|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 10 2025 21:06 0x64 wrote:
The only deal that would had worked, would have been that the USA get right on ressources of territory occupied by Russia.
But Putin and Trump being BFFs, we know the plan is to take half for Russia, Half for USA.
We are back to "freeing Iraq"
What would the US offer in an exchange for the territory?
Tbh I don't even think the US has that much bargaining power to offer on the table, except for lifting sanctions.
Even the EU might have more to offer, given they got that frozen Russia assets.
|
On March 10 2025 21:26 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2025 21:06 0x64 wrote:
The only deal that would had worked, would have been that the USA get right on ressources of territory occupied by Russia.
But Putin and Trump being BFFs, we know the plan is to take half for Russia, Half for USA.
We are back to "freeing Iraq" What would the US offer in an exchange for the territory? more support for Ukraine.
The idea would be the US helps Ukraine actually win the war and push Russia out. Then the US gets part of the resources from those area's they helped liberate and it puts US interests directly in front of Russia to further incentivise the US to protect Ukraine in the future.
You don't negotiate with Russia because you can't. Russia wants to control and oppress everyone around them and their word is with absolute shit.
|
On March 10 2025 20:37 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2025 18:03 sertas wrote:On March 10 2025 11:13 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 10:01 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 09:03 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 07:30 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 05:03 Yurie wrote:On March 10 2025 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2025 13:00 ETisME wrote:I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip. If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else. They made it worse by choosing to stand ground instead of retreating, this became a meatgrinder on both sides. Ukraine is throwing new recruits with 50-70% survival rate, reported by some of the Ukrainians commanders.The reason why they wanted to stand ground is hoping for a territory swap, which Russia already rejected, hardly a surprise since Russia had been recapturing it consistently. - Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing. The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later. Deserters number have reached over 100,000 and this is just the public figure.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts. Their negotiating positions are irreconcilable. No negotiations any time soon. Russia not accepting peace keeping forces or Ukraine joining defensive alliances is the most critical point. The rest I think they could hammer out in a negotiation. Russia requires that Ukraine surrender national sovereignty because they don’t believe that Ukraine can be allowed sovereignty. Ukraine believes that it has sovereignty and, like any free people, will never give it up willingly. There is no room for compromise, it’s not like they can be sovereign every other day. The official demands are: 1. no NATO membership for Ukraine; 2. Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian provinces (even though Russia does not physically control all the territory of three of them); 3. Ukraine’s demilitarization and denazification (code for the installation of a pro-Russia puppet in Kyiv); and 4. the lifting of anti-Russia sanctions. i don't think both sides are seeing this as end all be all for Ukraine. Or else we wouldn't have a peace talk that almost went through in 2022. So in your world Russia wants Ukraine disarmed and restrained because it doesn’t want to assault it? Kinda like how Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia to cede their defensive lines in the Sudetenland because of how much he wasn’t planning to invade. These are literally Russia's demands for the peace deal. I have only added a remark that BOTH sides don't see it as end all be all, which is how you see it. Especially the "no room to comprises", which is just silly when they were already thinking about exchanging territory and Ukraine would have to pick which land to exchange and which land they would have to forego Russia would never accept the current lines to be frozen, they want a lot more to even consider peace, this is already an unacceptable position to start negotiating from Ukraine asked for return for Crimea as well, that's never going to happen. There's more effort to escalate than negotiation last year, and now the deal has to be made in the worst position. The only bargaining chip Ukraine has left is the Russian's frozen assets. (that is still pending legal matters)
I know that you are a bit stuck in a disinformation bubble, but the biggest bargaining chip is that Ukraine can hold out for longer than Russia can keep up their invasion, barring the USA officially taking sides and supporting Russia itself.
Russia cannot accept any kind of peacekeepers in or security guaranteed for Ukraine because any peace deal or ceasefire is just a break for them to gather and replenish their forces, and then go again later. If a peace deal means that they cannot go again later, it is not a viable peace deal for them.
Russia will continue their invasion(s) against anyone who isn't part of a defensive alliance or has other security measures in place, or until it physically cannot do so anymore.
This is why sending additional diplomats does nothing and why sending more ammunition and other hardware is the fastest way to peace. Russia understands no other language. The only reason why Russia is even "entertaining" the thought of peace talks is to look more reasonable in the eyes of the Western world, hoping that this will erode the support for Ukraine.
|
On March 10 2025 21:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2025 21:26 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 21:06 0x64 wrote:
The only deal that would had worked, would have been that the USA get right on ressources of territory occupied by Russia.
But Putin and Trump being BFFs, we know the plan is to take half for Russia, Half for USA.
We are back to "freeing Iraq" What would the US offer in an exchange for the territory? more support for Ukraine. The idea would be the US helps Ukraine actually win the war and push Russia out. Then the US gets part of the resources from those area's they helped liberate and it puts US interests directly in front of Russia to further incentivise the US to protect Ukraine in the future. You don't negotiate with Russia because you can't. Russia wants to control and oppress everyone around them and their word is with absolute shit.
I guess it would be more like US gets allowed access to minerals in russia occupied territory right now and act as a buffer. If the minerals deal is coupled with a win condition first then US will never go for it.
|
On March 10 2025 22:03 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2025 20:37 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 18:03 sertas wrote:On March 10 2025 11:13 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 10:01 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 09:03 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 07:30 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 05:03 Yurie wrote:On March 10 2025 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2025 13:00 ETisME wrote:[quote] I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip. If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else. They made it worse by choosing to stand ground instead of retreating, this became a meatgrinder on both sides. Ukraine is throwing new recruits with 50-70% survival rate, reported by some of the Ukrainians commanders.The reason why they wanted to stand ground is hoping for a territory swap, which Russia already rejected, hardly a surprise since Russia had been recapturing it consistently. - Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing. The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later. Deserters number have reached over 100,000 and this is just the public figure.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts. Their negotiating positions are irreconcilable. No negotiations any time soon. Russia not accepting peace keeping forces or Ukraine joining defensive alliances is the most critical point. The rest I think they could hammer out in a negotiation. Russia requires that Ukraine surrender national sovereignty because they don’t believe that Ukraine can be allowed sovereignty. Ukraine believes that it has sovereignty and, like any free people, will never give it up willingly. There is no room for compromise, it’s not like they can be sovereign every other day. The official demands are: 1. no NATO membership for Ukraine; 2. Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian provinces (even though Russia does not physically control all the territory of three of them); 3. Ukraine’s demilitarization and denazification (code for the installation of a pro-Russia puppet in Kyiv); and 4. the lifting of anti-Russia sanctions. i don't think both sides are seeing this as end all be all for Ukraine. Or else we wouldn't have a peace talk that almost went through in 2022. So in your world Russia wants Ukraine disarmed and restrained because it doesn’t want to assault it? Kinda like how Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia to cede their defensive lines in the Sudetenland because of how much he wasn’t planning to invade. These are literally Russia's demands for the peace deal. I have only added a remark that BOTH sides don't see it as end all be all, which is how you see it. Especially the "no room to comprises", which is just silly when they were already thinking about exchanging territory and Ukraine would have to pick which land to exchange and which land they would have to forego Russia would never accept the current lines to be frozen, they want a lot more to even consider peace, this is already an unacceptable position to start negotiating from Ukraine asked for return for Crimea as well, that's never going to happen. There's more effort to escalate than negotiation last year, and now the deal has to be made in the worst position. The only bargaining chip Ukraine has left is the Russian's frozen assets. (that is still pending legal matters) I know that you are a bit stuck in a disinformation bubble, but the biggest bargaining chip is that Ukraine can hold out for longer than Russia can keep up their invasion, barring the USA officially taking sides and supporting Russia itself. Russia cannot accept any kind of peacekeepers in or security guaranteed for Ukraine because any peace deal or ceasefire is just a break for them to gather and replenish their forces, and then go again later. If a peace deal means that they cannot go again later, it is not a viable peace deal for them. Russia will continue their invasion(s) against anyone who isn't part of a defensive alliance or has other security measures in place, or until it physically cannot do so anymore. This is why sending additional diplomats does nothing and why sending more ammunition and other hardware is the fastest way to peace. Russia understands no other language. The only reason why Russia is even "entertaining" the thought of peace talks is to look more reasonable in the eyes of the Western world, hoping that this will erode the support for Ukraine.
Disinformation bubble?
I have given plenty of sources to back up my claims. be it morality rate, mass desertion, recruitment issues, the poll numbers. None of these are hidden secrets and have been reported even on mainstream media.
Even Ukraine is in negotiation for peace now, so is this all pointless to you then?
If you think all thee diplomatic solution don't matter at all, then you are essentially saying the entire Russia to be taken down.
There's no way you think this is being seriously considered?
Even if Russia slows down for whatever reason, there's no way Ukraine can ever recapture seized lands, Russia has total defender advantages in those area by now.
Well unless the EU or a few European nations deploy troops, and with more foreign volunteers like yourself join the war effort.
|
On March 10 2025 20:54 KT_Elwood wrote:
Russia can't be trusted and (like the US) won't tolerate any ruling body that isn't ruling in their interest.
The only fear that politicans have, is that their donors might have money in russia which then gets seized and they get cut off (as many companies of the west still are doing business in russia).
Seize the assets, buy Grippen.
The same Grippen that has an American engine?
|
On March 10 2025 22:53 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2025 22:03 Nezgar wrote:On March 10 2025 20:37 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 18:03 sertas wrote:On March 10 2025 11:13 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 10:01 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 09:03 ETisME wrote:On March 10 2025 07:30 KwarK wrote:On March 10 2025 05:03 Yurie wrote:On March 10 2025 03:40 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Their negotiating positions are irreconcilable. No negotiations any time soon. Russia not accepting peace keeping forces or Ukraine joining defensive alliances is the most critical point. The rest I think they could hammer out in a negotiation. Russia requires that Ukraine surrender national sovereignty because they don’t believe that Ukraine can be allowed sovereignty. Ukraine believes that it has sovereignty and, like any free people, will never give it up willingly. There is no room for compromise, it’s not like they can be sovereign every other day. The official demands are: 1. no NATO membership for Ukraine; 2. Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian provinces (even though Russia does not physically control all the territory of three of them); 3. Ukraine’s demilitarization and denazification (code for the installation of a pro-Russia puppet in Kyiv); and 4. the lifting of anti-Russia sanctions. i don't think both sides are seeing this as end all be all for Ukraine. Or else we wouldn't have a peace talk that almost went through in 2022. So in your world Russia wants Ukraine disarmed and restrained because it doesn’t want to assault it? Kinda like how Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia to cede their defensive lines in the Sudetenland because of how much he wasn’t planning to invade. These are literally Russia's demands for the peace deal. I have only added a remark that BOTH sides don't see it as end all be all, which is how you see it. Especially the "no room to comprises", which is just silly when they were already thinking about exchanging territory and Ukraine would have to pick which land to exchange and which land they would have to forego Russia would never accept the current lines to be frozen, they want a lot more to even consider peace, this is already an unacceptable position to start negotiating from Ukraine asked for return for Crimea as well, that's never going to happen. There's more effort to escalate than negotiation last year, and now the deal has to be made in the worst position. The only bargaining chip Ukraine has left is the Russian's frozen assets. (that is still pending legal matters) I know that you are a bit stuck in a disinformation bubble, but the biggest bargaining chip is that Ukraine can hold out for longer than Russia can keep up their invasion, barring the USA officially taking sides and supporting Russia itself. Russia cannot accept any kind of peacekeepers in or security guaranteed for Ukraine because any peace deal or ceasefire is just a break for them to gather and replenish their forces, and then go again later. If a peace deal means that they cannot go again later, it is not a viable peace deal for them. Russia will continue their invasion(s) against anyone who isn't part of a defensive alliance or has other security measures in place, or until it physically cannot do so anymore. This is why sending additional diplomats does nothing and why sending more ammunition and other hardware is the fastest way to peace. Russia understands no other language. The only reason why Russia is even "entertaining" the thought of peace talks is to look more reasonable in the eyes of the Western world, hoping that this will erode the support for Ukraine. Disinformation bubble? I have given plenty of sources to back up my claims. be it morality rate, mass desertion, recruitment issues, the poll numbers. None of these are hidden secrets and have been reported even on mainstream media. Even Ukraine is in negotiation for peace now, so is this all pointless to you then? If you think all thee diplomatic solution don't matter at all, then you are essentially saying the entire Russia to be taken down. There's no way you think this is being seriously considered? Even if Russia slows down for whatever reason, there's no way Ukraine can ever recapture seized lands, Russia has total defender advantages in those area by now. Well unless the EU or a few European nations deploy troops, and with more foreign volunteers like yourself join the war effort.
There really can't be any peace deals IMO because neither side is going to compromise on their goals.
UKR wants:
- Full sovereignty
- Return to pre-2014 borders
- Guarantees that Russia will not invade ever again
RU wants:
- Ukraine to not exist as a country any more pretty much
- If above can't be achieved it wants to make sure Ukraine is never able to field an army and defend itself again (so they can take it easier in the future)
Those goals are not really compatible.
The biggest problem for Russia is that they're running out of assets and at the rate they're going now they'll be able to capture Ukraine in about 100 years or so (and I don't think they have enough steam in the tank to go beyond 2025). The biggest problem for Ukraine is that they're willing to withstand this as long as is necessary but this hinges on Western support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
