International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V15

Reader mode
As expected it was a one sided proposal that Witkoff misunderstood and that was reported before the meeting.

The only thing that changed is that Putin is open to non NATO US guarantees....

Essentially Ukraine must give up the remaining parts of Donetsk, Russia will freeze conflict along current lines in Zaporhizhia and Kherson and return little bits in Sumy and Kharkhiv.

It should be noted that in three years Russia has added less than 1% of additional Ukrainian lands yet expects Ukraine to just hand over about 1.5% of additional land. Make it make sense.

www.reuters.com

Outline emerges of Putin's offer to end his war in Ukraine

It was unclear whether the proposals were an opening gambit or a final offer.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
DEVILsSON said:
As expected it was a one sided proposal that Witkoff misunderstood and that was reported before the meeting.

The only thing that changed is that Putin is open to non NATO US guarantees....

Essentially Ukraine must give up the remaining parts of Donetsk, Russia will freeze conflict along current lines in Zaporhizhia and Kherson and return little bits in Sumy and Kharkhiv.

It should be noted that in three years Russia has added less than 1% of additional Ukrainian lands yet expects Ukraine to just hand over about 1.5% of additional land. Make it make sense.

www.reuters.com

Outline emerges of Putin's offer to end his war in Ukraine

It was unclear whether the proposals were an opening gambit or a final offer.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
I got to understand that Witkoff is a land deal mogul.
images
 
I think Putin had get rid of zelonka long ago if didn't had started war 2022 th.
Ppl already had started critique zelensky administration and zelensky about inflation ....

Putun might continued to earn and save a lot of money instead to spend in war...
0 chances that ukr might had been accepted in EU or NATO .. zelonka just continued deMilitarize ukraine and...west didn't had sold them anything serious anyway...

Then ofc elections, not likely zelonka had been elected again... and then uncle Putin might had offered next populists $ and some business deals and turned them into pro kremlin oriented....

Like latest parliament elections in Georgia: a bit more than 50% elected lawmakers pro kremlin oriented.... vuala...
 
Ruthless Ryan said:
Dealing with Putin must be tiresome listening to his B.S. Trump was making threats all week if Putin didnt stop war but it looks like he pulled a Taco so far.
Click to expand...
I think that meeting wasn't about ykraine in general....
Maybe main reason were potential minerals deals in Africa etc.

Because they bought in finances minister and investments specialist.
Plus when Witkopf was in Moscow they fed investments specialist, after this they went to restaurant and only after restaurant they had these other guys to talk about ukr a bit. TRUMP when Witkopf returned from russia was very optimistic.
 
Btw IMHO for Putin had been good if he agreed with Trymp offer earlier: he asked just to ceasefire and then rus and ukr does have peace talks. In exchange russia might get some sanctions lifted, some softened etc.

Obiviously during ceasefire west definitely will reduce supplies for ukr not increase...
Putin might discuss peace talks with ukr even maybe decade and accumulate damn a lot of weapons and don't sign any agreement with ukr... we have peace talks, there is ceasefire, peace etc....
 
Limbo Pete said:
No, it doesn't lol
Ukraine isn't in NATO, and weren't going to be. Russia shares actual border with NATO, but aren't invading those countries. Finland just made that border significantly longer, and they didn't get an invasion. Furthermore, there isn't actually any threat of NATO invading Russia anyway.
The analogy flops, as I said, for multiple reasons.
Click to expand...

1. Ukaine had a potential path to NATO.

2. Yes, Russia shares a tiny NATO border with Norway, as you mentioned. Invasion of a NATO country is out-of-the-question, hence the strong security interest in keeping neighboring countries from joining NATO if relations with the massive military alliance is questionable.

3. The result of Finland & Sweden joining NATO is one of the several reasons the Ukraine invasion was a huge blunder for Russia.

4. There is no threat of NATO invading Russia today, but geopolitical considerations take into account possibilities hundreds of years into the future. I'm not going to go into great detail, but with the Western economies dwarfing Russia and Russia's growth not being too impressive, the technological gap between the West and Russia will only grow wider and wider. Just casually allowing neighboring states to join NATO as this gap widens is like playing chess and just casually letting your opponent gain pawn advantages over you again and again until you're going in to the middle game with a -5 or bigger material disadvantage.

It's okay to feel differently about stuff but I don't understand how a lot of Europeans on this board don't even make an attempt to be open-minded or put themselves in different people's shoes.

It's just hate and bigotry 24/7.
 
SandisLL said:
There are grounds to think in such manner.

There most likely really is secret deal with Putin done under the table . ..
Abadon ykaine.
In exchange russia abadons iran.

1. U.S had supplied ukraine 0 fighter jets.
2. Ykr had get some from european countries, however old modifications already scheduled to be written off ....manufactured long ago...
3. Russia didn't had supplied Iran contracted Su 35 .... despite nice money might had been get immediately. Ajatollas are very angry....
Click to expand...

Yeah my intuition tells me that a lot of the dynamics behind these US-Russia negotiations is about Iran (we're all just people taking guesses though, none of us known anything).

The US is willing to protect Israel to the point of of its own detriment, Iran is working towards obtaining its first nuclear missile, and Russia has a lot to contribute to Iran and a lot of incentives to retaliate further and further if the West maximizes pressure against it.

It's like Russia doesn't have a lot of cards to play and is struggling against Ukraine but this Iran situation is turning out to be its biggest opportunity for half-victory.
 
Ukraine's ultimate condition for victory was pushing Russia completely out. This is unrealistic at this point.

It's now working towards half-victory in maintaining the current frontline as much as it can, reaching a long-term ceasefire, and continuing its path towards further Western integration.

This seems like a realistic goal.

Russia's ultimate condition for victory was changing the Ukraine regime so that it stops its' path towards Western integration. This is unrealistic at this point with Western-backing being consistent and unwavering (even if the US could be said to be flimsy, Europe isn't).

It's now working towards half-victory in reaching an agreement with the US to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and maintaining the territories it already took by force.

The West seemed to have at one point been hopeful that it can work towards regime change in Russia so that it can maintain its hegemony over the world and expand the Western era for another century.

This is unrealistic at this point. Although the Russian military turned out to be far weaker and less efficient than once thought to be, its economy, political structure, and society turned out to be more resilient than expected and economic networks with the 2nd/3rd world turned out to be unexpectedly dependable and strong.

It's now working towards half-victory in ceasing the war where it stands now, keeping remaining Ukraine on its path towards Western integration without an actual path towards NATO ascension, keeping Russia from furthering its relationship with Iran, and keeping China from accelerating its superpower growth more rapidly.

Biggest winner in all of this is China.

Unlike Russia, it's demographics remain undamaged.

Unlike the West, it's not struggling to contain threats around the world (it doesn't have things like Iran and Russia to worry about but rather has an incentive to support their regimes).

Unlike Ukraine, it's not losing territory.

It just comes out of this with a bigger economy and better relationships.

The US loses its dominance in the Middle East as soon as Iran develops its first nuclear bomb.

If the war in Ukraine ends this or next year, the future of Ukraine is still not clear. Yes it has tremendous financial support from the West but its demographics are damaged far more than Russia's. It's not clear how well it can recover or survive. Georgia came out of the 2008 Russia invasion with so much damage that it almost reverted back to the Russian sphere during the Ukraine crisis.

It's just such a messy situation with only half-victories and losses for everyone involved except China.

Now if Russia succeeds in amending China-India relations and somehow contributing to a good partnership between those 2 regional rivalries we'll be officially in the BRICs era.

It's a big IF and unlikely but the Kremlin would be able to see the Ukraine crisis end with the end of the Western-led world order; multipolar and not US-dominated.

The problem is that out of the BRICs; Russia paid the biggest price to achieve this aim and the biggest benefactors just end up being China and India.
 
ChessJitsu said:
1. Ukaine had a potential path to NATO.

2. Yes, Russia shares a tiny NATO border with Norway, as you mentioned. Invasion of a NATO country is out-of-the-question, hence the strong security interest in keeping neighboring countries from joining NATO if relations with the massive military alliance is questionable.

3. The result of Finland & Sweden joining NATO is one of the several reasons the Ukraine invasion was a huge blunder for Russia.

4. There is no threat of NATO invading Russia today, but geopolitical considerations take into account possibilities hundreds of years into the future. I'm not going to go into great detail, but with the Western economies dwarfing Russia and Russia's growth not being too impressive, the technological gap between the West and Russia will only grow wider and wider. Just casually allowing neighboring states to join NATO as this gap widens is like playing chess and just casually letting your opponent gain pawn advantages over you again and again until you're going in to the middle game with a -5 or bigger material disadvantage.

It's okay to feel differently about stuff but I don't understand how a lot of Europeans on this board don't even make an attempt to be open-minded or put themselves in different people's shoes.

It's just hate and bigotry 24/7.
Click to expand...
Any path Ukraine could have hypothetically had was just that, hypothetical. Just conjecture based minimally on anything concrete.
And big oof at geopolitical considerations "hundreds of years in the future"; neither Russia nor any NATO country is concerned about a NATO invasion of Russia. It's extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The real political reality at play is a need (and desire) for what authoritarians always want: more of everything. Putin has hollowed out his own country. He has proxy control of Belarus. Georgia is not in great shape. Chechnya was ground into a blood soup. The man knows damn good and well Ukraine has land and resources aplenty just sitting there outside the protective umbrella of NATO. Greed and a complete disregard for human life is the cause of this war, a war he specifically engineered, demanded, and has carried out. I get so sick of this bothesides horseshit, I really do

Also, I'd like to point out again that this particular sentiment

"Invasion of a NATO country is out-of-the-question, hence the strong security interest in keeping neighboring countries from joining NATO if relations with the massive military alliance is questionable."

Is breathtaking in how close (yet so far) it gets to the crux of the problem. Yes, he has to invade non-NATO nations now, because he can't do it if they somehow join later lol
 
Limbo Pete said:
Any path Ukraine could have hypothetically had was just that, hypothetical. Just conjecture based minimally on anything concrete.
And big oof at geopolitical considerations "hundreds of years in the future"; neither Russia nor any NATO country is concerned about a NATO invasion of Russia. It's extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The real political reality at play is a need (and desire) for what authoritarians always want: more of everything. Putin has hollowed out his own country. He has proxy control of Belarus. Georgia is not in great shape. Chechnya was ground into a blood soup. The man knows damn good and well Ukraine has land and resources aplenty just sitting there outside the protective umbrella of NATO. Greed and a complete disregard for human life is the cause of this war, a war he specifically engineered, demanded, and has carried out. I get so sick of this bothesides horseshit, I really do

Also, I'd like to point out again that this particular sentiment

"Invasion of a NATO country is out-of-the-question, hence the strong security interest in keeping neighboring countries from joining NATO if relations with the massive military alliance is questionable."

Is breathtaking in how close (yet so far) it gets to the crux of the problem. Yes, he has to invade non-NATO nations now, because he can't do it if they somehow join later lol
Click to expand...

You're sick of it because you're firmly rooted to one side and hate others who might disagree with you.

Yes- as you point out; Belarus, Georgia, and Chechnya were subject to Putin's maneuvers.

I see the point you're making about the NATO statement; it affirms the entire objective in attempting to join NATO; for security against Russian interventions.

The Russian perspective is that a long list of sovereign countries were razed to the ground by US-led military operations; Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Serbia.

All of these countries were left worse off and the rhetoric for those invasions was proven to be lies and deception by the time it was too late to do anything about it.

You see the West as benevolent and oriented towards human felicity with Russia as evil.

I personally think that's childish and unrestrained from bias.

We can keep presenting different arguments but ultimately it's just a circle with reoccurring and unoriginal points like arguments about God and free will.

Considering the ultimate statistical fact that more civilians died in Israel's assault of Palestinians for a time-window 4 times shorter than the Russian-Ukraine war, in a geographic and population scope much smaller than Ukraine, and the fact that Israel continues to receive unwavering support from the West (and rhetorical support from Ukraine)- any attempt to not paint this entire crisis as a RealPolitik conflict between multiple sides pursuing their self-interests is immature and dishonest.
 
ChessJitsu said:
Ukraine's ultimate condition for victory was pushing Russia completely out. This is unrealistic at this point.

It's now working towards half-victory in maintaining the current frontline as much as it can, reaching a long-term ceasefire, and continuing its path towards further Western integration.

This seems like a realistic goal.

Russia's ultimate condition for victory was changing the Ukraine regime so that it stops its' path towards Western integration. This is unrealistic at this point with Western-backing being consistent and unwavering (even if the US could be said to be flimsy, Europe isn't).

It's now working towards half-victory in reaching an agreement with the US to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and maintaining the territories it already took by force.

The West seemed to have at one point been hopeful that it can work towards regime change in Russia so that it can maintain its hegemony over the world and expand the Western era for another century.

This is unrealistic at this point. Although the Russian military turned out to be far weaker and less efficient than once thought to be, its economy, political structure, and society turned out to be more resilient than expected and economic networks with the 2nd/3rd world turned out to be unexpectedly dependable and strong.

It's now working towards half-victory in ceasing the war where it stands now, keeping remaining Ukraine on its path towards Western integration without an actual path towards NATO ascension, keeping Russia from furthering its relationship with Iran, and keeping China from accelerating its superpower growth more rapidly.

Biggest winner in all of this is China.

Unlike Russia, it's demographics remain undamaged.

Unlike the West, it's not struggling to contain threats around the world (it doesn't have things like Iran and Russia to worry about but rather has an incentive to support their regimes).

Unlike Ukraine, it's not losing territory.

It just comes out of this with a bigger economy and better relationships.

The US loses its dominance in the Middle East as soon as Iran develops its first nuclear bomb.

If the war in Ukraine ends this or next year, the future of Ukraine is still not clear. Yes it has tremendous financial support from the West but its demographics are damaged far more than Russia's. It's not clear how well it can recover or survive. Georgia came out of the 2008 Russia invasion with so much damage that it almost reverted back to the Russian sphere during the Ukraine crisis.

It's just such a messy situation with only half-victories and losses for everyone involved except China.

Now if Russia succeeds in amending China-India relations and somehow contributing to a good partnership between those 2 regional rivalries we'll be officially in the BRICs era.

It's a big IF and unlikely but the Kremlin would be able to see the Ukraine crisis end with the end of the Western-led world order; multipolar and not US-dominated.

The problem is that out of the BRICs; Russia paid the biggest price to achieve this aim and the biggest benefactors just end up being China and India.
Click to expand...
Rus economy is being hit hard,news coming out every week about trouble on ground level

Problem for ukr/west is its being run by economic genius Naibulina, miss 2x winner of best economist in the world (and gref and mishustin).Those 3 are extremely competent, i actually think ukr intelligence should have gone after naibulina long time ago

That being said she briefed that resources are running out a while back so who knows
 
Cole train said:
Rus economy is being hit hard,news coming out every week about trouble on ground level

Problem for ukr/west is its being run by economic genius Naibulina, miss 2x winner of best economist in the world (and gref and mishustin).Those 3 are extremely competent, i actually think ukr intelligence should have gone after naibulina long time ago

That being said she briefed that resources are running out a while back so who knows
Click to expand...

When is Rus economy not having trouble on the ground level?

It's stable and intact by Russian standards- which is sufficient in the context of its geopolitical conflict with the West.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,118
Messages
58,483,239
Members
176,051
Latest member
LuckyEthan

Share this page

Back
Top