War in Ukraine

[Eaglehamster]

We have been put into this war.

All before Trump has a chance to stop it.

No good will come of this.

Yes let's pray Trump saves us... LMAO

 

[snytaxx]

Yes let's pray Trump saves us... LMAO

You might be disappointed.

Trump was the first president to send lethal aid to Ukraine and even criticised Obama for being weak on the matter.

I note he has stayed silent over the recent escalations, quite shrewd actually.

The phone call with Trump which Putin is vigorously denying will likely bring further disappointment to quick end to this war.

Still when none of this matters. Trump could literally fire a missile and destroy the Kremlin and the free thinkers on here would just say it's Zelenskys fault or the deep state or black rock or whatever their subscription red pill X account told them it was this week.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It is disgusting that they are using land mines.

Apparently these are time limited, for use as a defensive shield around troop positions. They deactivate after 2 weeks thus reducing the future threat to civilians.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You might be disappointed.

Trump was the first president to send lethal aid to Ukraine and even criticised Obama for being weak on the matter.

I note he has stayed silent over the recent escalations, quite shrewd actually.

The phone call with Trump which Putin is vigorously denying will likely bring further disappointment to quick end to this war.

Still when none of this matters. Trump could literally fire a missile and destroy the Kremlin and the free thinkers on here would just say it's Zelenskys fault or the deep state or black rock or whatever their subscription red pill X account told them it was this week.

In what fantasy world are you living in where you think the Kremlin gets destroyed and the rest of us don't?

The 'free thinkers' on here won't be saying anything because you and me and everyone else will be dead or dying.

 

[Stirlingsays]

People have been fooled by a lot of lying in this war but eventually the battlefield is always going to reveal the truth and each week Russia takes territory.

The longer the war goes on the more territory Ukraine loses.....It's a fantasy to think that Putin will give back any land. He has lost probably over a hundred thousand troops and spent untold money so while he is winning he will drive a hard bargain.

Nato is refusing to use its own troops so essentially it's just a matter of when in 2025 a negotiation happens.

Ok, unless these clowns get everyone killed, this is my take on what I think happens.

Trump makes an offer that both reject......Trump blames Zelensky and says this is now Europe's problem and stops funding. Nato make a deal to freeze the conflict with Russia, Zelensky holds a referendum on peace or continued war, where peace is voted for and Zelensky leaves the country having never agreed to the deal.

An agreed nation of troops come into the country after an agreement on a demilitarised zone......Hard to think Russia would agree that this would be under the Nato banner though. At this stage I can't see Russia accepting a Nato membership but maybe they will cobble together some form of words about the undefined future.

Ukraine undergoes a period of internal instability between nationalists and what some on here would call 'appeasers' who Europe would be backing. Deals are made on sanctions, oil and taken funds.

Something like that.....Europe's leaders get to claim Putin has lost because he has failed to take Ukraine and Putin gets to claim that he has taken back all or most of the Russian speaking areas.

We will see.

 

[snytaxx]

In what fantasy world are you living in where you think the Kremlin gets destroyed and the rest of us don't?

The 'free thinkers' on here won't be saying anything because you and me and everyone else will be dead or dying.

Totally missed my point.

The general consensus from many is that Trump is going to end the war, in 24 hours no doubt.

My point is that while this is possible (anything is possible theoretically) it's actually quite unlikely for a whole series of reasons I've detailed before. Moreover trump's record to Ukraine isn't as descalatory as many of his supporters think it is.

I just wonder what excuse you're going to come up with if trump fails, no doubt it will some how be some 'neo cons' fault right?

 

[snytaxx]

Apparently these are time limited, for use as a defensive shield around troop positions. They deactivate after 2 weeks thus reducing the future threat to civilians.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it can use weapons however it likes to defend itself.

I find the faux outrage a little hypocritical when Russia uses land lines and we get total silence.

The only people who should be worried about this in the medium short term are Russians troops.

When did we become so political correct towards Russia?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Totally missed my point.

The general consensus from many is that Trump is going to end the war, in 24 hours no doubt.

My point is that while this is possible (anything is possible theoretically) it's actually quite unlikely for a whole series of reasons I've detailed before. Moreover trump's record to Ukraine isn't as descalatory as many of his supporters think it is.

I just wonder what excuse you're going to come up with if trump fails, no doubt it will some how be some 'neo cons' fault right?

You obviously aren't reading my posts or you wouldn't have asked the question.

I've already stated that I don't believe he can end the war quickly. It was a lie or at least a partial one.

What Trump is highly unlikely to do is increase spending to Ukraine, he will drop military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agrees to a peace deal with Russia (which is largely giving it what it wants).

In my view Trump will issue a commitment to article five and then leave the problem of Ukraine to Europe's leaders.

These were the stupid risks they took....social liberals being all or nothing rather than having a more conservative approach.

The lesson here is age old and was stated by the sensible at the start. You don't involve yourself in wars unless you are all in....they can't reliably be won one foot in and one foot out unless your opponent is very weak. As Ukraine wasn't in Nato and most countries aren't prepared to lose their own troops fighting for it then engaging in this war was high risk (something they are still doing) instead of finding an early resolution which was the common sense approach.

That was on the cards in 2022 but Johnson and Biden's hubris (and of their related departments) meant they wanted to take chances. Well, the problem with all or nothing is that you could end up with nothing (well it's far worse than nothing).....which, as I stated at the time was the more likely result.

 

[snytaxx]

You obviously aren't reading my posts or you wouldn't have asked the question.

I've already stated that I don't believe he can end the war quickly. It was a lie or at least a partial one.

What Trump is highly unlikely to do is increase spending to Ukraine, he will drop military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agrees to a peace deal with Russia (which is largely giving it what it wants).

In my view Trump will issue a commitment to article five and then leave the problem of Ukraine to Europe's leaders.

These were the stupid risks they took....social liberals being all or nothing rather than having a more conservative approach.

The lesson here is age old and was stated by the sensible at the start. You don't involve yourself in wars unless you are all in....they can't reliably be won one foot in and one foot out unless your opponent is very weak. As Ukraine wasn't in Nato and most countries aren't prepared to lose their own troops fighting for it then engaging in this war was high risk (something they are still doing) instead of finding an early resolution which was the common sense approach.

That was on the cards in 2022 but Johnson and Biden's hubris (and of their related departments) meant they wanted to take chances. Well, the problem with all or nothing is that you could end up with nothing (well it's far worse than nothing).....which, as I stated at the time was the more likely result.

No I haven't read all yours posts, I wasn't originally replying to you and the world doesn't resolve around people seeking out and reading all your various political beliefs, odd thing to say chap.

The rest of your post is quite familiar though.

References to the 2022 deal which apparently was super good but actually no one can find as it Is was never published and poor old Russia who never actually wanted a war was forced Stirling... Forced... into attacking their sovereign neighbours they promised to respect in numerous treaties, some signed by Putin himself. Pure Putin apologism sadly.

I also love the metal gymnastics that the collective west has been defeated, humbled even despite not losing a single soldier and spending maybe what 0.1% of their GDP on the defence of Ukraine per year of conflict trying to prevent a global escalation into ww3 by appeasement. While Russia is forced to spend 5-6% per year on an operation that is definitely going to plan, don't mention 3 days Stirling... Fake news! Also having lost a confirmed 1.5 times more men than the US did in Vietnam over a period 3 times shorter and definitely not relying on North Korean troops, they are there just on holiday to Kursk. With most independent estimates actually putting the figures between US WW1 and 2 figures. Putin really is the master strategist.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You obviously aren't reading my posts or you wouldn't have asked the question.

I've already stated that I don't believe he can end the war quickly. It was a lie or at least a partial one.

What Trump is highly unlikely to do is increase spending to Ukraine, he will drop military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agrees to a peace deal with Russia (which is largely giving it what it wants).

In my view Trump will issue a commitment to article five and then leave the problem of Ukraine to Europe's leaders.

These were the stupid risks they took....social liberals being all or nothing rather than having a more conservative approach.

The lesson here is age old and was stated by the sensible at the start. You don't involve yourself in wars unless you are all in....they can't reliably be won one foot in and one foot out unless your opponent is very weak. As Ukraine wasn't in Nato and most countries aren't prepared to lose their own troops fighting for it then engaging in this war was high risk (something they are still doing) instead of finding an early resolution which was the common sense approach.

That was on the cards in 2022 but Johnson and Biden's hubris (and of their related departments) meant they wanted to take chances. Well, the problem with all or nothing is that you could end up with nothing (well it's far worse than nothing).....which, as I stated at the time was the more likely result.

Until Trump started offering his populist isolationism to those in the USA who remain largely ignorant of world affairs, of which there is a regrettably very large proportion, US Presidents understood that they have a shared interest in ensuring that Western Europe remain intact. That’s why they have been the primary bankers of NATO. Not because of altruism but because it is ultimately in their best interests.

History will not judge Trump well and he will be studied in Universities as a model of how to destroy established equilibrium and take unnecessary risks.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it can use weapons however it likes to defend itself.

a sovereign nation that is 50% Russian-speaking.

the EU and NATO have no business planting their flags there. Since 1914 we have had a perma-War in the globe. Mostly spearheaded by the West and its allies.

Very many of the locals, in Ukraine, do not want to see it turned into another Thornton Heath/Downtown Philadelphia/Paris Banlieu.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

History will not judge Trump well and he will be studied in Universities as a model of how to destroy established equilibrium and take unnecessary risks.

well , try to compare & contrast him to Biden. At least Trump can remember what he had for breakfast this morning.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

well , try to compare & contrast him to Biden. At least Trump can remember what he had for breakfast this morning.

I do. Trump comes out very badly but he does against the rest of humanity, barring the odd few who are even worse. Biden has advisers to whom he listens and delegates. He has never been a compelling orator and his age isn’t improving that. Trump listens to no one, is an impulsive liar and an unpredictable danger to us all. He is surrounded by arse licking sycophants whose only achievements are to prove that in the age of Trump personal loyalty pays much bigger dividends than ability.

 

[Eaglehamster]

a sovereign nation that is 50% Russian-speaking.

the EU and NATO have no business planting their flags there. Since 1914 we have had a perma-War in the globe. Mostly spearheaded by the West and its allies.

Very many of the locals, in Ukraine, do not want to see it turned into another Thornton Heath/Downtown Philadelphia/Paris Banlieu.

So what will Putin turn it into after he's exacted his revenge?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

a sovereign nation that is 50% Russian-speaking.

the EU and NATO have no business planting their flags there. Since 1914 we have had a perma-War in the globe. Mostly spearheaded by the West and its allies.

Very many of the locals, in Ukraine, do not want to see it turned into another Thornton Heath/Downtown Philadelphia/Paris Banlieu.

That’s just a lingering consequence of their domination by the USSR. Something they were desperate to rid themselves of.

They are a sovereign nation. No flags have been planted there by anyone. Only Russia are trying. They want to join the EU and NATO. Of their own free will. I thought you liked freedom of expression!

 

[Stirlingsays]

No I haven't read all yours posts, I wasn't originally replying to you and the world doesn't resolve around people seeking out and reading all your various political beliefs, odd thing to say chap.

Fair enough.

The rest of your post is quite familiar though.

References to the 2022 deal which apparently was super good but actually no one can find as it Is was never published and poor old Russia who never actually wanted a war was forced Stirling... Forced... into attacking their sovereign neighbours they promised to respect in numerous treaties, some signed by Putin himself. Pure Putin apologism sadly.

The 2022 deal was hardly a secret, Johnson travelled to Kiev specifically to advise Zelensky not to sign it. You seriously think he did that without knowing what was in the deal? What was on offer is certainly considerably better than what they will get now. Here are its details:

Die Welt publishes peace deal Ukraine and Russia could have signed in April 2022

Die Welt, a German media outlet, has stated that a peace agreement could have been signed a few weeks after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The conditions for ending the war then were spelled out in a 17-page draft agreement that the parties agreed on on 15 April 2022. Russia demanded...

www.pravda.com.ua

I also love the metal gymnastics that the collective west has been defeated, humbled even despite not losing a single soldier and spending maybe what 0.1% of their GDP on the defence of Ukraine per year of conflict trying to prevent a global escalation into ww3 by appeasement. While Russia is forced to spend 5-6% per year on an operation that is definitely going to plan, don't mention 3 days Stirling... Fake news! Also having lost a confirmed 1.5 times more men than the US did in Vietnam over a period 3 times shorter and definitely not relying on North Korean troops, they are there just on holiday to Kursk. With most independent estimates actually putting the figures between US WW1 and 2 figures. Putin really is the master strategist.

Collective west? Who said that? The country that has been defeated is Ukraine.....Well, much more than defeated, it's been sent into failed state status without external financial support to keep it running. That is highly likely to end up being Europe forking out, not Russia. You mentioned it being sovereign.....Well, not anymore it isn't, since the start of the war it's just a front for the US state department to fight Russia at low relative cost to it but high cost to us.

Also your claim as to the costs to the west is off. In your head you are only thinking of military spending. You aren't thinking of increased energy costs, food costs or anything else. The cost of war is most felt in human terms, on that I would agree with you, however there is a massive financial cost as well both at the time and ongoing.

Another thing I ask you to reconsider is the idea that we haven't lost soldiers.....We certainly shouldn't have lost them but I can assure you we have.....the shuffling of paperwork doesn't hide reality.....well perhaps it does for some who think everything is out in the open.

Ok, I keep hearing this claim about 3 days. Where is the evidence from Putin that this would take 3 days?

Another thing to pick you up on is your apparent certainty on military losses with Russia.....I certainly have no issues with a guess but whether it's you or me the truth won't actually be known for a long time yet....Both sides lie about it. As for 'independent sources'....Ok, what are those sources? Because the funding would decide that. My guess is because Russia has far more artillery Ukraine's losses will have been far larger. Eventually the truth on that will be around...though I doubt it will be trumpeted.

Well it's highly likely Putin will finish the war with all or most of the Russia speaking areas of Ukraine, whether that was worth the cost to them is dependent upon how existential the threat of losing Ukraine to the west was. America certainly wouldn't have stood for the same thing on their doorstep, as the Monroe doctrine states.

I don't think it the invasion was justified and have always said so. But no one can say that the Russians weren't clear or that this war wasn't signposted over a decade before it started....Oliver Stone even made a damn movie about it long before.

 

[snytaxx]

a sovereign nation that is 50% Russian-speaking.

the EU and NATO have no business planting their flags there. Since 1914 we have had a perma-War in the globe. Mostly spearheaded by the West and its allies.

Very many of the locals, in Ukraine, do not want to see it turned into another Thornton Heath/Downtown Philadelphia/Paris Banlieu.

Cool, Belgium is 50% French speaking, France doesnt just get to invade. Probably one of the worst arguments out there....

I revert you back to my origin post, Ukraine is a sovereign nation, you don't get annexed by the EU, or NATO, you have to ask to join and it takes a long time. Countries are free to join whichever trading blocs or defence pacts they like, signed off by everyone in the UN and bilaterally by Russia. It amuses that people who parrot Russian arguments suddenly pretend these arguments just don't apply when actually its Russia that originally signed up to them.

 

[snytaxx]

The 2022 deal was hardly a secret, Johnson travelled to Kiev specifically to advise Zelensky not to sign it. You seriously think he did that without knowing what was in the deal? What was on offer is certainly considerably better than what they will get now. Here are its details:

Die Welt publishes peace deal Ukraine and Russia could have signed in April 2022

Die Welt, a German media outlet, has stated that a peace agreement could have been signed a few weeks after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The conditions for ending the war then were spelled out in a 17-page draft agreement that the parties agreed on on 15 April 2022. Russia demanded...

www.pravda.com.ua

Out of curiosity, do you actually read the articles or sources you post, only this really damages your arguement.

"Die Welt noted that immediately after the start of the full-scale war, the Russian and Ukrainian sides began negotiations to end combat actions. Moscow tried to force Kyiv to surrender at the negotiating table."

So your idea of getting a better deal, was just for Ukraine to totally surrender?

Let me summarise a little further, I should add the only source of this document is from the side of two members of the Ukrainian delegation, nothing from Russia.

Alledged Original 'deal'

Ukraine to not join NATO (it was never going to, it asked and was rejected decades ago - just like Russia)
Ukraine to not stay non-prolifate (agreed to already in Budapest)
Russia promising not to attack Ukraine (already promised twice and broken twice by Russia - guess third times the charm)
the Security council (of Russia has veto power) to give security gaurantuees to Ukraine - Again just like the UK and USA did back in Budapest
In the event of an attack on Ukraine, gaurantoors to provide military assistance to Ukraine - just like Budapest and what the west was already doing...)
Crimea to be recognised as part of Russia by Ukraine
Ukraine to stand down vast chunks of its army
Putin to personally agree which of the eastern territories would be handed over to Russia - so no real detaild there as this might have included land which Russia doesnt even control
Make Russian the second state language

What specifically will be in Putins demands this time around that wasnt in the deal last time around?

Also this note about 'the UK told Zelensky not to sign' is also a complete lie based on your source.

The UK would have been required to sign this 'peace deal' too. As a soveriegn nation (for now) the UK has every right to not agree to treaties. Why is the UK refusing to agree Ukraine's fault?

Collective west? Who said that? The country that has been defeated is Ukraine.....Well, much more than defeated, it's been sent into failed state status without external financial support to keep it running. That is highly likely to end up being Europe forking out, not Russia. You mentioned it being sovereign.....Well, not anymore it isn't, since the start of the war it's just a front for the US state department to fight Russia at low relative cost to it but high cost to us.

A fresh batch of cope to delve into, lovely. Yes loosing hundreds of thousands of men (tax payers), billions of dollars of equipment and your primary export market is mere pennys to Russia. To pretend that Russia is having an easier time is just probably just as ridicously as pretending that this was Putins plan alllll alooooong. Real Diane Abbot levels of maths.

Also your claim as to the costs to the west is off. In your head you are only thinking of military spending. You aren't thinking of increased energy costs, food costs or anything else. The cost of war is most felt in human terms, on that I would agree with you, however there is a massive financial cost as well both at the time and ongoing.

Refer you to the above

Another thing I ask you to reconsider is the idea that we haven't lost soldiers.....We certainly shouldn't have lost them but I can assure you we have.....the shuffling of paperwork doesn't hide reality.....well perhaps it does for some who think everything is out in the open.

No source, standing on a street corner shouting 'the truth is out there' levels of conspiracy guff.

Ok, I keep hearing this claim about 3 days. Where is the evidence from Putin that this would take 3 days?

I note a subtle changing of the goal posts there. Putin hasnt even called this conflict a war... so I guess it cant be a war by that logic.

Asides from the normal unrebutted arguments from people accidently leaking Putin's plans like Lucashenko.

The directly controlled kremlin media had been instructed to prewrite articles and editorials about Russian victory in Ukraine on timed release (after you guessed it - 3 days).

Ukraine crisis: Russian news agency deletes victory editorial

Piece which prematurely claimed "Ukraine has returned to Russia" is still visible to internet users.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russian solidiers on mutliple fronts being instructed to pack parade uniforms on the initial invasion?

Russians Planned a Parade in Kyiv—but Dumped Attire and Fled

Ukrainian military officials say they have been finding parade uniforms among all the abandoned and destroyed Russian equipment.

www.thedailybeast.com

So by your logic, a Putin ally no doubt briefed about the invasion of Ukraine from his territory sayin 3 days, the kremlin controlled media being asked to prewrite articles and the fact that loads of Russian soliders just thought "you know what I need to bring, my parade uniform" all at the same time don't count towards some form of expectation from the top that this would be a walk over? My word.. please dont ever go into law.

Another thing to pick you up on is your apparent certainty on military losses with Russia.....I certainly have no issues with a guess but whether it's you or me the truth won't actually be known for a long time yet....Both sides lie about it. As for 'independent sources'....Ok, what are those sources? Because the funding would decide that. My guess is because Russia has far more artillery Ukraine's losses will have been far larger. Eventually the truth on that will be around...though I doubt it will be trumpeted.

This is starmer'esk dodge way of saying "I'm open to Russia loosing a butt-ton of men but I won't believe it becuase I don't like the mainstream media because someone on X told me it was bad.

BBC has done some great work verifying Russian casualties from Russian bereaved and death records, would that count? I suspect not.

Well it's highly likely Putin will finish the war with all or most of the Russia speaking areas of Ukraine, whether that was worth the cost to them is dependent upon how existential the threat of losing Ukraine to the west was. America certainly wouldn't have stood for the same thing on their doorstep, as the Monroe doctrine states.

Again pure conjecture. An erroneous and irrelevant claim about a US foreign policy from over 100 years ago ignoring the fact that actually the US has actually stood for 'the same thing' on their door step many many times. Its 2024 stop obsessing over the foreign policy in a world you were never even alive to see (apologies if you are 146 years old).

I don't think it the invasion was justified and have always said so. But no one can say that the Russians weren't clear or that this war wasn't signposted over a decade before it started....Oliver Stone even made a damn movie about it long before.

Why do you keep talking about your historical beliefs? I've never accused you of being a long standing pre invasion support of Russia.

I will disagree about the inevitiabilty of this war though. Ignoring third party opinionists such as Stone and Mearsheimer. If there was absolutely going to be a war and Russia was so very upset with Ukraine it's own country, why agree that there would not be one bilaterally in 1991, 1994, 1997?

I'll tell you why, the issue here is Putin, not Russia. Putin never respected the indepedance of any of the ex USSR republics, to him it was only a matter of time before they rejoined Russia proper. To blame the west for Putins irrationality is just bizzare and appeasement is such a terrible idea, it just accelerates the count down to another (bigger) war which will directly involve our security interests. No doub't you'll be serving in right stirling being a pround adovacate for british sovereignty?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Out of curiosity, do you actually read the articles or sources you post, only this really damages your arguement.

"Die Welt noted that immediately after the start of the full-scale war, the Russian and Ukrainian sides began negotiations to end combat actions. Moscow tried to force Kyiv to surrender at the negotiating table."

So your idea of getting a better deal, was just for Ukraine to totally surrender?

No, I would not have accepted a 'surrender', what would have been accepted was an end to hostilities. I very much doubt that a signed deal would have swung upon the wording of the document having 'surrender' in it.

As stated, regardless that deal was far far better than any they can get now.

Let me summarise a little further, I should add the only source of this document is from the side of two members of the Ukrainian delegation, nothing from Russia.

Alledged Original 'deal'

Ukraine to not join NATO (it was never going to, it asked and was rejected decades ago - just like Russia)
Ukraine to not stay non-prolifate (agreed to already in Budapest)
Russia promising not to attack Ukraine (already promised twice and broken twice by Russia - guess third times the charm)
the Security council (of Russia has veto power) to give security gaurantuees to Ukraine - Again just like the UK and USA did back in Budapest
In the event of an attack on Ukraine, gaurantoors to provide military assistance to Ukraine - just like Budapest and what the west was already doing...)
Crimea to be recognised as part of Russia by Ukraine
Ukraine to stand down vast chunks of its army
Putin to personally agree which of the eastern territories would be handed over to Russia - so no real detaild there as this might have included land which Russia doesnt even control
Make Russian the second state language

Ok, I ask anyone following this exchange to read the actual link provided and then read this summary of it and ask themselves if it's an objective summary or one that suffers from an emotional bias.

Die Welt publishes peace deal Ukraine and Russia could have signed in April 2022

Die Welt, a German media outlet, has stated that a peace agreement could have been signed a few weeks after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The conditions for ending the war then were spelled out in a 17-page draft agreement that the parties agreed on on 15 April 2022. Russia demanded...

www.pravda.com.ua

What specifically will be in Putins demands this time around that wasnt in the deal last time around?

Isn't it obvious? The deal on offer would have seen Russia withdrawning in the east back to 2020 lines. Now, Russia has taken most of 3 of the 4 eastern sectors and won't be withdrawing from them.....something it stated once these talks broke down.

The other blindingly obvious reality is that Ukraine get a far worse deal, losing much of its national mineral mining resources...This would have been recovered in the 2022 deal. Added to that is the reality that it would still have the cream of its fit, healthy men alive and unjuried....it has lost probably hundreds of thousands of troops. Russia would have suffered manpower losses but has the population size to recover. For Ukraine that is going to be much much harder.....not only that but considering the economic situation now it's unlikely many of the younger people who fled overseas will return.

Also this note about 'the UK told Zelensky not to sign' is also a complete lie based on your source.

Was you living in a shoebox at the time?

Boris Johnson warns against a Ukraine-Russia peace deal

There is "absolutely no sign" that Russia wants to reach a deal with Ukraine, says Boris Johnson.

www.bbc.com

The UK would have been required to sign this 'peace deal' too. As a soveriegn nation (for now) the UK has every right to not agree to treaties. Why is the UK refusing to agree Ukraine's fault?

Well, security guarantees from supporting nations is what Ukraine would have argued for rather than Russia. Regardless, you seem to be confusing a draft document with a final finished one.....We never got to see that one as Ukraine's backers were under the impression Russia was going to be beaten back.

A fresh batch of cope to delve into, lovely. Yes loosing hundreds of thousands of men (tax payers), billions of dollars of equipment and your primary export market is mere pennys to Russia. To pretend that Russia is having an easier time is just probably just as ridicously as pretending that this was Putins plan alllll alooooong. Real Diane Abbot levels of maths.


Refer you to the above

I think from the judgement abilities you are displaying here you should apply for a job in the DoD.

No source, standing on a street corner shouting 'the truth is out there' levels of conspiracy guff.


I note a subtle changing of the goal posts there. Putin hasnt even called this conflict a war... so I guess it cant be a war by that logic.

Asides from the normal unrebutted arguments from people accidently leaking Putin's plans like Lucashenko.

The directly controlled kremlin media had been instructed to prewrite articles and editorials about Russian victory in Ukraine on timed release (after you guessed it - 3 days).

Ukraine crisis: Russian news agency deletes victory editorial

Piece which prematurely claimed "Ukraine has returned to Russia" is still visible to internet users.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russian solidiers on mutliple fronts being instructed to pack parade uniforms on the initial invasion?

Russians Planned a Parade in Kyiv—but Dumped Attire and Fled

Ukrainian military officials say they have been finding parade uniforms among all the abandoned and destroyed Russian equipment.

www.thedailybeast.com

So by your logic, a Putin ally no doubt briefed about the invasion of Ukraine from his territory sayin 3 days, the kremlin controlled media being asked to prewrite articles and the fact that loads of Russian soliders just thought "you know what I need to bring, my parade uniform" all at the same time don't count towards some form of expectation from the top that this would be a walk over? My word.. please dont ever go into law.

So essentially you have been told there were 'leaks'.....I mean, that must be legit right.

I have little doubt that in a best case scenario many in Russia were hoping for a rapid Ukrainian collapse along the lines of what happened in Kherson and Crimea before that.

However, I think it's likely just hyperbole to think that Russia didn't expect resistance if not for the simple fact that it invaded with hundreds of thousands of troops......So they prepared for multiple eventualities.

However, I think it's fair to say that they underestimated Ukraine's willingness to fight as hard as they did.

This is starmer'esk dodge way of saying "I'm open to Russia loosing a butt-ton of men but I won't believe it becuase I don't like the mainstream media because someone on X told me it was bad.

BBC has done some great work verifying Russian casualties from Russian bereaved and death records, would that count? I suspect not.

As I stated, we won't know for sure until...probably a while after the war is over when that information is politically expedient.

Apparently this attitude is a problem for you.....the guy who would rather put his trust in the BBC.

Ok, but...while I have no issues with educated guesses made under that pretext, I'll wait to be properly sure about it.

Again pure conjecture. An erroneous and irrelevant claim about a US foreign policy from over 100 years ago ignoring the fact that actually the US has actually stood for 'the same thing' on their door step many many times. Its 2024 stop obsessing over the foreign policy in a world you were never even alive to see (apologies if you are 146 years old).

When has the US stood for this?

If Russia somehow flipped the Canadian government to be anti US and pro Russia I think you are deluding yourself that the US would sit by and accept it.

Why do you keep talking about your historical beliefs? I've never accused you of being a long standing pre invasion support of Russia.

I'm not suggesting you had accused me of anything I was just stating my opinion on the matter.

I will disagree about the inevitiabilty of this war though. Ignoring third party opinionists such as Stone and Mearsheimer. If there was absolutely going to be a war and Russia was so very upset with Ukraine it's own country, why agree that there would not be one bilaterally in 1991, 1994, 1997?

Back in the 90s the cold war had finished and relations between Russia and the west were constructive even though there were uncomfortable reactions to Nato expansion in much of Russia intelligentsia. Even if it had wanted to Russia, back in the 90s, was not in a military or internal state where it could have resisted Nato enlargement. It was suffering major economic decline from the effort to shift to a purely capitalistic system....the era of the oligarchs.

I'll tell you why, the issue here is Putin, not Russia. Putin never respected the indepedance of any of the ex USSR republics, to him it was only a matter of time before they rejoined Russia proper. To blame the west for Putins irrationality is just bizzare and appeasement is such a terrible idea, it just accelerates the count down to another (bigger) war which will directly involve our security interests. No doub't you'll be serving in right stirling being a pround adovacate for british sovereignty?

Putin started out as pro western and relations between him and the west were constructive until the Bosnian war where they started stalling. Even so relations were good enough for Putin to offer the US use of its bases after the 9/11 attack of 2001. However, the eastern block colour revolutions starting in 2004 accelerated a decline. The Ukrainian situation itself was much commented on and warned upon long before hostilities occurred.

 

[Ouzo Dan]

Russia has now used mid range Hypersonic ballistic missiles in a clear retaliation of NATO (make no mistake it is NATO) firing ATACMS/Storm Shadow into Russia.
Whether they are ICBM's or shorter range is neither here nor there, its a simple case of swapping the warhead

What you're seeing in the video are the cones of the warheads glowing white hot as they travel at mach 5 & then hit denser air.
There isnt really much in the way of defence against these missiles.

Russia did give the US a warning this was going to happen however were taking Russia's word at face value as to what these missiles are armed with, Dnipro is lucky it was a demonstration this time.

Something personal to take from this is NATO's ICBM detection system would have been alerted to this almost immediately however no civilian was told to take shelter.

If there is a Nuclear exchange you're on your own.