Russia

[egg]

42 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine cannot win.

What should they do? keep continuing with the slowly retreating meat grinder?

 

As much as that's the reality, the way this has been handled from the off by Trump is a disgrace. It was always going to end with a deal and land being ceded, but there's a way to do things and this is not the way. 

Edited 22 hours ago by egg

[aintforever]

18 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine cannot win.

What should they do? keep continuing with the slowly retreating meat grinder?

 

NATO/Europe should step up military aid and put more pressure on Russia to except better terms, this proposed deal is just a surrender. It won’t help NATO/US long term, they just look weak as fuck.

Edited 23 hours ago by aintforever

[sadoldgit]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine cannot win.

What should they do? keep continuing with the slowly retreating meat grinder?

 

But with proper and sustained support they could make it so difficult for Putin that he would need to back off. Trump is putting zero pressure on Putin to retreat or give up invaded land. You seem to forget that Russia are losing thousands in the meat grinder too. If Trump stood squarely behind Ukraine things would be very different. Once Trump had humiliated Zelensky in the WH it was pretty obvious which side Trump is on.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

NATO/Europe should step up military aid and put more pressure on Russia to except better terms, this proposed deal is just a surrender. It won’t help NATO/the US long term, they just look weak as fuck.

a surrender would be at least to stop at the current battle lines and conceded that to Russia This deal is not that. The proposed deal also provides renewed security guarantees for Ukraine (stating a co-ordinated military response for Ukraine) and access into the EU which brings the country much closer to the west, but not be part of NATO. This will come with massive funds to rebuild the country, inclusive of £100bn in Russian assets allocated. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

But with proper and sustained support they could make it so difficult for Putin that he would need to back off. Trump is putting zero pressure on Putin to retreat or give up invaded land. You seem to forget that Russia are losing thousands in the meat grinder too. If Trump stood squarely behind Ukraine things would be very different. Once Trump had humiliated Zelensky in the WH it was pretty obvious which side Trump is on.

They are getting proper and sustained support. The resources/money Ukraine continuously get is astronomical. I know that Russia are losing thousands, but they have an unlimited supply of people and resources (which I have said since day 1). Quantity is a quality of its own.

As I have always said, in the absence of the USA wishing to send their people in to die for another European war, why aren't us Europeans flooding in? 

[aintforever]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

a surrender would be at least to stop at the current battle lines and conceded that to Russia This deal is not that. The proposed deal also provides renewed security guarantees for Ukraine

The deal would mean Ukraine handing over key areas they currently control. They have had guarantees from the US and Russia before but they are not worth the paper they are written on. Russia will obviously just carry on and invade further, why else would they insist on limiting Ukraine’s military?

Edited 23 hours ago by aintforever

[Lighthouse]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine cannot win.

What should they do? keep continuing with the slowly retreating meat grinder?

Correct.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

The deal would mean Ukraine handing over key areas they currently control. They have had guarantees from the US and a Russia before but they are not worth the paper they are written on. Russia will obviously jus5 carry on and invade further, why else would they insist on limiting Ukraine’s military?

The deal also means Russia giving up huge amounts of the country they control (ie, their leverage). 

Nothing obvious about it.

But I guess, many just want the slaughter of 1000s weekly to continue

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

Correct.

Ukraine will be slowly destroyed, or even larger part of it, and we will foot the bill anyway.

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine will be slowly destroyed, or even larger part of it, and we will foot the bill anyway.

Ahh, you’re right. Better to just quietly surrender and allow their entire country, culture, freedom and national identity to be erased from history, so that they can be obedient, second class citizens in Putin’s dictatorship.

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The deal also means Russia giving up huge amounts of the country they control (ie, their leverage). 

Nothing obvious about it.

But I guess, many just want the slaughter of 1000s weekly to continue

Of course they will, how naive are you?  Why else would they insist on limiting Ukraine’s military?

They will have a handy break in the fighting whilst they rebuild their forces, engineer a break of the ceasefire then just crack on where they left off knowing full well that the US and NATO are terrified of going to war.

Edited 23 hours ago by aintforever

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

Of course they will, how naive are you?  Why else would they insist on limiting Ukraine’s military?

They will have a handy break in the fight whilst they rebuild their forces, engineer a break of the ceasefire then just crack on wher3 the6 left off knowing full well that the US and NATO are terrified of going to war.

We are on a 'war footing', right? 

Lots of angry talk from around Europe about potential war....let's get on with it then

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Ahh, you’re right. Better to just quietly surrender and allow their entire country, culture, freedom and national identity to be erased from history, so that they can be obedient, second class citizens in Putin’s dictatorship.

As things stand, how do you realistically see this ending if there's no deal? Assuming US support continues, Ukraine still won't win. If it doesn't, Ukraine are properly screwed. Like it or not, they've lost land that they can't regain, and will lose more the longer this goes on.  

[badgerx16]

55 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ukraine cannot win.

What should they do? keep continuing with the slowly retreating meat grinder?

 

Ukraine can win, if Trump grows a pair.

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

As things stand, how do you realistically see this ending if there's no deal? Assuming US support continues, Ukraine still won't win. If it doesn't, Ukraine are properly screwed. Like it or not, they've lost land that they can't regain, and will lose more the longer this goes on.  

I don’t understand how you can so fundamentally misunderstand the situation. Alexei I know is on a wind up, but you seem to genuinely not get it.

You seem to think that if Ukraine stops fighting it’s the end of the war. It’s not, it’s the end of Ukraine.

[badgerx16]

35 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

a surrender would be at least to stop at the current battle lines and conceded that to Russia This deal is not that. The proposed deal also provides renewed security guarantees for Ukraine (stating a co-ordinated military response for Ukraine) and access into the EU which brings the country much closer to the west, but not be part of NATO. This will come with massive funds to rebuild the country, inclusive of £100bn in Russian assets allocated. 

Minsk 2 ?

The 'deal' includes conceding the unoccupied parts of Donetsk to Russia, no foreign 'boots on the ground' to enforce the demilitarised zone, and the £100Bn is much less than is needed to rebuild. 

.

If one side in a conflict is forced to accept the terms of it's opponent, that is surrender.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Minsk 2 ?

The 'deal' includes conceding the unoccupied parts of Donetsk to Russia, no foreign 'boots on the ground' to enforce the demilitarised zone, and the £100Bn is much less than is needed to rebuild. 

.

If one side in a conflict is forced to accept the terms of it's opponent, that is surrender.

£100bn is from Russian assets, the rest from Europe and the USA. Either way, a massive bill is coming our way.

Parts of Ukraine are likely lost. Depends if there is a desire to limit those losses (and the death and destruction) to 2 regions, or the ever growing slice of the country Russia controls.

But, yeah. On a wind up.

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Minsk 2 ?

The 'deal' includes conceding the unoccupied parts of Donetsk to Russia, no foreign 'boots on the ground' to enforce the demilitarised zone, and the £100Bn is much less than is needed to rebuild. 

.

If one side in a conflict is forced to accept the terms of its opponent, that is surrender.

Exactly, the deal means conceding the “Fortress Belt” which is three cities Russia have been unable to take in over three years. 

Edited 22 hours ago by aintforever

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The deal also means Russia giving up huge amounts of the country they control (ie, their leverage). 

 

No it doesn't. Russia gives up none of Luhansk or Crimea, gains the part of Donetsk it currently does not have, and retains that part of Kherson and Zaporizhia it occupies. What it gives back is small areas along the border elsewhere.

[egg]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I don’t understand how you can so fundamentally misunderstand the situation. Alexei I know is on a wind up, but you seem to genuinely not get it.

You seem to think that if Ukraine stops fighting it’s the end of the war. It’s not, it’s the end of Ukraine.

What a surprise, no answer. 

I don't misunderstand the situation. You do, and have throughout. Ukraine has been dealt the shittiest hand here, but the reality being unpleasant doesn't make it cease to be the reality. They can't win his war, even with ongoing US support. 

What's the answer to my question? 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Minsk 2 ?

The 'deal' includes conceding the unoccupied parts of Donetsk to Russia, no foreign 'boots on the ground' to enforce the demilitarised zone, and the £100Bn is much less than is needed to rebuild. 

.

If one side in a conflict is forced to accept the terms of it's opponent, that is surrender.

It's a bloody awful deal, and a disgraceful carry on. I'm not sure anyone disputes that. 

[egg]

33 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ukraine can win, if Trump grows a pair.

That's not the reality though. Trump won't allow his deadline to pass, then throw more money and hardware Ukraine's way. 

The horrible reality doesn't go away by saying what Trump should do. 

The west were collectively a disgrace post Crimea, and Trump has taken it to new levels. 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

What a surprise, no answer. 

I don't misunderstand the situation. You do, and have throughout. Ukraine has been dealt the shittiest hand here, but the reality being unpleasant doesn't make it cease to be the reality. They can't win his war, even with ongoing US support. 

What's the answer to my question? 

Christ alive, they exist as a country for as long as they're willing and able to keep fighting. That's it, that's the answer, it's that brutal and unpleasant. The 'end' is Vichy France, they will quite rightly fight against that for as long as they have the materials and the manpower.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Christ alive, they exist as a country for as long as they're willing and able to keep fighting. That's it, that's the answer, it's that brutal and unpleasant. The 'end' is Vichy France, they will quite rightly fight against that for as long as they have the materials and the manpower.

A long war is not the end. That's the big bit before the end.

Do you think Ukraine will, realistically be more likely to regain land or lose more?

How does things look when/if the US withdraw their direct support, and/or the "back office" support for surveillance or other Western kit? 

They're the realities you seem reluctant to address. 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

A long war is not the end. That's the big bit before the end.

Do you think Ukraine will, realistically be more likely to regain land or lose more?

How does things look when/if the US withdraw their direct support, and/or the "back office" support for surveillance or other Western kit? 

They're the realities you seem reluctant to address. 

If they keep fighting, they will keep losing land. If they sign this deal, they will lose a big chunk very quickly.... then keep losing more land. Those are the two options.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

If they keep fighting, they will keep losing land. If they sign this deal, they will lose a big chunk very quickly.... then keep losing more land. Those are the two options.

So in a long winded way, the partial answer to my question, is that they'll continue to lose land. On that we agree. That still doesn't address how it actually ends though. I think we agree it's defeat it's defeat or capitulation. You could have just said that. 

[sadoldgit]

When this started the position was that Putin cannot be allowed to win. Not just for Ukraine’s sake, but for the rest of Europe. If Trump does bail on Ukraine, the rest of us need to step up. Putin is banking on NATO being to scared to front him up. It needs to show that it isn’t.

[Turkish]

I can assure you guys there is a huge amount of investment going into NATO right now as they are in an active war situation. Huge, huge investment in security in many counties in Europe and projects are being rushed through as urgency. 

[Sir Ralph]

Anyone who says Ukraine can win this are hugely deluded. A robust agreement to end this is the best thing for all parties. Trump again will achieve something that not other US president could have

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

That's not the reality though. Trump won't allow his deadline to pass, then throw more money and hardware Ukraine's way. 

The horrible reality doesn't go away by saying what Trump should do. 

The west were collectively a disgrace post Crimea, and Trump has taken it to new levels. 

Trump could put real pressure on Putin, he just doesn't want to.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Trump could put real pressure on Putin, he just doesn't want to.

If he puts this pressure on him what do you think Putin will concede? I’m genuinely interested as to what position you think Putin would “drop” to.

Do you think Putin will pull out of Ukraine and concede all new territories under his control?

The biggest question is that if US presidents have this clout why did Obama and Biden not use it to reach the position you say can be achieved?

Edited 21 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

If he puts this pressure on him what do you think Putin will concede? I’m genuinely interested as to what position you think Putin would “drop” to

I don't have access to the NSA, CIA, or Pentagon, so don't know where Putin's levers are, but you can be certain the Yanks do. As with anything else Trump does, underneath it all, he sees personal gain in this.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Anyone who says Ukraine can win this are hugely deluded. A robust agreement to end this is the best thing for all parties. Trump again will achieve something that not other US president could have

Why should a 'robust agreement' so completely favour one side ?

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I don't have access to the NSA, CIA, or Pentagon, so don't know where Putin's levers are, but you can be certain the Yanks do. As with anything else Trump does, underneath it all, he sees personal gain in this.

So you don’t know whether the Trump position is a good agreement or not then because you (like I) don’t know the full extent of levers that could be used.

if there are additional levers why didn’t Obama or Biden use them? I put the Russian progress and now stronger position firmly at their door for not having found their balls earlier. The weaker the us were earlier in the Russian land grab the more difficult the current position is form a western perspective 

Genuinely what position would you consider to be an acceptable one in terms of Russian concessions?

Edited 21 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Trump could put real pressure on Putin, he just doesn't want to.

Sure, but that's not the reality. He should have, and still should, but all he's had is clandestine chats with the Russians where Christ knows what has been said.  

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Sure, but that's not the reality. He should have, and still should, but all he's had is clandestine chats with the Russians where Christ knows what has been said.  

So why didn’t Obama and Biden put this “pressure” on? ? I put the Russian progress and now stronger position firmly at their door for not having found their balls earlier. The weaker the us were earlier in the Russian land grab the more difficult the current position is form a western perspective 

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Anyone who says Ukraine can win this are hugely deluded. A robust agreement to end this is the best thing for all parties. Trump again will achieve something that not other US president could have

It’s hardly a robust agreement and you are right about Trump. No other US President has been so much in the pocket of the Commies or have bailed on NATO. Some achievement for the man who is supposed to be the protector of The Free World.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s hardly a robust agreement and you are right about Trump. No other US President has been so much in the pocket of the Commies or have bailed on NATO. Some achievement for the man who is supposed to be the protector of The Free World.

The problem is this is all commentary without anyone knowing the detail. My biggest beef relates to Obama and what the fuck he was doing during crimea. He let Putin off the hook early doors which encouraged future incursions. Trump is negotiating from a weaker position as a result

Edited 21 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So why didn’t Obama and Biden put this “pressure” on? ? I put the Russian progress and now stronger position firmly at their door for not having found their balls earlier. The weaker the us were earlier in the Russian land grab the more difficult the current position is form a western perspective 

Depends what you mean by pressure. If you mean against Ukraine, probably because they're not cunts as per Trump.

Obama's rebuke and sanctions were a crap response though, ditto the rest of the west, not least us as a party to the Budapest Memorandum. 

This should have been nipped in the bid after Crimea, but, none of that excuses Trumps appalling conduct. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Depends what you mean by pressure. If you mean against Ukraine, probably because they're not cunts as per Trump.

Obama's rebuke and sanctions were a crap response though, ditto the rest of the west, not least us as a party to the Budapest Memorandum. 

This should have been nipped in the bid after Crimea, but, none of that excuses Trumps appalling conduct. 

We agree on Obama then as per my post above. His weak response allowed further incursions and weakened the wests position now.

[Colinjb]

A nation of 32 million, sandwiched between the hostile interests of a nation of 145 million and another of influence of 340 million.

Russia are not all that, but they are being given deference as though they are.

I feel for Ukraine. They've been f*cked.

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Colinjb

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So you don’t know whether the Trump position is a good agreement or not then because you (like I) don’t know the full extent of levers that could be used.

 Based on what is in the public domain, it is an appalling agreement, ( unless you are Putin ).

if there are additional levers why didn’t Obama or Biden use them? I put the Russian progress and now stronger position firmly at their door for not having found their balls earlier. The weaker the us were earlier in the Russian land grab the more difficult the current position is form a western perspective 

I agree.

Genuinely what position would you consider to be an acceptable one in terms of Russian concessions?

Return to the 2014 borders to start with.

 

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

A nation of 32 million, sandwiched between the hostile interests of a nation of 145 million and another of influence of 340 million.

Russia are not all that, but they are being given deference as though they are.

I feel for Ukraine. They've been f*cked.

 

Not all that? Equivalent nuclear power to the US and possibly technology more advanced. Really?

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

The Russians will never agree to 2014 borders….ever. Politically Putin can not accept significant causalities for keeping something he was already in control of. Then what?

Edited 20 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

The Russians will never agree to 2014 borders….ever. Then what?

You asked my opinion. Zelensky will never agree to this 'deal' - then what ?

[Colinjb]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Not all that? Equivalent nuclear power to the US and possibly technology more advanced. Really?

Image appears to be everything. And, you saw their approach to this conflict. You are sticking by more technologically advanced? Just throwing bodies at the enemy?

Edited 20 hours ago by Colinjb

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You asked my opinion. Zelensky will never agree to this 'deal' - then what ?

Keep on fighting with no end in sight. I’m not sure politically within the US the appetite for continuing to back it. If they decided not to you are potentially looking at a significant loss of Ukrainian territory beyond what is now being suggested….and the Russian know it

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

So people against this proposal….what is the alternative you suggest? Keep on fighting with waning us political backing

Edited 20 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Colinjb]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

So people against this proposal….what is the alternative you suggest?

Not agreeing to appeasement. 

[Sir Ralph]

30 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Not agreeing to appeasement. 

Very loose and too general to be a policy. Specifically what does this mean and how realistic is this? 
 

What do you ultimately think the Ukraine will be able to achieve? There seems to be some pie in the sky thinking that Putin will give up Ukrainian terroritory altogether or just keep crimea. That will never happen so what is the real and realistic solution? It’s easy to criticise but a well balanced alternative wins the day

If you want to blame someone, blame Obama for letting it get out of hand.

Edited 20 hours ago by Sir Ralph