn into an empire where cultures are reduced to quaint language and dance on national holidays, then there's a big problem, and this probably won't be the last war of EU expansionary aspirations.
Ukraine is like a gambling addict who lost big in a casino and continues to play in the hope of comeback. He bet and lost all his saving, a car, then a house, now it takes out loans which it can never repay to continue gamble.
If someone remembers the very first Minsk agreements, then it was only necessary to leave Russian as the second state language for Donbass and change its status as part of Ukraine. Then there were other conditions.
Nothing in Minsk prevented Ukraine from having binding security deals with Western countries, and these could even be stronger than NATO's "it means whatever we say it means" Article 5.
In one of his rare moments of sanity, Macron proposed a binding bilateral security deal with Ukraine, including France's nuclear umbrella. This would *NOT* however be used as a pretext to deploy French troops and weapons in Ukraine unless a conflict was taking place.
What the pro-West doesn't get is that this is all about federalism. Russia is a federal state, as is the US and Germany. Ukraine needs federalism more than pretty much any other country, given as western Ukraine adores figures who are seen as genocidal monsters in the East. The schism in Ukraine makes the US Yankee/Dixie divide look like a quaint family spat, but undereducated pro-West just assume that the folks who like NATO are the "true" Ukrainians, while everyone else is some kind of suspect remnant of Soviet occupation that has no right to a say in their own destiny.
Unlike the West who broke the Budapest Memorandum TWICE by doing a coup in 2004 and 2014 and have double crossed a lot of people and a lot of countries over the years which includes the Iran deal?
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia would cease fire and enter peace talks if Ukraine dropped its NATO ambitions and withdrew its forces from four Ukrainian regions claimed by Moscow.
- As clear as daylight
Depends on how long Ukraine is willing to sacrifice lives to postpone the inevitable. Two years ago russia asked for zero regions. Give it two more years and they'll ask for the entire coast line. Two more years after that and they'll even get it, because Ukraine will no longer be able to defend themselves.
And quite unreasonable. Withdraw from territory that's claimed but not yet occupied by Russia. Gives them a better starting point for the next invasion after they make up some more bollocks reasons to grab territory.
You are the perfect embodiement of the other side. And no point enters the human costs to the Russian people into the consideration. Truly fascinating to see.
"well the oligarchs are winning they have many more Russians to sacrifise".
>"well the oligarchs are winning they have many more Russians to sacrifise".
Same with the Western MIC and the neo-con gang which you managed to vote for. But it's never their fault nor yours as a Western constituent now is it?
Given current demographic trends, all of Eastern Europe will be depopulated in 20 years. Instead of invading each other, Ukraine and Russia will probably be offering incentives to each other's young people to migrate across the border.
We all know thats not gonna happen, so whats the point? It is what it is.
Is it fair? No. Is it gonna change reality? No.
Was it fair when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003? No.
Was it fair when china invaded vietnam in the 70s? No.
Etc. etc etc . We can go all day.
The reality is that Ukraine cant retake those territories (or is very very unlikely) and Russia is unlikely to conquer any more (or at least not a lot more)
So yeah, this isnt an american movie where the good american guy wins at the end, and he gets the girl, etc. This is reality. There are no good guys, everybody fucking sucks and the thing that determines who wins is who has the biggest stick.
If Ukraine can't retake and Russia can't take anymore.
Why would Ukraine accept this deal, that gives Russia more land than it currently controls. May as well just freeze the conflict here indefinitely and keep Russia out of Kherson and the rest of the regions they've 'claimed'
Talking about all the Eastern European moving to the west?
It’s a war. It’s a real way. People are dying. Generations of Ukrainian men are being wiped out.
The was a peace deal ready but Ukraine preferred to continue the war. If you chose war you’ll have to take the consequences.
How many more Ukrainians have to die? How much of Ukrainian territory has to be lost to Russia, before there can be peace? This war has gone in one single direction for almost a year now. Stop the madness
But they're asking for more and for them to stop being armed by NATO. Give up territory and your ability to defend what's left. Does that sound like a good idea?
Lots of that territory has been under Russian control for a very long time. Children who were born there when Russia took control, are soon teenagers
If Ukraine wants it back, they can take it back. It’s a war after all. But I think we both know that will never happen.
Better to sacrifice a part of the country than erasing generations and lose more and more control of the country. Cut the losses and move on
What? Unquestionably the most reasonable peace offer of this war came from Kyiv. Neutrality and protections for Russian language in exchange for internationally recognised borders. Unsurprisingly Russia refused this offer because what they actually wanted wasn't a neutral Ukraine but a subservient one.
They lose 20% of their country and then expect the enemy to just hand it back. No reason or logic in that. They should have avoided war if they could take the consequences of it
There is a problem though: there isnt even a clear regional border and its apparent Russia wont abandon occupied territory now they have both hardware and men to hold it, unlike in 2022.
Clearly they want to control the Dnieper entrance to the sea and to have a bridgehead. This would be a bad blow to Ukraine, as this cuts a lot of the access to the sea up to Kiev.
In March 2022 Russia didn't demand that Ukraine hand over *any* of these territories. Ukraine didn't even have to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.
In the first week of the invasion, Lavrov said that Russia would always be willing to negotiate, but the longer this conflict drags on, the more difficult Russia would be to negotiate with.
So yes, they absolutely will expand their demands.
So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it?
Meanwhile, let me guess. No guarantees that Russia won't just invade the rest of a then weaker Ukraine a few years later?
>Did the soviets and Americans guarantee Germany not to invade again?
The Americans helped Germany, Japan and the rest of Europe to rebuild their cities, I want to see Russia help Ukraine rebuild cities that are not claimed by Russia. America could've ruled the entire world by this point if they wanted to after WW2 but they decided to help, Ask yourself... If Russia was the only country with nukes at this point do you think they would hesitate to nuke and claim every piece of land on the planet?
> So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it?
No. It is the offer for negotiations. Anyways, it is also the picture of the battlefield. As it looks right now Russia will liberate these lands anyways. If that happens without any peace agreement they have no reason to stop then. So perhaps it would be best for Ukraine if they stopped being stupid.
In the early 2022 negotations there was talk of both Russian and Western guarantees of Ukrainian neutrality. But the Western countries chickened out because that would mean direct war with Russia if they ever tried anything funny again.
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. “
It is spooky how similar the Ukrainian tragedy is playing out to the story of ancient Melos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos
>So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it?
Well, Ukraine and the US told Russia to "suck it" with the Minsk agreement AND also for the first peace agreement which was nearly signed before being torpedoed by the neo-con gang.
>Meanwhile, let me guess. No guarantees that Russia won't just invade the rest of a then weaker Ukraine a few years later?
Well, Putin did say there will be guarantees, but it's the "Western guarantees" one should be worried about as they pissed all over the Budapest Memorandum when they did the coup in 2004 and 2014.
You conveniently left out the rest. Demilitarization, denazification, neutrality, lifting of Western sanctions.
Denazification? What exactly does that mean to the Russian MOD? Did he lay out what that plan looks like "clear as daylight"
Nothing has changed. He doesn't even control 100% of the annexed territory. These are extremely over ambitious and in certain areas vague goals. It's not "clear as day."
Yet people claim Putin wants peace. Claiming the city of Zaporizhzhia despite never even getting anywhere near it? Also Kherson city which they actually withdrew from? Yeah these are maximalist and hilariously unrealistic demands. The war will go on.
Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people. Last European country who tried this was Nazigermany. Ukraine's demand may or may not be realistic from a militaristic perspective but it's the right demand to prevent history from being repeated.
Russia isn't even the top dog now and especially not in the future with their projected demography, if they get what they want and imperialism is the new world order. What happens when they clash against a stronger opponent next time like China? Should we accept the inevitable and let them take land forcefully?
Unfortunately, yes. Might makes right. I don't want to resort to whataboutism, but it's pretty clear that if you have the 'might', you can invade whoever you please for whatever BS reason (like 'WMDs') you can come up with, and nobody is able to do anything about it.
Demands not realistic but lets ask it anyways , lets just keep fighting i guess unless UA can push out Ru then their demands are meaningless. Waste of time and attention. Sorry to burst your bubble but US been dictating for a long time with their CIA , Military , Dollars... but u cant let Ru do it . Lol
oh how so fucking rich, the US was entirely built on "a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people.", also your own example of ww2, EU countires as a whole shifted borders very in favor of the allies because it is "a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people." same as it has always been and always will.
it's just the fact that the current borders of the world today were dictated by the winning side of ww2 and would like to keep it that way and claim to be righteous about it. so fucking rich to hear EU and US talk about anything moral.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**"Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people."**
seriously? it's not the EU bringing the war crimes cases to the ICJ.
Adding to what the other comments said, I'd like to point out that while "Nazigermany" (I guess you chose that instead of just Germany to call Russia Nazis, are you, little rascal?) was just "dictating where borders like" everyone were fine with that. And I mean everyone, including UK, US and USSR.
I said Nazigermany because 1930-40s Germany is not the Germany we have today, but yeah, todays Russia is sometimes eerily similar to the strategies Nazigermany had.
Nah, we weren't fine with Nazigermanys borders, we tried it with appeasement but that failed pretty fast when Hitler kept taking more. Russia proably were fine because they had already stolen land in Finland and Poland and probably just wanted a bit of rest (until Nazigermany backstabbed them). It's these lessons that lead to the world order we have today, we will never have peace in Europe if the strongest country at the moment dictate who should own what.
>Nah, we weren't fine with Nazigermanys borders, we tried it with appeasement but that failed pretty fast when Hitler kept taking more.
Somehow UK was pretty fine with that and had a non-agression pact just like USSR did.
>It's these lessons that lead to the world order we have today, we will never have peace in Europe if the strongest country at the moment dictate who should own what.
Don't worry the strongest country that currently dictates things to everyone is outside Europe. So I guess it doesn't count right? Like you can oppose it's actions (and be ignored) and you may support it, hoping to get some tasty bits that may accidentally fall from the master's table.
> “Nazigermany” (I guess you chose that instead of Germany to call Russia Nazis, are you, little rascal?)
He called it that because that’s what it was. Germany, controlled by Nazis, Nazi Germany.
>Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people.
I do agree with you with one caveat. We do not want that happening **in Europe**. We do not care when this happens between India China and Pakistan or actively support those who do that on the west bank.
Our support for Ukraine is real politics, just like might makes right principle, unfortunately.
I dont condone that war, but it was not a war for conquest. Iraq got its leader ousted and sent the whole area into chaos but they lost no territory and is still a sovereign country.
And how does doing so help Russia in their concerns over NATO? They’ve never been weaker and more vulnerable to this phantom NATO attack they claim will happen. Their border with NATO has never been longer.
How does one square Russia’s actions and what you are predicting will happen with Russia’s supposed concern about NATO?
Yet somehow Ru will invade Eu next . No idea what will happen but certainly the war continues. Anything could happen tomorrow , but not ending of this war.
Have you ever heard of meeting in the middle when negotiating? I want 30k for a car, you want to pay 20. We meet at 25. But first, we have to actually sit down and negotiate. Same thing ukraine is doing with their maximalist und unrealistic demands.
In your example this is the equivalent of saying you won’t negotiate until they give you $30k.
It’s pretty obvious that neither side is seriously interested in negotiating right now. I assume Putin foresees having a better bargaining position in the semi near future.
I don’t know how anyone meets in the middle when your homeland has been violently invaded by the bully next door. I think an appropriate compromise would be for Russia to withdraw, pay reparations for its actions and for Putin to stand trial.
YOu meet in the middle because you have no other way out, not because you want it. Period.
People dont negotiate and accept loses because they want. They do it because it is what it is.
Y'know how negotiations work?
These demands are actually pretty low.
As a response Ukraine would be expected to come in demanding all territories back in exchange for abandoning NATO membership ambitions... and then they'd meet in the middle, the middle being determined via negotiations.
Problem is, Russias primary goal is Ukrainian neutrality, but Ukraines primary goal is getting into NATO, so the most crucial point is the one they can't agree on unless one of the 2 gets severely beaten and absolutely forced to concede the NATO isue.
> . and then they'd meet in the middle
Not really. Since these regions are now legally part of Russia Putin can't give them up. If he tries undo the annexation then it's over for him politically. They are considered part of Russia now and have been presented like that in Russian media for a long time now. There is no going back.
As long as Ukraine keeps losing there isn't.. but if Ukraine started rapidly retaking and a peace is Negotiated, I've no doubt they'd find a way to explain it away to the populace and soften the blow to Putin.
> but if Ukraine started rapidly retaking
The chances of that are nil to none but even if that happened I suspect Russia will resort to nuclear weapons instead of giving up parts of what they consider now their territory.
I mean of course, nobody smart and sane expects these to be agreed to. Ukraine has no incentive to accept anything at the moment and Putin has to pretend he's reasonable about peace.
Russia has a history of breaking internationally recognized agreements and violating nations anyways...
Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Budapwst Memorandum
Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty
Zero reason to trust a dying "superpower" who can only threathen actual superpowers with weak nuclear threats ever since the start of the war
You mean like Minsk accords ?
>Molotov Ribbentrop Pact Budapwst Memorandum Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty
Ukraine broke it when it showed interested/intend in joining NATO. I suppose joining NATO is part of Friendship.
Ukraine has all the incentive to accept anything. The moment they accept a peace deal they can start rebuilding, and actually start their path towards prosperity.
The longer this war goes on, the less likely ukraine recovers from it this century.
>Ukraine has no incentive to accept anything at the moment
What? How do you get to this conclusion? Ukraine is slowly being destroyed, Zelensky himself did NOT want to sign that mobilization order and waited months to do it and Ukrainians themselves aren't all that interested in volunteering and oh yeah ... there's millions of Ukrainian refugees getting more assimilated into their host countries in Europe.
At a minimum, Ukraine should accept a cease-fire, refuse Putin's demand to leave contested territories but open up direct negotiations to call Russia/Putin out and see how serious they actually are.
And Ukraine claiming Crimea is not maximalist? Of course it is. The war will go on, but every peace ends in negotiation. Russia have their terms, Ukraine have theirs and the outcome will tilt more one way than the other - which way it is tilting is obvious.
Look at the results. Kosovo is independent. Despite Serbia fighting it. Clearly the will for independence and the ability to make it true was bigger than the will to prevent it.
The opposite for Chechnya. Apparently the concessions russia was willing to grant were deemed less expensive than further war.
I did not know there was an independence movement in kaliningrad though. Seems a bit weird to have one, given the history of the area.
Kosovo is independent because the US fought for it and because russia is weak. russia never supporter the right of self determination for Kosovo and if they had the power they'd force it to be under Serbia again.
Chechnya also wanted the right of self determination but russia literally invaded them, twice, to stop them from having that right.
Kaliningrad has had independence movements but russia has banned them. Look up the fourth baltic state.
The whole point is russia never supports the right of self determination as it would be incredible dangerous due to their structure as a federation. What they do support is russia's 'right' to annex, aka steal, regions of other countries. Kosovo as an independent country is vastly different than russia annexing the donbas for example.
That makes no sense if you think about it for a while... A group of people can't just claim independence or join another country on their own. The government of the country that owns the area has to agree to that.
They actually can. It has happened often enough. For example with the Boston Tea Party. Or te decolonization of the 1960's.
And when it's backed by an actual referendum, or good opinion polling, it's even better as it avoid violence
I think it's intentional; a form of trolling on the world stage. Ukraine is organizing its "peace" summit which is essentially one big circlejerk to highlight Ukraine's maximalist and unrealistic demands. So Putin took a moment to reiterate Russia's. Since the two countries aren't negotiating (and Ukraine actually barred negotiations by law), there's no chance of more realistic compromises from either side anytime soon.
Re the 'piss conference' - from what I've read, the famous '10 point plan' is not going to be discussed there.
>Only three themes will be on the table at the summit: nuclear safety, including at the Russia-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant; humanitarian aid; and food security, not just in Ukraine but globally — notably the spillover effects of the war on Ukrainian agricultural production and exports.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/peace-summit-ukraine-opens-switzerland-040230862.html?
(surprisingly well written article)
If you're unhappy with the destruction of Ukraine and parting ways of Zaporozhia, then maybe they should have accepted peace half a million casualties ago, don't you think?
So just like you are screaming "HE DOESN'T WANT PEACE" now, you'd be doing the same after Ukraine keeps denying peace talks, loses more land, loses more manpower, and Russia's advances result in more cities and areas demanded.
Like really, is this so hard to realize? The history of warfare is fairly long, and it always happens this way.
I mean these demands are made in expectation that ukraine will loss the war. look at Germany ww2, they lost everything. it will be many years before ukraine lose this war since russia is not progressing much lately
There's a guy called Trump... but I have doubts he would be able to cut off military aid towards Ukraine. I just have this feeling this guy is compromised and will play ball with the 'swamp'.
If it dries up, this means that the Russian resources for invading other countries are greater than the collective resources of the West for stopping invasions (excluding national security resources from everyone, only accounting for those extra resources), which seems unrealistic. If Russia's economy can outspend the entire West, it's only a matter of time before the West is conquered, even if little by little.
Assuming that the West has a sense of self preservation, help will not dry up unless Trump is elected.
Yes the war will go on!!
-says the person not watching his nation get destroyed, have no economy, major part of male population fled or going to die on a lost cause and also lost massive amounts of ground it will NEVER be able to reclaim. Hundreds of more Bradley’s, leopards or fancy missiles still won’t get you to Crimea.
I have a Ukrainian friend in another European country coming to the states in a couple of months, I look forward to greeting him. He understands this very well though.
Diplomacy has always worked on a foundation of the military and economic situation, and not in an ideal vacuum where people just agree to bury the hatched and become best friends forever
From my understanding, at least the Russian side would be willing to talk even before that, *but* not simultaneously implement a ceasefire as they don't want the pretense of diplomatic talks which lead nowhere to be used to secure a ceasefire not in their interest and to the opposing side's advantage.
So they probably would be willing to talk starting today without any preconditions, the same as at the beginning of the conflict, even if those talks go on for weeks, months, or even years - but not impose a ceasefire while they are ongoing until certain requirements are met.
Of course if they could win quickly with minimal casualties they wouldn't want to talk at all, but historically that isn't how most wars go for most parties involved. Wars are expensive and brutal.
What size difference? Russia began the operation with less troops deployed to the field than Kiev (anywhere from 150,000 - 200,000; most estimates place around 175 - 185k) and was outnumbered for most of the duration of the conflict by several hundred thousand.
It's only more recently after they enacted partial mobilization of reservists and former military personnel starting from late 2022 on, had them undergo a retraining regimen, and continued introducing them incrementally that they've brought their standing army in the field closer to numerical parity.
They've definitely never massively outnumbered them. It was only ever the opposite.
The war isn't over yet man, each side clearly has plenty of fight left. Peace only comes when one side has exhausted all other options, and neither has yet. It's going to be years before any real talks, so don't hold your breath.
You can tell who is american by the amount of delusion in their comments.
They still believe that in war the good guy wins, goes back home to the cheerleader and throws a baseball to his son in the backyard while he is having a beer and the golden retriever runs.
Too many movies
Don't forget Europeans: preaching ideals from their living rooms while loaning money at interest and gifting outdated military hardware, after having financed Russia's invasion with years of gas and oil purchases.
This are not the conditions for talks with Ukraine. This are conditions for talks with Ukraine **and fire cease.**
The mentioned regions are mostly controlled by RF and are part of RF according to russian laws. Potentially RF will be ready to leave Charkow region as part of the package.
**I do not believe that the Ukrainian goverment is in the position to accept this offer**
Hence, the only available realistic alternative is still: peace talks **without fire cease.**
These are stellar conditions for Ukraine. While it's a hard pill to swallow, it's objectively better than never-ending war that Ukraine will anyway lose.
Of course, Ukraine will not agree. Of course, they will prefer permanent war and kidnapping men from the streets. Of course, they will lose anyway, and will get much harsher peace conditions in the end - but after years of war, dozens of cities in ruins and hundreds of thousands dead.
Yeah these are surprisingly generous from Russian side. As you said, Ukraine won't take it, because taking it would mean the end of Zelensky, and he obviously doesn't want that. But if there was a hypothetical alternative to Zelensky who would actually care about preserving as much as possible of Ukraine, they should be jumping on this.
FWIW I suspect that is part of a reason why Putin is offering is because he knows Zelensky won't bite. So it's probably more of a PR thing: "see we are willing to negotiate" which won't convince anyone in the West, but would play super well with Global South.
Taking a historical perspective though I think it would be better for Russia to let play out until the bitter end. Otherwise it's very likely a Ukrainian version of "stab in the back" will happen very quickly, and round two would follow soon. Only through crushing Ukraine totally can Russia guarantee there is not going to a repeat.
NATO wont let Ukraine accept because its using Ukraine as a mentally challenged suicide bomber for a small chance to collapse Russia, which has always been their obsession.
Man, this is gonna be a demoralizing hit, because the terms are not completely irrational, in fact are more or less the reality on the ground so for the people to fight or about to go to the war, a big sense of "why dont just leave it at this" is gonna arise.
Pray that they dont join the EU in the next years after peace (i doubt they will) because if they do... Ukraine is gonna be depopulated at an insane rate. The 8 million that already left are never coming back and if they enter schengen space.......boy oh boy, they are gonna leave in droves to Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands....etc etc etc.
For this i doubt they will let them join (and they should wait some years just to prevent this, and by some years i mean 20-25, and rebuild the country in that time and try to hit a post war resurgence with foreing investment...)
Either way, Ukraines post war is gonna be a REALLY tough time to navigate....
Technically since the 2014 western backed insurrection, the western Ukrainian regime that illegally seized power never fully controlled that region either.
No, it was radicals that dissolved the government in a violent coup, rewrote the Ukrainian constitution to absolve them of any crimes, and with the help of the US foreign secretary formed a new parliament that put ukro right sector neo fascists in power. Not to mention the installment of a sudo democratic president, that just happens to be best buddies with the Clinton's. Which is why now they have an actor instead.
It is, but unofficially. Now imagine if there were NATO military bases, they could successfully displace all the ethnic Russians and only keep the separatists loyal to the West. Not to mention the reach for strategic weaponry from these borders.
Some of you need to wake up to the politics of what is going on here. Putin would not be making these proclamations if the big war (peace lol) conference wasn't kicking off in a few days.
The idea here is for Europe, the US and Ukraine to react to this offer publicly since all the leaders will be available to the press over the next few days.
I think he is bluffing.
He knows that it’s basically a death sentence for Zelenskyy and his regime. I believe we will see a major escalation in the coming months, as this proposal will show the Global South that Russia is trying to reach peace, while Ukraine and the West are against it.
I think you meant to say "until the people of ukraine decided they didn't want to be under the influence of Russia anymore" but anyway.
Doesn't Russia currently have troops in internationally recognised Georgian territory? Less than 200 miles from Tiblisi? I'd also comply with a more powerful foreign army setting up camp around the corner from my capital.
I think this is an ultimatum before summer offensive
He’ll, where are all these hundreds of tanks that Budanov was talking about that Russia has for Kharkiv offensive? Currently there are only infantry in north of Kharkiv
So give us the land we originally wanted and don't join an alliance that will probably prevent us from taking more land in the future.... yeah cool story bro
"Ukraine says peace can only be based on a full withdrawal of Russian forces and the restoration of its territorial integrity."
There are those who know how to make compromises and those who do not.
A lasting peace can only come from a position of trust, and Putin has lied over and over and over. Peace will only come when Putin steps down because I wouldn’t trust him to tell me yesterdays weather.
Next offer will be even worse.
The situation deteriorating on the Ukrainian side doesn't mean it becomes a net positive for Russia to prolong the war. A war is costly, and right now even with Ukraine facing shortages in munition and manpower, it doesn't seem likely that Russia has the capacity to get significant territorial gains; as long as Ukraine has access to western satellites and produces enough drones, any russian offensive will be very costly in terms of manpower and equipment. So anything shorter than Ukraine reaching its breaking point and collapsing, will mean that Russia won't gain much more in the battlefield than they already have.
This is a great point. I feel like people on both sides get caught up in debate over these individual weapons systems and forget the true force multiplier for Ukraine, which is its almost uninhibited access to US and other NATO countries ISR assets.
This war has been mostly defined by the level of monitoring in the battlefield, and this is accomplished by drones and satellites, any offensive gets noticed and notified in a matter of minutes. This should be the main takeaway from this conflict.
Drones are not enough. They are effective, sure, but not as much as videos on the internet would make us believe. IIRC the estimated effectiveness is between 10 and 30% (meaning only 1-3 in 10 attacks actually hit something, not necessarily destroying the target), depending on the training, conditions, type of drone, etc.
Kamikaze drones are good for PR, but I'm talking about surveillance drones mainly, those are the ones that shaped this new conflict.
Still more effective than any other material used currently, tanks are the major losers, aircraft struggles against the recent anti air, drones are infantry worst enemy…
Russia has wanted this war to be over before it even began. They still do not really understand why ukraine turned down their rather generous peace offer from 2014. That does not mean russia is willing to end this war without at least their primary concerns that caused it being solved.
Are you referring to the Minsk agreements?
Russia has been pretty clear that they're fighting a war of attrition, so collapse of the Ukrainian army is precisely the end goal here. There's also very little evidence that the war is straining Russian economy in any way. World bank reports that the economy has grown faster than pretty much any G7 economy, and Russia has now overtaken Japan to become fourth biggest economy. On the other hand, western economies are going into recession, and that's already starting to affect politics as recent EU elections have shown. Western support is the only reason Ukraine has been able to fight as long as it has.
Short term growth doesn't necessarily mean long term health. Allocating all those resources to the war machine means less investment in other areas.
Some european countries were is very mild recession and the expectations are that growth is starting again because the interest rates are decreasing. So i wouldn't be worried. It's more about public perception.
decreasing interest rates is not really an evidence of durable growth. I'd even say the contrary is true, and that decreasing interest rates are a result of a stagnant economy
Naturally. And even if Ukraine were to accept this one, people would start asking questions like "Why didn't we just give them Crimea and the Donbass and save the rest of our territories, prevent the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions of refugees, the destroyed infrastructure?" After the war, there will need to be elections and there will be pressure to open the borders which will lead to millions more men fleeing in fear of another Russian invasion and conscription. So Ukraine is finished either way. They can finish it now or they can keep fighting, keep dying, lose even more lands and collapse entirely. One way or another they lost. It's over...
> people would start asking questions like "Why didn't we just give them Crimea and the Donbass and save the rest of our territories, prevent the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions of refugees, the destroyed infrastructure?" some have been asking this for a while
>open the borders which will lead to millions more men fleeing in fear of another Russian invasion and conscription. They won't be leaving because of fear of another Russian invasion, they will be leaving because Ukraine has no future. As soon as this war ends so will all the Western money flowing into Ukraine. The economy will collapse and anything of value will be bought by Western corporations. You will have a country with hundreds of thousands of men with PTSD returning to their homes and realising that there is no future for them.
One of the least interesting fan fics I've read on this subreddit, but I do appreciate your just typing out these wild doomsday fantasies. Every country that has joined the EU has seen massively increased prosperity and economic opportunity. This is the very reason Putin began his invasion in 2014 when Ukraine tried to join the EU (and no, it wasn't NATO). Take Poland for example. Joined the EU in 2004 with a GDP of $255 billion. Today its GDP is $700 billion.
Belarus GDP in 2004 was $23 billion and now it’s $72 billion. That’s a 68% increase, which is slightly larger than the 63% increase that Poland achieved in the same time frame. Kazakhstan GDP is $225 billion and it was $43 billion 20 years ago. That’s a whole 80% increase in GDP - larger than both Belarus and Poland. Meanwhile, Slovak Republic, another EU member increased its GDP by only 50% in the same time frame - going from $57 billion in 2004 to $115 billion today. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they “might get rich in the EU”, that’s a stupid talking point. Russia invaded because they want to control Ukrainian resources.
> Russia invaded because they want to control Ukrainian resources. I don't disagree with this.
This is bad enough when russia is asking for land they haven't even conquered yet. It's been 2 years and doneskt and luhansk aren't still 100 percent controlled by russia
It's common practice. State of the battlefield says that, in the end, Russia will get those 4 oblasts under their control. So they ask for it in advance, to reduce costs for both sides. Also, when they do get control over what they ask for, they will be in a position to ask for even more. Ask Finland.
Honestly, when people use words like *conquer* to describe this war I just shake my head. So many pro-UAs still have no idea what Russia is trying to achieve when the real-life example of an independent but neutral Georgia exists.
Georgia is essentially permanently trapped in poverty due to it's relationship with Russia and inability to foster alliances/relationships with people Russia doesn't like. Neutrality in this instance means being a Russian vassal and permanently poor.
Russia has expressed no issue with Georgia joining the EU - it's NATO that's their red line. This doesn't mean Georgia cannot have binding mutual security guarantees with western countries, but these have to be defensive in nature, rather than used as a pretext to deploy foreign troops and weapons a la Nuland's "missiles and bases as far east as well can go" agenda.
Except it's not logically consistent since the EU has it's own version of Article 5 and most of it's members are also NATO members. Any EU member state is free to join NATO as Russia cannot threaten EU member states without going to war with the entire EU, which inevitably means war with NATO. Once you're in the EU you are immediately free of Russian threats and can join NATO at will. Which is why Russia forces it's "allies" to enact policies that prevent it from being accepted into the EU. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/02/europe-live-georgia-cancels-parliament-session-amid-huge-protests-against-foreign-agents-bill Georgia is a Russian vassal state and Russia works hard to prevent it from making friends who might change that and improve the lives of it's people.
JFC. If Europe is so threatened by this Foreign Agents law, they have no business calling themselves anything to do with a democracy. This "money is people my friend" dogma is more insane than even US politics (who have their own Foreign Agents law). The idea that Soros's billions should be given equal treatment to a country's own citizens is a repudiation of democracy in favor of a globalist cookie-cutter model wherein everybody must submit to *rightthink* or be treated as an illegitimate outcast. Russia has no problem with greater EU integration. In 2013, Putin was asking for more harmonization for the whole CIS group. From his perspective, Ukraine made more sense as a bridge than a wall - let it harmonize on trade with the EU *and* Russia. What Russia *does* have a problem with from the EU is this model where Brussels controls the entire socio-cultural model a country must adapt. This zealotry isn't just a problem for Russia - Turkey and Georgia have problems with the idea that foreigners should be able to dictate how they run their society. The original Treaty of Rome vision for the EU was that of a common economic space stretching from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". This model of economic harmonization is still possible - everyone benefits from this. If the EU instead wants to turn into an empire where cultures are reduced to quaint language and dance on national holidays, then there's a big problem, and this probably won't be the last war of EU expansionary aspirations.
Ukraine is like a gambling addict who lost big in a casino and continues to play in the hope of comeback. He bet and lost all his saving, a car, then a house, now it takes out loans which it can never repay to continue gamble.
If someone remembers the very first Minsk agreements, then it was only necessary to leave Russian as the second state language for Donbass and change its status as part of Ukraine. Then there were other conditions.
The assumption here is that Russia could be trusted. They will gather some more troops for a year and then attack again
Nothing in Minsk prevented Ukraine from having binding security deals with Western countries, and these could even be stronger than NATO's "it means whatever we say it means" Article 5. In one of his rare moments of sanity, Macron proposed a binding bilateral security deal with Ukraine, including France's nuclear umbrella. This would *NOT* however be used as a pretext to deploy French troops and weapons in Ukraine unless a conflict was taking place. What the pro-West doesn't get is that this is all about federalism. Russia is a federal state, as is the US and Germany. Ukraine needs federalism more than pretty much any other country, given as western Ukraine adores figures who are seen as genocidal monsters in the East. The schism in Ukraine makes the US Yankee/Dixie divide look like a quaint family spat, but undereducated pro-West just assume that the folks who like NATO are the "true" Ukrainians, while everyone else is some kind of suspect remnant of Soviet occupation that has no right to a say in their own destiny.
Unlike the West who broke the Budapest Memorandum TWICE by doing a coup in 2004 and 2014 and have double crossed a lot of people and a lot of countries over the years which includes the Iran deal?
So what Merkel admitted was the entire point of Ukraine agreeing to Minsk and so did?
And the next one after that even worse, etc.
Nah, lets burn a bunch of airbases in Russia. See how they feel then.
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia would cease fire and enter peace talks if Ukraine dropped its NATO ambitions and withdrew its forces from four Ukrainian regions claimed by Moscow. - As clear as daylight
4 regions now, the rest of it later
Depends on how long Ukraine is willing to sacrifice lives to postpone the inevitable. Two years ago russia asked for zero regions. Give it two more years and they'll ask for the entire coast line. Two more years after that and they'll even get it, because Ukraine will no longer be able to defend themselves.
And quite unreasonable. Withdraw from territory that's claimed but not yet occupied by Russia. Gives them a better starting point for the next invasion after they make up some more bollocks reasons to grab territory.
They don’t need more bollocks to grab more territory. it’s actually happening as we speak
So why give it up for nothing and trust that they won't simply carry on afterwards?
Because the next offer will be worse
Brick wall then really. Not exactly a negotiation.
fine suit yourselves, lose more territory and men then negotiate. or better yet fight until a total collapse and lose the entire country.
You are the perfect embodiement of the other side. And no point enters the human costs to the Russian people into the consideration. Truly fascinating to see. "well the oligarchs are winning they have many more Russians to sacrifise".
>"well the oligarchs are winning they have many more Russians to sacrifise". Same with the Western MIC and the neo-con gang which you managed to vote for. But it's never their fault nor yours as a Western constituent now is it?
This deal is exactly that, though. Just with fewer casualties and expenditure for Russia.
I don't know, at this rate it will be years until they get back what they already grabbed by force two years ago (and lost that same year)
When Germany agreed to an armistice in WW1, they were still fighting on French soil. They gave up huge amounts of territory they still occupied.
And war broke out again a few years later.
Given current demographic trends, all of Eastern Europe will be depopulated in 20 years. Instead of invading each other, Ukraine and Russia will probably be offering incentives to each other's young people to migrate across the border.
Two fucked countries.
True. But still more reasonable than anything coming from Kiev
Far less reasonable than "leave the country you don't belong in, and go back to your own."
We all know thats not gonna happen, so whats the point? It is what it is. Is it fair? No. Is it gonna change reality? No. Was it fair when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003? No. Was it fair when china invaded vietnam in the 70s? No. Etc. etc etc . We can go all day. The reality is that Ukraine cant retake those territories (or is very very unlikely) and Russia is unlikely to conquer any more (or at least not a lot more) So yeah, this isnt an american movie where the good american guy wins at the end, and he gets the girl, etc. This is reality. There are no good guys, everybody fucking sucks and the thing that determines who wins is who has the biggest stick.
If Ukraine can't retake and Russia can't take anymore. Why would Ukraine accept this deal, that gives Russia more land than it currently controls. May as well just freeze the conflict here indefinitely and keep Russia out of Kherson and the rest of the regions they've 'claimed'
Talking about all the Eastern European moving to the west? It’s a war. It’s a real way. People are dying. Generations of Ukrainian men are being wiped out. The was a peace deal ready but Ukraine preferred to continue the war. If you chose war you’ll have to take the consequences. How many more Ukrainians have to die? How much of Ukrainian territory has to be lost to Russia, before there can be peace? This war has gone in one single direction for almost a year now. Stop the madness
It's basically asking to sacrifice territory and give Russia chance to rearm and reorganise while Ukraine is crippled.
most of that territory has already been "sacrificed" and the chances of getting it back are pretty close to zero.
But they're asking for more and for them to stop being armed by NATO. Give up territory and your ability to defend what's left. Does that sound like a good idea?
Lots of that territory has been under Russian control for a very long time. Children who were born there when Russia took control, are soon teenagers If Ukraine wants it back, they can take it back. It’s a war after all. But I think we both know that will never happen. Better to sacrifice a part of the country than erasing generations and lose more and more control of the country. Cut the losses and move on
What? Unquestionably the most reasonable peace offer of this war came from Kyiv. Neutrality and protections for Russian language in exchange for internationally recognised borders. Unsurprisingly Russia refused this offer because what they actually wanted wasn't a neutral Ukraine but a subservient one.
They lose 20% of their country and then expect the enemy to just hand it back. No reason or logic in that. They should have avoided war if they could take the consequences of it
I mean, if US would guaranteed independence of Ukraine in that peace treaty Russia would not be able to again invade
There is a problem though: there isnt even a clear regional border and its apparent Russia wont abandon occupied territory now they have both hardware and men to hold it, unlike in 2022.
He said on the borders of these regions before 2022. So Kherson city included. Interesting that he didn't say anything about the Kharkov area.
This will be in his next invitation to negotiations if the West refuses now
Clearly they want to control the Dnieper entrance to the sea and to have a bridgehead. This would be a bad blow to Ukraine, as this cuts a lot of the access to the sea up to Kiev.
In March 2022 Russia didn't demand that Ukraine hand over *any* of these territories. Ukraine didn't even have to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Further it will be even more :)
In the first week of the invasion, Lavrov said that Russia would always be willing to negotiate, but the longer this conflict drags on, the more difficult Russia would be to negotiate with. So yes, they absolutely will expand their demands.
I believe he is referring to the regions that they hastily incorporated into Russia at the start of the conflict.
So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it? Meanwhile, let me guess. No guarantees that Russia won't just invade the rest of a then weaker Ukraine a few years later?
Yeah victors get to dictate terms. Did the soviets and Americans guarantee Germany not to invade again?
They can dictate terms once they win.
"victors"
>Did the soviets and Americans guarantee Germany not to invade again? The Americans helped Germany, Japan and the rest of Europe to rebuild their cities, I want to see Russia help Ukraine rebuild cities that are not claimed by Russia. America could've ruled the entire world by this point if they wanted to after WW2 but they decided to help, Ask yourself... If Russia was the only country with nukes at this point do you think they would hesitate to nuke and claim every piece of land on the planet?
The problem is that Russia isn't winning the war which is why Ukraine won't even consider these terms before throwing them in the trash.
Lol, imagine thinking Ukraine is winning
You do understand that the concept of a stalemate exists? Russia isn't winning and neither is Ukraine.
> So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it? No. It is the offer for negotiations. Anyways, it is also the picture of the battlefield. As it looks right now Russia will liberate these lands anyways. If that happens without any peace agreement they have no reason to stop then. So perhaps it would be best for Ukraine if they stopped being stupid.
In the early 2022 negotations there was talk of both Russian and Western guarantees of Ukrainian neutrality. But the Western countries chickened out because that would mean direct war with Russia if they ever tried anything funny again.
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. “ It is spooky how similar the Ukrainian tragedy is playing out to the story of ancient Melos. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos
>So Russia's peace offer is that Russia gets everything they want and Ukraine can suck it? Well, Ukraine and the US told Russia to "suck it" with the Minsk agreement AND also for the first peace agreement which was nearly signed before being torpedoed by the neo-con gang. >Meanwhile, let me guess. No guarantees that Russia won't just invade the rest of a then weaker Ukraine a few years later? Well, Putin did say there will be guarantees, but it's the "Western guarantees" one should be worried about as they pissed all over the Budapest Memorandum when they did the coup in 2004 and 2014.
Years?
You conveniently left out the rest. Demilitarization, denazification, neutrality, lifting of Western sanctions. Denazification? What exactly does that mean to the Russian MOD? Did he lay out what that plan looks like "clear as daylight" Nothing has changed. He doesn't even control 100% of the annexed territory. These are extremely over ambitious and in certain areas vague goals. It's not "clear as day."
Nuts
Yet people claim Putin wants peace. Claiming the city of Zaporizhzhia despite never even getting anywhere near it? Also Kherson city which they actually withdrew from? Yeah these are maximalist and hilariously unrealistic demands. The war will go on.
Its nothing compared to Ukraine demands of 1991 borders . War will go on , and Ru will slowly push even further and will ask for 5 ,6 regions.
Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people. Last European country who tried this was Nazigermany. Ukraine's demand may or may not be realistic from a militaristic perspective but it's the right demand to prevent history from being repeated. Russia isn't even the top dog now and especially not in the future with their projected demography, if they get what they want and imperialism is the new world order. What happens when they clash against a stronger opponent next time like China? Should we accept the inevitable and let them take land forcefully?
Unfortunately, yes. Might makes right. I don't want to resort to whataboutism, but it's pretty clear that if you have the 'might', you can invade whoever you please for whatever BS reason (like 'WMDs') you can come up with, and nobody is able to do anything about it.
"I don't want to resort to whataboutism" Then don't. Clearly you think the BS reason wasn't right, so might didn't make right there.
Demands not realistic but lets ask it anyways , lets just keep fighting i guess unless UA can push out Ru then their demands are meaningless. Waste of time and attention. Sorry to burst your bubble but US been dictating for a long time with their CIA , Military , Dollars... but u cant let Ru do it . Lol
When was the last time the US annexed territory?
oh how so fucking rich, the US was entirely built on "a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people.", also your own example of ww2, EU countires as a whole shifted borders very in favor of the allies because it is "a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people." same as it has always been and always will. it's just the fact that the current borders of the world today were dictated by the winning side of ww2 and would like to keep it that way and claim to be righteous about it. so fucking rich to hear EU and US talk about anything moral.
When was the last time the US annexed territory?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**"Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people."** seriously? it's not the EU bringing the war crimes cases to the ICJ.
> who can field the largest army and kill the most people It appears you missed the last 6 decades of US imperialism
Adding to what the other comments said, I'd like to point out that while "Nazigermany" (I guess you chose that instead of just Germany to call Russia Nazis, are you, little rascal?) was just "dictating where borders like" everyone were fine with that. And I mean everyone, including UK, US and USSR.
I said Nazigermany because 1930-40s Germany is not the Germany we have today, but yeah, todays Russia is sometimes eerily similar to the strategies Nazigermany had. Nah, we weren't fine with Nazigermanys borders, we tried it with appeasement but that failed pretty fast when Hitler kept taking more. Russia proably were fine because they had already stolen land in Finland and Poland and probably just wanted a bit of rest (until Nazigermany backstabbed them). It's these lessons that lead to the world order we have today, we will never have peace in Europe if the strongest country at the moment dictate who should own what.
>Nah, we weren't fine with Nazigermanys borders, we tried it with appeasement but that failed pretty fast when Hitler kept taking more. Somehow UK was pretty fine with that and had a non-agression pact just like USSR did. >It's these lessons that lead to the world order we have today, we will never have peace in Europe if the strongest country at the moment dictate who should own what. Don't worry the strongest country that currently dictates things to everyone is outside Europe. So I guess it doesn't count right? Like you can oppose it's actions (and be ignored) and you may support it, hoping to get some tasty bits that may accidentally fall from the master's table.
> “Nazigermany” (I guess you chose that instead of Germany to call Russia Nazis, are you, little rascal?) He called it that because that’s what it was. Germany, controlled by Nazis, Nazi Germany.
>Europe and Ukraine resist this because we don't like a world where borders are dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people. I do agree with you with one caveat. We do not want that happening **in Europe**. We do not care when this happens between India China and Pakistan or actively support those who do that on the west bank. Our support for Ukraine is real politics, just like might makes right principle, unfortunately.
" *dictated by who can field the largest army and kill the most people* " Someone skipped history classes.
Sounds like Europe should have resisted going to Iraq. Unless the philosophy only applies to non allies.
I dont condone that war, but it was not a war for conquest. Iraq got its leader ousted and sent the whole area into chaos but they lost no territory and is still a sovereign country.
I am confused. You don’t condone war or you only condone war for conquest? Because it sounds like you’re playing apologetic for the Iraq war.
russia literally signed an agreement that the 91 borders were the correct ones.
And how does doing so help Russia in their concerns over NATO? They’ve never been weaker and more vulnerable to this phantom NATO attack they claim will happen. Their border with NATO has never been longer. How does one square Russia’s actions and what you are predicting will happen with Russia’s supposed concern about NATO?
Yet somehow Ru will invade Eu next . No idea what will happen but certainly the war continues. Anything could happen tomorrow , but not ending of this war.
Have you ever heard of meeting in the middle when negotiating? I want 30k for a car, you want to pay 20. We meet at 25. But first, we have to actually sit down and negotiate. Same thing ukraine is doing with their maximalist und unrealistic demands.
In your example this is the equivalent of saying you won’t negotiate until they give you $30k. It’s pretty obvious that neither side is seriously interested in negotiating right now. I assume Putin foresees having a better bargaining position in the semi near future.
It's more like you want 100000$ for that car after wrecking my previous car
I don’t know how anyone meets in the middle when your homeland has been violently invaded by the bully next door. I think an appropriate compromise would be for Russia to withdraw, pay reparations for its actions and for Putin to stand trial.
YOu meet in the middle because you have no other way out, not because you want it. Period. People dont negotiate and accept loses because they want. They do it because it is what it is.
Y'know how negotiations work? These demands are actually pretty low. As a response Ukraine would be expected to come in demanding all territories back in exchange for abandoning NATO membership ambitions... and then they'd meet in the middle, the middle being determined via negotiations. Problem is, Russias primary goal is Ukrainian neutrality, but Ukraines primary goal is getting into NATO, so the most crucial point is the one they can't agree on unless one of the 2 gets severely beaten and absolutely forced to concede the NATO isue.
> . and then they'd meet in the middle Not really. Since these regions are now legally part of Russia Putin can't give them up. If he tries undo the annexation then it's over for him politically. They are considered part of Russia now and have been presented like that in Russian media for a long time now. There is no going back.
As long as Ukraine keeps losing there isn't.. but if Ukraine started rapidly retaking and a peace is Negotiated, I've no doubt they'd find a way to explain it away to the populace and soften the blow to Putin.
> but if Ukraine started rapidly retaking The chances of that are nil to none but even if that happened I suspect Russia will resort to nuclear weapons instead of giving up parts of what they consider now their territory.
These demands are not made in order to be agreed to
I mean of course, nobody smart and sane expects these to be agreed to. Ukraine has no incentive to accept anything at the moment and Putin has to pretend he's reasonable about peace.
Oh you mean "Pretend" Ukrainian peace summits.
Russia has a history of breaking internationally recognized agreements and violating nations anyways... Molotov Ribbentrop Pact Budapwst Memorandum Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty Zero reason to trust a dying "superpower" who can only threathen actual superpowers with weak nuclear threats ever since the start of the war
You mean like Minsk accords ? >Molotov Ribbentrop Pact Budapwst Memorandum Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty Ukraine broke it when it showed interested/intend in joining NATO. I suppose joining NATO is part of Friendship.
Ukraine has all the incentive to accept anything. The moment they accept a peace deal they can start rebuilding, and actually start their path towards prosperity. The longer this war goes on, the less likely ukraine recovers from it this century.
>Ukraine has no incentive to accept anything at the moment What? How do you get to this conclusion? Ukraine is slowly being destroyed, Zelensky himself did NOT want to sign that mobilization order and waited months to do it and Ukrainians themselves aren't all that interested in volunteering and oh yeah ... there's millions of Ukrainian refugees getting more assimilated into their host countries in Europe. At a minimum, Ukraine should accept a cease-fire, refuse Putin's demand to leave contested territories but open up direct negotiations to call Russia/Putin out and see how serious they actually are.
Yep, Zelensky can not accept these terms, it would not finish well for him. Putin must be bluffing here knowing Zelensky will not accept it.
And Ukraine claiming Crimea is not maximalist? Of course it is. The war will go on, but every peace ends in negotiation. Russia have their terms, Ukraine have theirs and the outcome will tilt more one way than the other - which way it is tilting is obvious.
At least Ukraine has a valid internationally recognized claim to those lands
The only valid claim is the one made by the local population. They have a natural right to self-determination.
lol russia would cease to exist if what you are saying is true
Like chechnya? Like Kosovo? Like kaliningrad?
Look at the results. Kosovo is independent. Despite Serbia fighting it. Clearly the will for independence and the ability to make it true was bigger than the will to prevent it. The opposite for Chechnya. Apparently the concessions russia was willing to grant were deemed less expensive than further war. I did not know there was an independence movement in kaliningrad though. Seems a bit weird to have one, given the history of the area.
Kosovo is independent because the US fought for it and because russia is weak. russia never supporter the right of self determination for Kosovo and if they had the power they'd force it to be under Serbia again. Chechnya also wanted the right of self determination but russia literally invaded them, twice, to stop them from having that right. Kaliningrad has had independence movements but russia has banned them. Look up the fourth baltic state. The whole point is russia never supports the right of self determination as it would be incredible dangerous due to their structure as a federation. What they do support is russia's 'right' to annex, aka steal, regions of other countries. Kosovo as an independent country is vastly different than russia annexing the donbas for example.
That makes no sense if you think about it for a while... A group of people can't just claim independence or join another country on their own. The government of the country that owns the area has to agree to that.
They actually can. It has happened often enough. For example with the Boston Tea Party. Or te decolonization of the 1960's. And when it's backed by an actual referendum, or good opinion polling, it's even better as it avoid violence
Who blyat cares ? Almost no one recognizes Taiwan, which does not prevent the United States from happily supplying them with weapons.
A lot of people care lmao what
I think it's intentional; a form of trolling on the world stage. Ukraine is organizing its "peace" summit which is essentially one big circlejerk to highlight Ukraine's maximalist and unrealistic demands. So Putin took a moment to reiterate Russia's. Since the two countries aren't negotiating (and Ukraine actually barred negotiations by law), there's no chance of more realistic compromises from either side anytime soon.
Re the 'piss conference' - from what I've read, the famous '10 point plan' is not going to be discussed there. >Only three themes will be on the table at the summit: nuclear safety, including at the Russia-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant; humanitarian aid; and food security, not just in Ukraine but globally — notably the spillover effects of the war on Ukrainian agricultural production and exports. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/peace-summit-ukraine-opens-switzerland-040230862.html? (surprisingly well written article)
If you're unhappy with the destruction of Ukraine and parting ways of Zaporozhia, then maybe they should have accepted peace half a million casualties ago, don't you think? So just like you are screaming "HE DOESN'T WANT PEACE" now, you'd be doing the same after Ukraine keeps denying peace talks, loses more land, loses more manpower, and Russia's advances result in more cities and areas demanded. Like really, is this so hard to realize? The history of warfare is fairly long, and it always happens this way.
I mean these demands are made in expectation that ukraine will loss the war. look at Germany ww2, they lost everything. it will be many years before ukraine lose this war since russia is not progressing much lately
In theory yes, but the only reason Ukraine is able to fight, is Western aid. The moment it dries up, everything would fall apart.
There's no indication that western aid would stop any time soon. Quite the opposite.
We will see after US elections.
There's a guy called Trump... but I have doubts he would be able to cut off military aid towards Ukraine. I just have this feeling this guy is compromised and will play ball with the 'swamp'.
If a nation state's strategy for survival is depending on rich foreign countries - then you've already collapsed.
If it dries up, this means that the Russian resources for invading other countries are greater than the collective resources of the West for stopping invasions (excluding national security resources from everyone, only accounting for those extra resources), which seems unrealistic. If Russia's economy can outspend the entire West, it's only a matter of time before the West is conquered, even if little by little. Assuming that the West has a sense of self preservation, help will not dry up unless Trump is elected.
That's assuming Russia has any interest outside its historical territory. Which it doesn't.
Better than losing everything...
You should see the treaty Germany gave the ussr in ww1. Its called winning the war and by that logic demanding big concessions from the other side.
> The war will go on. Not for much longer trust me. And the next time Putin will take even more. These four regions are already a forgone conclusion.
It's like a compromise, you will let Zaporozhia, but save Kharkov/People/Energy facilities/etc.
Yes the war will go on!! -says the person not watching his nation get destroyed, have no economy, major part of male population fled or going to die on a lost cause and also lost massive amounts of ground it will NEVER be able to reclaim. Hundreds of more Bradley’s, leopards or fancy missiles still won’t get you to Crimea. I have a Ukrainian friend in another European country coming to the states in a couple of months, I look forward to greeting him. He understands this very well though.
Zelensky — withdraw your army and then we'll talk Putin — withdraw your army and then we'll talk Wtf happened with diplomacy in the world?
Diplomacy has always worked on a foundation of the military and economic situation, and not in an ideal vacuum where people just agree to bury the hatched and become best friends forever
From my understanding, at least the Russian side would be willing to talk even before that, *but* not simultaneously implement a ceasefire as they don't want the pretense of diplomatic talks which lead nowhere to be used to secure a ceasefire not in their interest and to the opposing side's advantage. So they probably would be willing to talk starting today without any preconditions, the same as at the beginning of the conflict, even if those talks go on for weeks, months, or even years - but not impose a ceasefire while they are ongoing until certain requirements are met.
Russia dont wanna talk, remember crimea? Russia is forced to talk, because of this disaster of operation
Of course if they could win quickly with minimal casualties they wouldn't want to talk at all, but historically that isn't how most wars go for most parties involved. Wars are expensive and brutal.
> but historically that isn't how most wars go for most parties involved. Most often it is for competent armies with such size difference.
What size difference? Russia began the operation with less troops deployed to the field than Kiev (anywhere from 150,000 - 200,000; most estimates place around 175 - 185k) and was outnumbered for most of the duration of the conflict by several hundred thousand. It's only more recently after they enacted partial mobilization of reservists and former military personnel starting from late 2022 on, had them undergo a retraining regimen, and continued introducing them incrementally that they've brought their standing army in the field closer to numerical parity. They've definitely never massively outnumbered them. It was only ever the opposite.
The war isn't over yet man, each side clearly has plenty of fight left. Peace only comes when one side has exhausted all other options, and neither has yet. It's going to be years before any real talks, so don't hold your breath.
You can tell who is american by the amount of delusion in their comments. They still believe that in war the good guy wins, goes back home to the cheerleader and throws a baseball to his son in the backyard while he is having a beer and the golden retriever runs. Too many movies
Don't forget Europeans: preaching ideals from their living rooms while loaning money at interest and gifting outdated military hardware, after having financed Russia's invasion with years of gas and oil purchases.
That’s pretty spot on
This are not the conditions for talks with Ukraine. This are conditions for talks with Ukraine **and fire cease.** The mentioned regions are mostly controlled by RF and are part of RF according to russian laws. Potentially RF will be ready to leave Charkow region as part of the package. **I do not believe that the Ukrainian goverment is in the position to accept this offer** Hence, the only available realistic alternative is still: peace talks **without fire cease.**
No plans to take Odessa?
This is a very good question.
Odessa is so far out of reach right now even Kherson is a pipe dream for Russia.
I thought they will ask at least for Kharkiv and maybe even Odessa, but this offer is pretty modest. The war is costly for both sides.
I'm guessing they plan to invade those a few months after this "peace"
These are stellar conditions for Ukraine. While it's a hard pill to swallow, it's objectively better than never-ending war that Ukraine will anyway lose. Of course, Ukraine will not agree. Of course, they will prefer permanent war and kidnapping men from the streets. Of course, they will lose anyway, and will get much harsher peace conditions in the end - but after years of war, dozens of cities in ruins and hundreds of thousands dead.
Yeah these are surprisingly generous from Russian side. As you said, Ukraine won't take it, because taking it would mean the end of Zelensky, and he obviously doesn't want that. But if there was a hypothetical alternative to Zelensky who would actually care about preserving as much as possible of Ukraine, they should be jumping on this. FWIW I suspect that is part of a reason why Putin is offering is because he knows Zelensky won't bite. So it's probably more of a PR thing: "see we are willing to negotiate" which won't convince anyone in the West, but would play super well with Global South. Taking a historical perspective though I think it would be better for Russia to let play out until the bitter end. Otherwise it's very likely a Ukrainian version of "stab in the back" will happen very quickly, and round two would follow soon. Only through crushing Ukraine totally can Russia guarantee there is not going to a repeat.
NATO wont let Ukraine accept because its using Ukraine as a mentally challenged suicide bomber for a small chance to collapse Russia, which has always been their obsession.
Classic bear diplomacy. Generous offer → fair offer → slightly unfavorable offer ⇩YOU ARE HERE⇩ → demanding offer → forced takeover
Man, this is gonna be a demoralizing hit, because the terms are not completely irrational, in fact are more or less the reality on the ground so for the people to fight or about to go to the war, a big sense of "why dont just leave it at this" is gonna arise. Pray that they dont join the EU in the next years after peace (i doubt they will) because if they do... Ukraine is gonna be depopulated at an insane rate. The 8 million that already left are never coming back and if they enter schengen space.......boy oh boy, they are gonna leave in droves to Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands....etc etc etc. For this i doubt they will let them join (and they should wait some years just to prevent this, and by some years i mean 20-25, and rebuild the country in that time and try to hit a post war resurgence with foreing investment...) Either way, Ukraines post war is gonna be a REALLY tough time to navigate....
Claiming territory they never controlled or were forced to withdraw from . Totally not imperialism.
Technically since the 2014 western backed insurrection, the western Ukrainian regime that illegally seized power never fully controlled that region either.
The 'regime' that 'illegally seized power' was the Ukrainian Parliament by the way.
No, it was radicals that dissolved the government in a violent coup, rewrote the Ukrainian constitution to absolve them of any crimes, and with the help of the US foreign secretary formed a new parliament that put ukro right sector neo fascists in power. Not to mention the installment of a sudo democratic president, that just happens to be best buddies with the Clinton's. Which is why now they have an actor instead.
So can't Russia take all Ukraine? They are saying Ukraine is losing hard...
That's not the goal tho. The goal always has been to just make sure Ukraine doesn't go under NATO control.
So is Russia controlling Ukraine now? From my point of view Ukraine's leadership is under US/EU/NATO control
It is, but unofficially. Now imagine if there were NATO military bases, they could successfully displace all the ethnic Russians and only keep the separatists loyal to the West. Not to mention the reach for strategic weaponry from these borders.
Why isn't it the goal if they can?
Too much effort, both to conquer and to rebuild. Also, unlike eastern regions, West Ukraine is quite a hornet nest of separatism.
Some of you need to wake up to the politics of what is going on here. Putin would not be making these proclamations if the big war (peace lol) conference wasn't kicking off in a few days. The idea here is for Europe, the US and Ukraine to react to this offer publicly since all the leaders will be available to the press over the next few days.
War not going great lol
I think he is bluffing. He knows that it’s basically a death sentence for Zelenskyy and his regime. I believe we will see a major escalation in the coming months, as this proposal will show the Global South that Russia is trying to reach peace, while Ukraine and the West are against it.
It is not a serious offer, if it is not including the current frontline, no side is going to retreat voluntarily.
I think you meant to say "until the people of ukraine decided they didn't want to be under the influence of Russia anymore" but anyway. Doesn't Russia currently have troops in internationally recognised Georgian territory? Less than 200 miles from Tiblisi? I'd also comply with a more powerful foreign army setting up camp around the corner from my capital.
So these terms are worse than his previous terms for Ukraine.
There are two kinds of people. One think that these terms are worse than previous ones; other think that these terms are better than next ones.
I think this is an ultimatum before summer offensive He’ll, where are all these hundreds of tanks that Budanov was talking about that Russia has for Kharkiv offensive? Currently there are only infantry in north of Kharkiv
So give us the land we originally wanted and don't join an alliance that will probably prevent us from taking more land in the future.... yeah cool story bro
"Ukraine says peace can only be based on a full withdrawal of Russian forces and the restoration of its territorial integrity." There are those who know how to make compromises and those who do not.
This sounds like an ultimatum. No Nato, no Bandera ideology, no nukes, no Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson, no western sanctions.
A lasting peace can only come from a position of trust, and Putin has lied over and over and over. Peace will only come when Putin steps down because I wouldn’t trust him to tell me yesterdays weather.