O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[andy6025]

This is a dishonest and misleading statement. A tiny minority of not particularly prominent westerners and Ukrainians have suggested this, and the overwhelming majority know it's nonsense.

Ukraine and Russia have at no point since the invasion began been anywhere close to a ceasefire, for the obvious reason that Ukraine no longer trusts Russia's word on anything, least of all ceasefires which they consistently breach.



This is a lie. I did not call him a russian agent. You asked me what I thought, I examined the issue and came to no particular conclusion.

As usual, you have peddled Russian propaganda (the article you posted lists RT dot com as a source which is a putin propaganda site), have been caught out yet again and are now lying about what *I've* said.

You are arguing in bad faith as you've done from the get-go. This "discussion" would be a lot more productive if you stopped.

Your comments on the Ukrainian negotiator were as follows:

“the guy is russian born and was widely condemned for proposing to re-open the crimea canal after Russia illegally siezed Crimea. Which side is he on do you reckon? I don't know but I would regard what he's saying with some suspicion.”

I get that you don’t know if he’s up or down and suspect that he’s a Russian agent, but as far as the reporting of his comments, you can see his interview here which, were accurately reported by the RT article that you dismiss as “propaganda”. In it he says that Russia had Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO as their primary negotiating objective.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0G_j-7gLnWU


Even Zalensky himself says that Ukraine’s NATO status was the principle negotiating point for Russia, and that Ukraine was ready to accept neutral status. In the video linked to the article below, dated March 22, 2022, he is shown saying,

“Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it. This is the most important point. It was the main point for the Russian Federation as far as I can remember. And if I remember correctly this is why they started the war… I understand it’s impossible to force Russia completely from Ukrainian territory. It would lead to World War Three. I understand it and that is why I am talking about a compromise. Go back to where it all began. And then we will try to solve the Donbas issue, the complicated Donbas issue.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2022-03-27/

Moreover, the New York Times, on March 29th reports that the Ukrainian delegation made proposals to the Russian delegation. They write,

“After three hours of talks in Istanbul, Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to declare itself permanently neutral — forsaking the prospect of joining NATO, a key Russian demand — and discuss Russian territorial claims in exchange for “security guarantees” from a group of other nations. An aide to Ukraine’s president called the Russian delegation “constructive,” while Russia said it would “drastically” scale back its military activity around Kyiv to “increase mutual trust.”…

It goes on:

The offer to declare a permanent neutral status, Ukrainian officials in Istanbul said, means it would neither join the NATO alliance nor host foreign troops — a scenario that Mr. Putin used as one of the justifications for his invasion.
Ukrainian officials envision an arrangement in which a diverse group of countries — potentially including the United States, Germany, Turkey and China — would commit, if Ukraine were attacked, to providing it with military assistance and to imposing a no-fly zone if necessary. It was not clear that any of those countries had signed on to such guarantees.”

Moreover, the Russian delegation was likewise optimistic. The NYT article continues:

“Vladimir Medinsky, the head of Russia’s delegation, said that he viewed Ukraine’s proposals as “a constructive step in the search for a compromise.”
“If the treaty is worked out quickly and the required compromise is found, the possibility of making peace will be much closer,” Mr. Medinsky said.

These are all accurately depicted in the report assembled by the prominent Germans that I originally posted. To save you some clicks, here is the link again.

https://braveneweurope.com/michael-v...ce-for-ukraine

I think all of these documents speak for themselves and need no commentary from me. But you may argue with them at will.

[andy6025]

Link to the New York Times article, dated March 29, 2022. Archived version to skirt paywall:

https://archive.is/EPH6a

[i961pie]

Link to the New York Times article, dated March 29, 2022. Archived version to skirt paywall:

https://archive.is/EPH6a

I would give up if I were you, you aren’t convincing anyone.

[andy6025]

I would give up if I were you, you aren’t convincing anyone.

Convincing anyone of what? I just showed Zelensky and his negotiator’s own words, and their comments quoted and paraphrased in the New York Times. If you don’t believe them, then I suppose everyone is a Russian agent.

[Jampie]

None of that is evidence they were close to a deal.

They were not and were never close to a deal.

[andy6025]

“Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers.”

Uh oh, Jampie, The Economist doesn’t just have the conflict at a stalemate. Now Putin is winning! Do you think Congress will do the right thing and sprinkle $60B of resolve into my LMT holdings? I need something to offset those Moderna stocks I bought right at the peak and then watched as they tumbled down the mountain.

And to be honest, this war hasn’t been that great, financially speaking. By no means, bad, but not compared to its potential. I think our manufacturers have been reluctant to significantly expand capacity. I heard what’s-his-name, the American general, saying a year or so ago that the manufacturers don’t want to bite unless they are guaranteed long term contracts. I mean I get it, it makes sense - who wants to quadruple the number of ice cream makers they own when they see a long nuclear winter right around the corner.

It’s for thought, anyways.

Aside from the usual tropes about Putin’s “grip on power” vs “Ukrainian democracy”, etc, this Economist writer just might be angling for Russian agent status. I hear Putin pays well. But don’t worry - none of this is evidence that Putin is winning, and it’s certainly not evidence that Ukraine would have been better off signing off on the deal they didn’t propose.

https://archive.is/ZzEXQ

[Kent Magpie]

“....

Uh oh, Jampie, The Economist doesn’t just have the conflict at a stalemate. Now Putin is winning! Do you think Congress will do the right thing and sprinkle $60B of resolve into my LMT holdings? I need something to offset those Moderna stocks I bought right at the peak and then watched as they tumbled down the mountain.

....

Try having Pfizer stock

[Jampie]

“Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers.”

Uh oh, Jampie, The Economist doesn’t just have the conflict at a stalemate. Now Putin is winning! Do you think Congress will do the right thing and sprinkle $60B of resolve into my LMT holdings? I need something to offset those Moderna stocks I bought right at the peak and then watched as they tumbled down the mountain.

And to be honest, this war hasn’t been that great, financially speaking. By no means, bad, but not compared to its potential. I think our manufacturers have been reluctant to significantly expand capacity. I heard what’s-his-name, the American general, saying a year or so ago that the manufacturers don’t want to bite unless they are guaranteed long term contracts. I mean I get it, it makes sense - who wants to quadruple the number of ice cream makers they own when they see a long nuclear winter right around the corner.

It’s for thought, anyways.

Aside from the usual tropes about Putin’s “grip on power” vs “Ukrainian democracy”, etc, this Economist writer just might be angling for Russian agent status. I hear Putin pays well. But don’t worry - none of this is evidence that Putin is winning, and it’s certainly not evidence that Ukraine would have been better off signing off on the deal they didn’t propose.

https://archive.is/ZzEXQ

Have you given up repeating the lie that they were close to a truce? Good, good. Onto the next lie I suppose. Oh wait it's an old lie: "Putin's winning!!11"

The Economist eh, that veritable bastion of great military analysis! Let's see here... clickbait headline that isn't supported by the article, some vague statements of fears, nothing about actual battles, losses, ground won or lost? Check, check and check. A quality addition, thanks so much for linking it, good job.

The war isn't going according to your fantasy mate. A stalemate, at this point, is probably a decent summation, with Russia holding onto the southeastern corner by dint of the superpower pro move of... *checks notes* cowering behind millions of land mines.

They've lost a majority of the territory they seized in their sneak attack, including the entire north of the country and everything west of the Dnipro. And in exchange for their remaining "territorial gains" they've lost a majority of their military land power, most of their stocks of long range munitions and a not insignificant number of aircraft. To call that situation "winning" is a joke, and a bad one.

As for what congress will do, I can't predict them. Biden will ensure the support is there regardless, of course. The primary risk to Ukraine remains a second Trump term I suppose.

No idea what you're trying to say with the rest of your barely coherent rant. I couldn't care less what your stocks do and bringing them up is almost is disgusting as your continual cheerleading for a dictator and war criminal.

[jackal2]

Is the war in Ukraine still going on?

It's ceased to be a 'media event' now, much like Covid.

'Breaking News': Something more new and 'exciting' is happening between Israel and Palestine, so all the cameras and journalists have gone there, and the things that were previously headline news and a threat to our existence have been relegated to 'other news'.

Anyone would think the MSM's real aim is just to maintain constant hysteria and sell advertising to keep themselves in jobs.

[Jampie]

Is the war in Ukraine still going on?

It's ceased to be a 'media event' now, much like Covid.

'Breaking News': Something more new and 'exciting' is happening between Israel and Palestine, so all the cameras and journalists have gone there, and the things that were previously headline news and a threat to our existence have been relegated to 'other news'.

Anyone would think the MSM's real aim is just to maintain constant hysteria and sell advertising to keep themselves in jobs.

And their owners' aims are to keep the public thinking about the latest crisis, whether it impacts them or not, instead of their own economic situation.

Yeah, the Ukraine war continues but the lines have ossified now with lots of landmines and stuff. So we're unlikely to see dramatic territorial gains for either side for a while.