[litwin]

"Giving them time to re-arm"

​Completely sums up any "peace" agreement

SHAPIRO- Solovyov has accurately described the only thing THE HORDE has to offer the world....

[litwin]

If a burglar broke into your house and stole a bunch of your belongings, what would your reaction be if the police told you to negotiate with the burglar over what parts of your belongings he could keep?

[wat0n]

Ultimately, though, there will have to be some sort of agreement. Or Russian and Ukrainian soldiers will be sent to the meat grinder forever?

[Rancid]

Ultimately, though, there will have to be some sort of agreement. Or Russian and Ukrainian soldiers will be sent to the meat grinder forever?

An agreement is not possible because to Ukraine, this is a true existential crisis. To Putin, it is really just a personal/regime existential crisis. Of his own doing at that. This crisis is dressed in the veil of an existential crisis for Russia itself. That's what Putin wants everyone to believe, and many do, including pro-Putin people in the west.

If Ukraine agrees to something (give up territory, whatever). Putin will still be in his personal/regime manufactured existential crisis. He has staked his regime on basically restoring the Russian empire (which goes beyond Ukraine by the way). He's made his intentions clear prior to the war with his bad read on history essays and speeches. Anyway, this means if any deal happens, he will attack again eventually. A deal with Putin will be in bad faith. The guarantee Ukraine needs, is for Putin to drop the fake existential crisis for Russia shit. However, because this is a personal crisis, he can't stop. He has no choice, he crossed the Rubicon on that. It's a personal issue for him, and he's dragging the entire nation with him.

In other words, the only way Ukraine has a chance at a good faith agreement is if the Putin regime falls. They can only deal with a post-Putin regime at this point. A deal with Putin, is a deal with Putin, not Russia. Ukraine needs a deal with Russia.

I think your views on this have been oversimplified and naive.

[litwin]

Ultimately, though, there will have to be some sort of agreement. Or Russian and Ukrainian soldiers will be sent to the meat grinder forever?

Quality of the hordesmen field medicine guarantees they all died .

[wat0n]

An agreement is not possible because to Ukraine, this is a true existential crisis. To Putin, it is really just a personal/regime existential crisis. Of his own doing at that. This crisis is dressed in the veil of an existential crisis for Russia itself. That's what Putin wants everyone to believe, and many do, including pro-Putin people in the west.

If Ukraine agrees to something (give up territory, whatever). Putin will still be in his personal/regime manufactured existential crisis. He has staked his regime on basically restoring the Russian empire (which goes beyond Ukraine by the way). He's made his intentions clear prior to the war with his bad read on history essays and speeches. Anyway, this means if any deal happens, he will attack again eventually. A deal with Putin will be in bad faith. The guarantee Ukraine needs, is for Putin to drop the fake existential crisis for Russia shit. However, because this is a personal crisis, he can't stop. He has no choice, he crossed the Rubicon on that. It's a personal issue for him, and he's dragging the entire nation with him.

In other words, the only way Ukraine has a chance at a good faith agreement is if the Putin regime falls. They can only deal with a post-Putin regime at this point. A deal with Putin, is a deal with Putin, not Russia. Ukraine needs a deal with Russia.

I think your views on this have been oversimplified and naive.

Not if the deal includes entering the EU and/or NATO. I'm fairly sure Putin would think thrice about invading Ukraine ever again in that case.

Of course, if Ukraine didn't have this option it'd be different. But I think it does, if it's part of an agreement.

[Rugoz]

Not if the deal includes entering the EU and/or NATO. I'm fairly sure Putin would think thrice about invading Ukraine ever again in that case.

Of course, if Ukraine didn't have this option it'd be different. But I think it does, if it's part of an agreement.

No idea why you think Ukraine has that option as part of an agreement. Unilaterally announced by NATO for territory controlled by Ukraine maybe, as Stoltenberg Rasmussen suggested.

[wat0n]

No idea why you think Ukraine has that option as part of an agreement. Unilaterally announced by NATO for territory controlled by Ukraine maybe, as Stoltenberg Rasmussen suggested.

It'd be better as part of an agreement. It needs to be made clear to Russia its failure to defeat Ukraine in the battlefield means it's out of its sphere of influence for good.

[Beren]

Not if the deal includes entering the EU and/or NATO. I'm fairly sure Putin would think thrice about invading Ukraine ever again in that case.

Of course, if Ukraine didn't have this option it'd be different. But I think it does, if it's part of an agreement.

There can't be an agreement with Putin since he's declared a war criminal, but he'd never agree to Ukraine's EU- or NATO-membership anyway. Even if he agreed to the first one, he'd mean to sabotage it somehow. He'd only agree to Ukraine's neutrality, in exchange for a land grab perhaps, but he'd try to undermine that too.

[wat0n]

There can't be an agreement with Putin since he's declared a war criminal, but he'd never agree to Ukraine's EU- or NATO-membership anyway. Even if he agreed to the first one, he'd mean to sabotage it somehow. He'd only agree to Ukraine's neutrality, in exchange for a land grab perhaps, but he'd try to undermine that too.

Then this war will indeed continue, because there is at least one side that hasn't accepted it's unlikely to be able to make further gains in the battlefield if things continue as they are.

[Beren]

Then this war will indeed continue

It will indeed. Putin will be reelected in a completely formal election, while there won't even be elections held in Ukraine, so Zelensky will continue as a kind of procurator or warlord or something.

[Godstud]

Putin and Zelensky both got elected in exactly the same way. Now he's cancelled elections. Putin started out this way, too.

Ukraine’s ‘Servant of the People’ is a Western Fiction
https://iaffairscanada.com/ukraines-ser ... fiction-2/

[Rugoz]

Then this war will indeed continue, because there is at least one side that hasn't accepted it's unlikely to be able to make further gains in the battlefield if things continue as they are.

And what side would that be? Certainly not Russia, given its bonkers attack on Avdiivka.

I also disagree with the premise. It entirely depends on attrition rates and the production/supply of equipment and manpower on both sides. Those are not known to us, unfortunately, but I still have some faith in the Western supporters that they're giving Ukraine a decisive edge on that front.

Putin and Zelensky both got elected in exactly the same way. Now he's cancelled elections. Putin started out this way, too.

Ukraine’s ‘Servant of the People’ is a Western Fiction
https://iaffairscanada.com/ukraines-ser ... fiction-2/

Zelensky only got 30% of the votes in the first round. Putin always wins with ~70% in the first round, for 20+ years. In Ukraine there's actually a thing called "political competition".

In general, the article omits a lot of information to make Zelensky/Ukraine look bad. He's an ambitious politician, so obviously there's always a danger of him becoming addicted to power. It is highly doubtful he would seek EU membership in that case though.

Most Ukrainians want to postpone the election, and of course countries in an existential war usually do. Here's a recent survey:
https://www.iri.org/resources/national- ... mber-2023/.

In this only 22% think the election should be held in March, and 62% think it has to wait until the war is over. The survey also shows that Ukrainians are super optimistic about the outcome of the war, probably to a fault.

[litwin]

It will indeed. Putin will be reelected in a completely formal election, while there won't even be elections held in Ukraine, so Zelensky will continue as a kind of procurator or warlord or something.

Bold words from a failed state that struggle to take Avdivvka, a town of 30k habitants.

[wat0n]

And what side would that be? Certainly not Russia, given its bonkers attack on Avdiivka.

Russia does indeed still believe it can achieve gains by military means. It's one reason why the war isn't ending anytime soon.

I also disagree with the premise. It entirely depends on attrition rates and the production/supply of equipment and manpower on both sides. Those are not known to us, unfortunately, but I still have some faith in the Western supporters that they're giving Ukraine a decisive edge on that front.

You're forgetting the human cost of the war. If the Russian and Ukrainian publics believe further warfare won't achieve much, they will both start showing their dissatisfaction with sending relatives to a meat grinder.

You can keep producing arms if you want, but what will happen with producing troops?

[Beren]

In this only 22% think the election should be held in March, and 62% think it has to wait until the war is over.

How long do they think the war's going to last for if it even matters to them in this case?

Russia does indeed still believe it can achieve gains by military means.

They don't really seem to believe that, they rather seem pushing for a ceasefire and a regular peace treaty, although they'd expect the Ukrainians to ask for it. Which they could actually do if they wanted to have an election and an election campaign. Why not if even their chief general says there's a stalemate on the frontline anyway? There'll be elections in Russia too, so they could agree on that.

[wat0n]

They don't really seem to believe that, they rather seem pushing for a ceasefire and a regular peace treaty, although they'd expect the Ukrainians to ask for it. Which they could actually do if they wanted to have an election and an election campaign. Why not if even their chief general says there's a stalemate on the frontline anyway? There'll be elections in Russia too, so they could agree on that.

Have the Russians offered a ceasefire?

[Beren]

Have the Russians offered a ceasefire?

In my opinion they'd rather mean to be asked for it.

[Deutschmania]

No idea why you think Ukraine has that option as part of an agreement. Unilaterally announced by NATO for territory controlled by Ukraine maybe, as Stoltenberg Rasmussen suggested.

From what Rasmussen stated.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who served as the secretary general of NATO from 2009 to 2014, insists that the plan for Ukraine's partial membership does not symbolise the freezing of the conflict but, instead, signifies the determination to prevent Russia from obstructing Ukraine's entry into the Alliance. Rasmussen stated that the issue of Ukraine's NATO membership cannot be postponed any longer.

"The time has come to take the next step and extend an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO. We need a new European security architecture in which Ukraine is in the heart of NATO," he said.

Supporters of Ukraine's NATO membership are cautious because the extension of Article 5 of the Alliance's Collective Defence Treaty to the entire Ukrainian territory would require NATO member countries to defend a country at war actively. Rasmussen argues that excluding the territories held by Russia from the treaty's coverage would reduce the risk of conflict between Russia and NATO.

Rasmussen denies that this step would freeze the conflict by surrendering Ukrainian territory to Russia. "The absolute credibility of Article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline," he said.

"To make Article 5 credible there would have to be a clear message to Russia that any violation of NATO territory would be met by a response," Rasmussen emphasised. He stated that in a sense, this proposal is similar to establishing a no-fly zone for Russia, preventing it from flying over Ukrainian territory or launching missiles into Ukrainian cities.

Rasmussen noted a somewhat imprecise precedent in history: when West Germany joined the Alliance in 1955, Article 5 applied only to its territory, not East Germany. He listed three main reasons why Ukraine should be offered membership. Firstly, Ukraine in NATO would act as a bulwark against still-aggressive Russia. Secondly, he said, it should be realised that grey zones are danger zones, and neutrality in the old sense no longer exists. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/ex-nato-chief-proposes-ukraine-joins-without-russian-occupied-territories

It doesn't seem likely to happen though.

Office of the President of Ukraine responds to the statement of the former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Ukraine's accession to the Alliance without its occupied territories, according to the advisor to the head of the Office, Mykhailo Podolyak, and The Guardian. I love (sarcasm) the periodic strange proposals on the 'resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.' They still prove that the causes and consequences are not obvious to everyone. Sometimes you can hear strange proposals that Ukraine can easily join NATO... in parts - territories that are not under occupation. These are the 'simple solutions' that always end up costing a lot..." Podolyak wrote.

The former NATO Secretary-General suggested Ukraine's accession to the North Atlantic Alliance without the temporary Russian-occupied territories.
"The time has come to take the next step and extend an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO. We need a new European security architecture in which Ukraine is in the heart of NATO," Rasmussen stated.

However, Podolyak notes that discussing such a possibility clearly provokes Russia into further escalation.

"Firstly, the discussion itself clearly provokes Russia into further escalation, encouraging it to aggressive war: 'A little more - and Ukraine will give in. Citizens need to be killed, missile attacks need to be launched.' Isn't that obvious? Undoubtedly," he wrote. Podolyak also added that there are no guarantees that Russia would agree to Ukraine joining NATO.

"Who guarantees that Russia will not continue its expansion after a pause, taking advantage of a fictitious break to strengthen its positions? Finally, who exactly will act as a guarantor of the inviolability... of the so-called demarcation line? Does theory not presuppose practice?" he wrote.

Considering all this, Podolyak notes how the inappropriate are such "strange proposals."

"So why voicing these strange proposals... Instead of finally realizing three fundamental truths: Russia is absolutely incapable of agreement and will try to deceive in any case; Russia in this form will only escalate risks and try to carry out its aggression; only significant military/technological assistance to Ukraine solves the problem of European security and guarantees a return to stable global rules," the official added.... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zelenskyys-office-sharply-reacts-to-idea-of-taking-ukraine-into-nato-without-occupied-territories/ar-AA1jNzWV

[litwin]