Hopefully Zelenskyy has ditched any previous ceasefire commitments about Russian energy infrastructure he made in Saudi last month. It would be sheer lunacy to keep them in place with Putin going after civilian targets in Ukraine.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Hopefully Zelenskyy has ditched any previous ceasefire commitments about Russian energy infrastructure he made in Saudi last month. It would be sheer lunacy to keep them in place with Putin going after civilian targets in Ukraine.
Something looks off about that vid - as if AI had something to do with it. Even if they don't bomb for 2 days, you could imagine that once the "ceasefire" is over, they will immediately hammer them relentlessly.
What a clusterfeck.
Planned ministerial-level talks replaced by discussions at official level amid reports of change in Kremlin stance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-ukraine-downgraded-as-marco-rubio-pulls-out
UK peace talks on Ukraine downgraded as Marco Rubio pulls out
Planned ministerial-level talks replaced by discussions at official level amid reports of change in Kremlin stance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-ukraine-downgraded-as-marco-rubio-pulls-out
This bit is something Zelenskyy will have to deal with.
"Leaks to the Financial Times and other media indicate that Russia is willing to abandon its territorial claims to three Ukrainian regions it only partly occupies after three years of fighting in return for the US formally recognising the annexation of Crimea as part of a ceasefire agreement".
---
It will be difficult to turn down peace and Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine (spare Crimea) in exchange for Crimea being officially recognized.
That's something I've long believed is the most realistic "good" scenario, but somehow I doubt the ruskies would actually agree to this.
I've thought about this as well. I think fundamentally, Putin badly wants out of the war but must have an exit strategy that doesn't make him look like a loser among domestic audiences, especially after all the Russians who have died or been injured, their affected families, and the impact on Russia's economy. If he can permanently get Crimea (or so he thinks), he can pitch that as a massive win back home and simply declare "the special military operation has achieved its objectives" and call it a day.
Zelenskyy could simply go along with it with the tacit understanding that if a Dem wins the White House, he can petition the US to reverse its position on Crimea. At that point, we would be back to where we were pre Feb 2022, and Putin would be out of luck.
The wording is confusing. If I read other articles correctly, then Russia "proposes" to freeze the current frontlines. That means partial occupation of regions like Zaporizhia and Kherson instead of complete occupation.
If that's the case then this is dead in the water from the get go. There's no way the Ukrainians will simply agree to lose the war in exchange for a ceasefire.I doubt the validity of that simply because it makes no sense for Russia to go back to 2022 Feb status quo after hundreds of thousands of dead and shifting an entire economy to war footing.
I'm sure Putin would love to end the war without looking like a loser, so if he can get recognition of Crimea, he can pitch that as a win. But as you say, I'm sure this is all the usual nonsense given that Putin's track record for negotiations and adhering to agreed treaties is pretty abysmal.
Even if true (unlikely), wouldn't that be -in Putin's language- a sign of weakness?
I think weakness would be ending the war with a perception Russia didn't gain anything from it. If the US says Crimea is part of Russia, that would be gaining something.
That said, I think Putin is so entrenched in Donbas that he wouldn't agree to giving any of it back, although he may be willing to barter with the parts of Zap and Kherson he presently holds.
Agreed. To be fair, from a realpolitik perspective, this may be the best possible, and only feasible, outcome at this point.
From Putin’s viewpoint:
1) Suppose the US would not only recognize Crimea as part of Russia, but it could get quite a bit, if not all of Western Europe, and some of rest of the world to recognize it. That would mean, in the future, and conflict did break out, it would very hard for countries to back a Ukrainian invasion if Crimea. it would “right one of the historical wrongs” that Putin desires. It would also mean funding or aiding insurgencies in Crimea would be a big no-no and highly risky for the West.
2) Of course Putin’s not going to give up all of the advances in the Donbas. But he may negotiate on some of them. And there probably has to be demilitarized zones established.
3) He could get it in writing that Ukraine isn’t allowed to join NATO for x number of years, or even expanded it to say, Ukraine and some other nations (Belarus, etc, aren’t allowed to join NATO) for x number of years, or forever.
4) It’s an off-ramp with big wins and there is no guarantee he’ll ever get a US administration this favorable to him ever again. He may not even live to see it.
For the Ukrainians:
1) This will hurt, but let’s be clear, it is highly unlikely even if Europe gets their act together and Trump did a 180 and doubled or tripled own on military assistance they’ll be very unlikely to retake Donbas and Crimea.
2) Ukraine doesn’t have to recognize Crimea or any part of Donbas. And they won’t and shouldn’t. So it would be like Korea. Some countries recognize things, others don’t - but essentially it is what it is, as long as major hostilities don’t break out.
3) The Ukrainians will have to be extremely tactical and smart on negotiations on exact borders and lines. They should also push for a window of repatriation - meaning the Ukrainians in occupied territories can come across the lines and resettle into Ukraine, and get those kidnapped kids back. This could also favour Putin, he’ll just resettle the occupied lands with former Ukrainians who want to stay, and loyal Russians. Less future insurrectionists.
4) The Ukrainians will never agree to de-militarize.
That’s a non-starter. Will they be happy with EU guarantees or promises of aid for re-armament? Can they join the EU, even if barred from NATO?
5) The super-tricky part - what’s the backstop? What’s the punishment if Russia just decides to take a break and build up another massive invasion force? Well, first of all, there probably needs to be monitoring and the western intelligence will be well aware of Russian military buildups. Likewise, the Russians will have aware of Ukrainian buildups in the future. What’s most likely, in my opinion..
- The Ukrainians will want NATO-affiliated troops (French/British) based in Ukraine, even if they are not a member of NATO. Russia will object to this wholeheartedly as they’d just see this as “NATO bases in Ukraine”. I doubt this would happen unless it’s time-bound - for example, “Peacekeepers could be based in Ukraine for X number of years, but must be withdrawn by this date.”
- A non-NATO, but European led “coalition of the willing” could make a pact and have a ready response force to come to come to Ukraine’s aid if serious violations of the ceasefire. I.E. French, British, Italian (you make it up) and Polish forces based in Poland with a tripwire for Odesa, Kyiv, and Lviv. Meaning, any assault on key strategic areas far removed the front-lines and areas of possible skirmishes, but which indicate a major invasion triggers the “coalition of the willing” to act and deploy rapid- response forces and probably to enforce a no-fly zone. Difference is they can’t be based in Ukraine. The Russians will hate this, but you know what? They can’t do a lot about it, especially if those forces are based in NATO countries. At least it’s not Ukraine as a NATO country and WW3.
- There’s a strictly non-NATO peacekeeping force there. Can’t see Ukraine going for this. Having like UN peacekeepers from South Africa, Malaysia and India…(just for example). Tough to see Ukraine going for it, but it would be a deterrent. Sort of.
So, it really comes down to…
1) Will Putin take the off-ramp or not? The conditions with the U.S. and Europe may never be more favourable to him than now.
2) Will the Ukrainians take it? Can they fight on, for 4 more years, possibly without U.S. backing and hang on and hope it gets better in 4 years?
3) If you’re Putin, can you really take the rest of Ukraine, and then hold it?
4) If you’re Ukraine, can you really count on a few things… continued U.S. and/or EU backing, and something major to happen in Russia - total economic collapse, coup d’etat and complete reversal of policy, etc.?
5) Or, it just drags on and another 4 years of attritional warfare. Ukraine hoping for a change of U.S. politics and Europe strengthening themselves and Ukraine and being more embolden to face Russia with or without the U.S. Russia hoping the U.S. cuts all ties and the Europeans flounder, and the Ukrainian lines completely collapse and they can take the whole country.
Ultimately, both Putin and Zelenskyy have clear red lines, and neither are willing to compromise on the interests of the other. Hopefully Zelenskyy is advocating for some sort of security guarantees involving voluntary peacekeepers from EU states willing to provide them. Short of NATO membership, that's the only way Ukraine will have some degree of security if there's a ceasefire. Anything short of that and the fighting will continue.
Totally agree and I was throwing out some ideas and scenarios and options to think about. However, I will give some more of my opinions:
1) The fact is Trump won the election. Now if Kamala had won, I sincerely believe that the shoe would have been the other foot and the negotiating stance for Ukraine would be stronger … but would it have been dramatically stronger? I.E., I don’t believe total Ukrainian victory would have been an option.
2) I’m skeptical Putin can carry on for 4 more years. Domestically and economically they can do it, and maybe they will. But it is a gamble. Betting on Trump to both win the midterms and his replacement to be Trump again, another Putin stooge is a gamble. He should really strike when the iron is hot and take an off-ramp that may never be more generous or in his favour.
3) It’s a litmus test now. Will Trump actually walk away and say, I’m done, let Russia take over Ukraine and do what they want? Despite what people think, it’s not a popular opinion in the U.S. and it’s not popular within fragments of the Republican Party.
4) It’s a test for Europe. So far they’ve been stepping up. But they aren’t, and probably can’t, step up in such a way that turns the tide if the U.S. walks away.
I’m staunchly pro-Ukraine. But, I’m also a realist. I think if Putin carries on the war, I think he’ll never see total victory in his lifetime and - how can he sure his successor will carry on? For Ukraine, I think we have to accept the realities on the ground. It’s really difficult to see how they can launch a counter-offensive, re-take everything - including Crimea, and have NATO membership.
I think the alternative, “letting it continue to play out” is rough.
Massive attack ongoing in Kyiv right now apparently
Other realities we can consider too:
-The UA have been fighting this war for a little more than 10 years now. They didn't really rely that much on the US for the first 7-8 years.
-Neither Zelenskyy nor other non-puppet ukranian leaders will be considering signing a deal that forces Ukraine to lose sovereignity.
-Even in the case that any ukranian leader considers it, they won't be signing anything that doesn't give them security guarantees in order to avoid Russia attacking them again next month. Which would mean NATO membership which is a red line for Russia. So, back to square one.
The US election could've being a deciding factor if Trump would've actually going all in supporting Russia. Since he didn't, the only thing we can really be sure about is that his strategy for a quick end of the war failed.
-The UA have been fighting this war for a little more than 10 years now. They didn't really rely that much on the US for the first 7-8 years.
-Neither Zelenskyy nor other non-puppet ukranian leaders will be considering signing a deal that forces Ukraine to lose sovereignity.
-Even in the case that any ukranian leader considers it, they won't be signing anything that doesn't give them security guarantees in order to avoid Russia attacking them again next month. Which would mean NATO membership which is a red line for Russia. So, back to square one.
The US election could've being a deciding factor if Trump would've actually going all in supporting Russia. Since he didn't, the only thing we can really be sure about is that his strategy for a quick end of the war failed.
There was never a quick end to the war without Putin leaving Ukraine to please Trump (and to make Trump supporters say “see, Trump can fix it easily by talking to Putin”). The latter has the cards, and decided not to end the war without a tangible achievement, such as American recognition of the Russian sovereignty in Crimea.
And of course Trumpsters will blame Z.
They didn't need much support from the US between 2014-22. Obviously, Putin's decision to launch a full on invasion changed that.
On the last point, Trump is mostly adopting Putin's narrative on the war since returning to office - at least verbally. Whether that's as a negotiation tactic because he thinks Zelenskyy is weaker, and as such can be intimidated into a deal or some other reason, its becoming clearer by the day the Ukrainians can't rely on the US anymore, and Zelenskyy task at this point is to keep US support intact as long as possible before Trump inevitably shuts it off.
Last edited:
It is, and it’s a problem.
But Ukraine has a bigger problem: Trump stopping aid and recognizing Crimea as a Russian land.
I thought he already had? In terms of arms supply anyway.
Drones are now being wired in order to beat signal jamming. But the Russians have a lot more fiber optic cable.
"On the battlefields of Ukraine, new sights emerge. Thread-like filaments of wire, extended across open fields. Netting rigged up between trees along key supply roads. Both are responses to a hard-to-detect weapon able to sneak into spaces previously thought safe, hi tech and low tech all at once.
At a secret workshop in Ukraine’s north-east, where about 20 people assemble hundreds of FPV (first person view) drones, there is a new design. Under the frame of the familiar quadcopter is a cylinder, the size of a forearm. Coiled up inside is fibre optic cable, 10km (6 miles) or even 20km long, to create a wired kamikaze drone.
Capt Yuriy Fedorenko, the commander of a specialist drone unit, the Achilles regiment, says fibre optic drones were an experimental response to battlefield jamming and rapidly took off late last year. With no radio connection, they cannot be jammed, are difficult to detect and able to fly in ways conventional FPV drones cannot.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fibre-optic-drones-pose-new-threat-in-ukraine
"On the battlefields of Ukraine, new sights emerge. Thread-like filaments of wire, extended across open fields. Netting rigged up between trees along key supply roads. Both are responses to a hard-to-detect weapon able to sneak into spaces previously thought safe, hi tech and low tech all at once.
At a secret workshop in Ukraine’s north-east, where about 20 people assemble hundreds of FPV (first person view) drones, there is a new design. Under the frame of the familiar quadcopter is a cylinder, the size of a forearm. Coiled up inside is fibre optic cable, 10km (6 miles) or even 20km long, to create a wired kamikaze drone.
Capt Yuriy Fedorenko, the commander of a specialist drone unit, the Achilles regiment, says fibre optic drones were an experimental response to battlefield jamming and rapidly took off late last year. With no radio connection, they cannot be jammed, are difficult to detect and able to fly in ways conventional FPV drones cannot.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fibre-optic-drones-pose-new-threat-in-ukraine
Last edited:
Trump has no shame. Pressuring, insulting allies, extorting concessions and simultaneously kneeling in front of dictators and putting his head as deep as he can into Putin's ass. Disgusting!
The US became a joke and I hope Europe will never agree to these terms and recognize Crimea as Russian as well as lifting sanctions.
History will portray Trump as what he is, a flat track bully, all talk no action. The art of surrender!
The US became a joke and I hope Europe will never agree to these terms and recognize Crimea as Russian as well as lifting sanctions.
History will portray Trump as what he is, a flat track bully, all talk no action. The art of surrender!
Another Russian high level general killed in a targeted bomb attack in Moscow
https://apnews.com/article/russia-moskalik-car-bomb-322ab66de5f32621103fb1fce3f1185f
https://apnews.com/article/russia-moskalik-car-bomb-322ab66de5f32621103fb1fce3f1185f
Surprised the Ukrainians haven't made another attempt at the Kerch bridge lately. It would be the ultimate symbol to take down.
History may well portray Trump far worse than that. It's conceivable that he represents, and has been the main agent bringing through, a complete shift towards far-right politics in the West. If we ever get out of it (which we will, because the far right always ends up destroying itself), his legacy will be on par with the worst of the worst.
Orange man with more embarrassing statements that the Krim will remain Russian because it always has been Russian and that the Ukraine is responsible for the war, because they included the goal to become a NATO member into their constitution. Conveniently, the dumb fecker has forgotten that Putin first annexed the Krim and invaded the Eastern part of the Ukraine.
Trump is treating this as if its as easy as ordering two of his squabbling kids to stop fighting immediately. He's got to be the worst negotiator in recent memory.
Crimea is gone, and now with American recognition. He could’ve just kept things as is with regards to Crimea, but he deliberately did this.
And of course Marco Rubio is on board!
Why is so much importance being put on the recognition of crimea as russian land?
After annexing it nothing happened, to why would putin care so much about this? Business went on as usual, they even hosted a wc and everyone was happy to go there and spend money on the event.
After annexing it nothing happened, to why would putin care so much about this? Business went on as usual, they even hosted a wc and everyone was happy to go there and spend money on the event.
Crimea is important to Russia for many reasons both symbolic, strategic and resource wise. Direct access to the Black Sea is basically what most of it comes down if you take the emotional historical significance away: military and strategic purposes for it's fleet and to curb NATO expansion, and then there are the natural resources the black sea region provides.
Of course it matters whether the U.S./the world recognizes something like this.
It’s a fair question, which you haven’t answered. I think he’s making the point that Russia is acting like it’s their land, and have done for over a decade. Their key trading partners (China, India, Pakistan) genuinely don’t seem to care. If it was recognised as Russian territory tomorrow what would actually change? I imagine there ARE things to do with trade- I’m not sure Western countries would buy something with a ‘made in crimea’ tag for example. But at the moment we aren’t buying stuff with a ‘made in Russia’ label either, so i’m not sure what the difference would be?
I know it matters for russia to own it, it's the recognition I'm not so sure matters that much. Russia gives little fecks for sovereignty anyway, so other countries recognising it or not seems to make little difference.
In practical terms what were the negative consequences for russia pre-invasion for annexing crimea without international recognition? Business went on as usual, putin was travelling around being received like a big boy everywhere, russia held the winter olympics, the world cup, etc.
What about the negative effect on Ukraine of recognizing it as Russian territory?
Avoiding the division that will cause is important too.
What would those consequences be? Ukraine just needs to say they don't recognise it.
One step closer to forcing Ukraine to accept capitulation.
Why does Putin want it recognized if it doesn't matter if its recognized or not?
Why does Putin want it recognized if it doesn't matter if its recognized or not?
Given that the US isn't going to help Ukraine going forward anyway, does it really matter if Trump claims he has a "deal" or not? Sounds like old man yelling at clouds to me.
Ukraine and Europe simply has to ignore Trump, for the time being, and go at it alone.
Ukraine and Europe simply has to ignore Trump, for the time being, and go at it alone.