Ukraine Must Cede Territory in Any Peace Deal, Rubio Says
Posted by EsperaDeus@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 317 comments
Posted by EsperaDeus@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 317 comments
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
I am the LAST person to defend this administration, but I'm not a fan of the headline when Rubio actually said something objectively true (for once). It's a very journalistic extrapolation of his words. Anyone not living in dreamland has known since the first counteroffensive failed to achieve its goals that Ukraine won't get back to 2014 borders; this isn't some crazy revelation
pkdrdoom@reddit
Except all of that which Rubio promotes is nonsense, as Russia will just use any time to regroup and attack again. Rubio isn't proposing any safety for Ukraine, like joining NATO or some sort of defense agreement so that Russia no longer attacks Ukraine.
He is essentially promoting the Russian dictatorship's propaganda and interests.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
Yep. He's giving away bargaining chips before negotiations even begin. If Russia knows that Ukraine's allies will force to agree to cede territory *before* any talks even begin, that'll become Russia's baseline demand and it'll just ask for more during the negotiations themselves.
rowida_00@reddit
In what alternate reality do you people live in where Ukraine would not have to cede territories? Acknowledging reality isn’t giving away “bargaining chips”.
thebourbonoftruth@reddit
You're a terrible negotiator. Look, I've got a bridge to sell you and you're going to buy it we're just haggling over price right now. Let's start with 100% of your net worth and go from there OK?
rowida_00@reddit
Sounds better?
thebourbonoftruth@reddit
What you're describing is a surrender, not a negotiation.
Hyndis@reddit
Pretty much, yes. Its trying to negotiate a surrender with favorable terms. Thats what happens when a country loses a war.
Refusing to negotiate a surrender with favorable terms and continuing to fight a losing war means the terms get more and more punishing as time goes on. Eventually its a demand for unconditional surrender where the losing country gets nothing at all, and might even cease to exist entirely.
Ukraine does not appear to have any realistic path of winning the war. At best it only seems able to try to prolong its defeat.
thebourbonoftruth@reddit
You're making a much different statement than the other people I responded to.
Surrender is a way different topic and to vastly oversimplify, the only reason Ukraine would agree is if they think they rearm with better tech, quantity and faster until Putin attacks again.
At the rate it's going it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory and that's not included whatever resistance cells sprout up. If you're going to lose eventually, you might as well make your opponent bleed as much as possible especially if you're innocent.
rowida_00@reddit
So you believe Ukraine can win back those territories militarily? That’s what you’re going with?
thebourbonoftruth@reddit
I'm attempting to succinctly explain why giving into your opponent's demands prior to negotiations is a best, stupid and at worst, surrender. I really hope you don't negotiate like this in your personal life or you're getting scammed left and right.
Burpees-King@reddit
Ukraine can’t win its territory back dumbass, Rubio only explained what is obvious.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
The last five things that dude’s posted are all pro-Kremlin slants on UkraineRussiaReport about how “reports Russian missile failed are false”, “Russian drone operators are very smart” and “Russian attack breaks Ukraine’s power system”. I think he’s a vatnik.
rowida_00@reddit
Oh boy, when all else fails let’s go for slander even though you failed abysmal to dispute the fact of life I’ve merely pointed out, with factual evidence! This, coming from a genocide denier who has consistently engaged in feeble attempts at dismissing the genocide in Gaza? Shocking.
rowida_00@reddit
Your analogy is unequivocally senseless because you can’t conflate negotiating an end to a war Ukraine is already losing to your pedestrian life! It’s an outrageous proposition. Saying “no we will not accept the facts on the ground” won’t help much.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
In the same reality where I show up to buy a car with $20k but initially offer $15k, instead of $22k. In other words, this reality, the one governed by basic rules of human bartering.
rowida_00@reddit
We must adhere to the factual realities on the ground rather than entertaining fairytales and magic. Denying the indisputable fact that Ukraine will have to cede territories at the very end of this peace process won’t negate its legitimacy or plausibility. You’re at liberty to think otherwise of course. But that won’t be a serious argument. Russia has already made it abundantly clear that any peace deal needs to be made in accordance to the realities on the ground. Whether the U.S. administration acknowledges or rejects that idea, is immaterial to that fundamental fact.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
The indisputable reality on the ground is that neither side can restore maneuver warfare to the battlefield, and even a cessation of American aid to Ukraine will not change the fact that Ukraine possesses the (non-US-dependent) military technology & capability to prevent Russia from restoring maneuver warfare to the battlefield.
Messaging acceptance this potential reality to Russia prior to negotiations even beginning completely undermines a "peace deal... in accordance to the realities on the ground."
Russia has actually done the opposite, demanding that any peace deal involve Ukraine withdrawing from territory that Russia claims but does not control; e.g. very much not "the reality on the ground".
rowida_00@reddit
We must adhere to the factual realities on the ground rather than entertaining fairytales and magic.
Yea, you’ve said that throughout the thread. It still doesn’t change the fact that Ukraine is bleeding more men than it can replace. And they failed abysmally to regain ground since late 2022. No matter how you spin it, they can’t win back those territories militarily given the current situation which will only continue to deteriorate for them. That’s the fact you can’t seem to accept or are even inclined to stomach.
Messaging it or not, it’s a fact of life. And Russia has said that this is non negotiable for them. So what’s the point of denying that reality and doubling down on something that will never materialize? It’s called paving way for negotiations.
Russia has demanded more than what it currently controls which dispels the notion that rejecting the reality of their occupation, which won’t change no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, isn’t a nonstarter. They won’t negotiate without Ukraine adhering to the facts on the ground which clearly stipulates they control much of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, DPR and LPR.
zhivago6@reddit
If the Russian economy collapses, if Putin dies or is assassinated, if Ukraine is given the most advanced weaponry, or many other possibilities exist where Ukraine regains all their territory. Rubio is working for the Russian fool Trump, he was ordered to please Putin and force Ukraine to surrender, which is exactly what he is doing. This is not reality, it is a surrender by the cheeseburger-eating-surrender-monkey Trump and his pathetic yes-men.
rowida_00@reddit
Oh I see! More bizarre and unrealistic what ifs! What if Ukraine wasn’t being pressured to lower their drafting age to 18 year olds because they’ve burned through wave after wave of mobilized troops and kidnapping men from the streets simply wasn’t enough? What if the west wasn’t so scared of intervening militarily in Ukraine to stop this one single country and save Ukraine? What if Russia loses all its nuclear weapons and ceases to exist? What if Russia’s economy finally collapses after the imposition of 26,000 sanctions instead of the 25,000 already in place? What if Putin dies and the next president is more moderate? Yea, non of that constitutes a serious argument I’m afraid.
zhivago6@reddit
We had an pro-apartheid South African billionaire giving Nazi salutes at the presidential inauguration of the felon who tried to overturn the election last time he lost. No person in 2010 would believe such a thing was even possible, and if you pitched a film to that effect no one would think it was realistic. It's entirely possible that the Russian state collapses, and we nearly had a moment where people thought it possible. You folks need to stop listening to these chucklefucks who can't stop thinking we are still in the Cold War.
rowida_00@reddit
You’re bringing up arbitrary nonsense completely unrelated to the war in Ukraine. Unless you have a plausible plan that exists in the realm of possibilities, where Ukraine cannot only win back territories they’ve lost post-2022, but Crimea as well with their current manpower crisis, there’s no point entertaining this asininity.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
It's a good point. However it misses the point.
It's pretty clear that neither Russia or Ukraine are aiming for maximalist territorial objectives anymore.
The sticking point is not land but sovereignty. Ukraine wants to be guaranteed that it will remain independent from Russia and that Russia can't come back later and finish the job. Russia very much wants to come back later and finish the job.
Therefore Ukraine needs NATO membership or nuclear weapons to guarantee it's continued existence. Both of those are Russian red lines because they don't want Ukraine to continue to exist as at independent state.
The administration's idea of "implied security guarantees" through a minerals deal is a complete non-starter. Ukraine had explicit security guarantees through the Budapest Memorandum, they did jack fucking shit. Ukraine will quite rightly never accept guarantees from Russia or the US, as anything Putin signs you may as well wipe your arse with, and anything the US signs can be overturned by the next administration.
Plus Russia will never accept any minerals deal, since the minerals in question are in territory they control, and they also don't want Ukraine economically integrated with the west.
So the administration needs to decide who it is going to turn the screws on to capitulate. Because when it comes to sovereignty, you cannot just draw a line down the middle. Currently, they are giving Russia everything they want and actively impeding Ukraine's ability to fight.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
Russia, the US, and the UK agreed to respect ukraines territorial integrity. no one guaranteed that they would get involved militarily if another party violated that agreement.
You're right that words on a piece of paper don't actually guarantee anything for all time and under all contingencies, but that doesn't mean that we need to put everything on the line to secure a country that we have very limited interest in and with very little benefit to us for assuming that responsibility.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
It's a security guarantee that was broken though. The memorandum should have explicitly prevented Russia (or US or UK) from invading Ukraine and taking its territory.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
It did specifically forbid Russia from invading, they just did it anyway since the situation changed since then.
There was no security guarantee, because it wasn't in our interest then to back the agreement with a guaranteed military response, and it's still not in our interest or biden or trump would have done so.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
So you admit the explicit security guarantees through the Budapest Memorandum were broken after all...
Darth_Syphilisll@reddit
He is saying there wasn't a security guarantee
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
There was a security guarantee in that those 3 countries guaranteed that they wouldn't invade Ukraine. That security guarantee was broken.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
You can call it a guarantee if you prefer it that way but it doesn't change the situation. 3 countries said they'd not invade, enforced by the honor system, and then one did.
Not much of a guarantee which is why that's not the word typically used to describe it; agreement is what I'd call it and it was worth about as much as the paper on which it was printed.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
All security guarantees are enforced by the honor system. Same as NATO's article 5.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
fair enough, but if we had promised military enforcement, our reputation would be the stake, and if we had a stronger economic or strategic interest, that would be the collateral. in this case we have neither.
VAZ_2109@reddit
All Russia has ever wanted is no NATO troops on its southwestern border
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
the US will be the first in line to do anything in their power to ensure ukraine never gets the nukes.
russia never expressed any objections to ukraine being economically integrated with the west, did they?
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
For the past 25 years they have. I swear no one here knows anything about Eastern European politics and yet everyone comments like an expert with their made up (read on twitter) opinion.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
i've heard about it. nothing has ever been proven definitively though. why would russia use such an obvious and traceable method? of course, russian kgb could be THE dummest people in the universe, let's not discount this possibility. alternatively, it was a false flag operation.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Because nothing will happen to them, they have nukes. The obviousness is the point. That's why they use novichok on spies when they could just poison them with an non-Russian-produced poison.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
yes, I’ve looked at other poisonings, and I still don’t see the point. Logically, it makes no sense. Even if there are no real consequences for them, why would they do it? There are plenty of things anyone could do without facing significant consequences, but you still need a reason.
These poisonings severely damaged Russia’s reputation...was that the intended outcome?? Again, I leave open the possibility that russian intelligence is incredibly dumb and incompetent, but that does seem a bit unlikely given their history.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Read back to the original discussion if you're confused. But to remind you, Russia did not want Ukraine to economically integrate with the EU and Yushenko was very popular Ukrainian politician who wanted to integrate with EU. Hence they tried to kill him.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
The poison was not deadly, the guy's life was never in danger, and the poison was highly traceable. Like the guy is still alive today! There are countless ways to kill someone without leaving a trace, and intelligence agencies, including the kgb, are undoubtedly experts in such methods. So why choose such a bizarre and ineffective approach?
Yes, Russia did not want Ukraine integrating with the West at that time, but if that was the motive, there were far more effective ways to handle the situation. i am questioning the poisoning narrative because, as far as I can see, it only damaged russia and was completely counterproductive.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Dioxin is definitely deadly, he was lucky to survive. It was an assassination attempt, you can check his wikipedia.
You are circling back to a question that I already answered. Just re-read the thread before asking more questions lol.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
The pro-russian Ukrainian president in 2014 left the EU trade deal, leading to Euromaidan. Russia was so pissed they invaded.
What sort of revisionist bullshit is this.
Then they'd better fucking step up the support and admit Ukraine into NATO. Because if anyone in Ukraine is smart they started working on a nuclear program in late 2023 as soon as congress started blocking Ukraine aid.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
just because you gonna say it with a stern tone, will not make it so
MrCockingFinally@reddit
I know.
But honestly, both USA and Russia are fucking around, and might just find out.
Because Ukraine has a pretty robust arms industry, and a pretty robust nuclear industry. With multiple operational reactors in their control.
So chances are still pretty low. But if things get desperate enough, we might see a second sun rise over Moscow. Neither Russia nor America wants that. But both seem to think Ukraine has no agency, whereas that agency could just come back around to bite them.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
you may be right ... it could be possible but it would be suicidal for ukraine. even though yeah, it's best to not push anyone too far.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
Yeah, it might be suicidal. But if they are facing down complete collapse and takeover by Russia. They are already dead.
May as well take Russia down with you.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
i mean it's not THAT dramatic. everything to the east of the Dnepr river including Kiev was a part of the russian empire for centuries. all the southern ports including Odessa were built by the russians as well. the difference between the russians and the ukrainians ( especially in the east of ukraine ) is minimal .... shared culture, religion, very similar languages. Hundreds of thousands of ukrainians chose to return to the areas occupied by the russians. over the last few years, russia received several million refugees from ukraine.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.
Most of that time was spent resisting Russification, fighting for a free and independent Ukraine.
The bottom line is that Ukraine does not want to be a part of Russia. They have paid in blood to avoid that fate on more than one occasion.
So frankly I find your conclusion that Ukraine should be ok being a part of Russia because they used to be a Russian colony/vassal state fucking disgusting.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
i am saying it's better than being annihilated in a nuclear apocalypse. if everyone who is someone's vassal or suffered from someone's hands will start retaliating, we are f* ed.
cobcat@reddit
What? That was the whole reason for their invasion in 2014. Because Ukraine signed an association agreement for closer economic cooperation with the EU.
Ukraine getting economically closer to Europe is the entire reason for this conflict.
Radiant-Ad-4853@reddit
Ukraine has no security guarantees because memorandums are non binding. Ukraine only option is some sort of nato association but that ll be pushing Russia too hard.
vl0x@reddit
Boo fucking hoo. This clown administration consistently bends over backwards for the Russians constant demand that Ukraine receive no legitimate security guarantees and constantly says Ukraine is holding up peace by not giving up land. This whole “negotiation” is a fucking farce. The guy in charge of them doesn’t even know when the war started and how, yet he’s supposed to be the guy who supposedly knows what both sides want.
It’s a circus act, run by their jester.
Al-Guno@reddit
This is war, not a trade negotiation or a morality debate. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, it first needs to defeat Russia on the battlefield and, depending on how much of a red line a NATO Ukraine is for Russia, maybe even destroy their nuclear arsenal.
What you can't expect in war is to obtain in the cease-fire negotiations what you couldn't take on the battlefield. It sucks. But it's war. It's not about achieving a mutually beneficial deal, it's about one side forcing the other to accept concessions it doesn't want to make.
vl0x@reddit
In a stalemate war, yes it is. That orange makeup wearing weirdo wants to claim both sides need to make concessions, why is it always Ukraine’s prerogative to constantly have to give up land, but Russia can have whatever red line they want and the convicted felon never pushes back on that?
Weird.
cyberfx1024@reddit
How is the war a stalemate though? Russia is consistently taking more territory every single day. Yes, they are going slow but they are still taking land and towns on a consistent basis. The only people saying that it's a stalemate are those that don't look at the news to see what's happening on the ground
Statharas@reddit
For every square Kilometer Russia gains, they lose 1k men with their meat wave tactics.
It is a stalemate. Ukraine isn't simply losing ground, they're using tactics to delay and cause massive losses to Russians. There's a big difference between the two.
cyberfx1024@reddit
They aren't losing ground? What kind of propaganda BS is that? They are losing ground in Kursk and in Ukraine.
Where do you get your news from?
Statharas@reddit
That's only recent since Trump basically backtracked every single thing the Biden Administration did. Prior to this, Ukraine was gaining ground in Kursk.
What they're doing now is retreating to areas that can be better defended for the time being. With Trump in office, Ukraine knew to expect an assault by Russian troops everywhere, and it's a matter of time before the assaults halt to avoid a collapse of battle lines.
cyberfx1024@reddit
This has been ongoing since before Trump took office. Start looking at this objectively. Why would the assault halt, and where did you see this? The Ukrainian quite frankly don't have the personnel to keep things as they are. It also doesn't help when Zelensky tells his soldiers to hold the line and to not retreat
Burpees-King@reddit
No they aren’t, Ukraine is sending poorly drained bussified recently mobilized kidnapped soldiers to fill the gaps on the frontline.
vl0x@reddit
Okay and what happens when they get to some of most fortified and populated major cities? That would that another decade, of which, Russia cannot afford.
cyberfx1024@reddit
The rate in which Russia is gaining ground is starting to pick up due to the personnel shortage that Ukraine is dealing with right now
Al-Guno@reddit
No, it's not. Ukraine can't hold their ground without the USA and the USA, which has no commitment to the defense of Ukraine, has voted to get out of there.
vl0x@reddit
Yes they can. You realize how much more manpower and supplies the Russians would need to continue to take Ukrainian land? It’s essentially been at a stalemate for months.
Burpees-King@reddit
Russia keeps beating its recruitment target, and the size of the Russian forces inside Ukraine has been growing year on year.
Meanwhile even with a closed border and draconian mobilization laws, Ukraine still faces serious manpower issues. You don’t know wtf you are talking about.
thegunnersdream@reddit
Do you have anything I could read to support that? Almost everything I have heard has had a much less optimistic view, especially because of the significant amount of the Ukranian government's non military expenses are being paid by us. Additionalyl, Russian production has ramped up significantly over the last year in some important supply areas. If Ukraine got to a point where they were stuck in fortification and unable to push, with dwindling supplies, it's going to be a really bad stance to negotiate out of regardless.
Hsre's some recent csis projections I read that were supporting where my line of thinking is coming from:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraine-now-doomed
cobcat@reddit
Just look at the map of territory gained over the last year. Russia lost hundreds of thousands of men for really just a bunch of empty fields for the most part.
Hyndis@reddit
Wars of attrition are not fought in a linear manner. Both sides throw men and materiel at each other in a stalemate.
However, men and materiel are not infinite, and sooner or later one side runs out, then they rapidly collapse within a matter of weeks or even days.
Recently this happened in Syria to Assad's government. The decade long war abruptly ended when his army ran out of supply, morale collapsed, and within only a few days Assad was on a plane fleeing the country.
cobcat@reddit
You are correct. That's why pointing at negligible gains in a map and saying "Russia has steadily gained ground" is silly.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
if the west stopped supplying weapons, russia would make progress faster
vl0x@reddit
And they’d advance a lot fast without north Koreans to throw on the frontlines. So what?
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
north korean forces only started making appearance very recently. i am not even sure they are real. the ukrainians claimed that there were 10k north korean troops. russia has close to 600k troops fighting... little math problem: what percent do the north koreans contribute? also, at least 80% of all weapons used in ukraine come from nato countries. did you miss the hysteria over the US pausing intelligence sharing for a few days? Ukraine would not last beyond a few month if help were to stop. it's just a fact! nothing to get mad about
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
Russia is currently demanding exactly this, though. The Kremlin is demanding that Ukrainian forces withdraw parts of Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson oblasts that the Russian military does not control, including from cities where hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians live. This is a baseline demand of Moscow in negotiations.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
It's probably because that's the inevitable result if they keep fighting. Ukraine is going back wards and losing more men than they can replace.
Russia might also be miffed that they offered to return the separatist provinces and were rebuffed. They likely want a stiff price for the men they lost after zelensky walked away from peace talks.
BarneySTingson@reddit
Whats the alternative ? 3 more years of war to achieve the same results ? Ukraine couldnt take the upper hand on russia even with usa help, so imagine without.
Walker_352@reddit
I assume the reasoning from rus side here is that, if ukrainians lose the support of US, they would not just lose those parts later, but even more. At a cost to russia ofcourse, which is why they offer for both sides to cut further losses.
I wouldn't know for sure tho, I maybe missing some part of the picture, this is just what I assume.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
That likely is the Kremlin's reasoning, but it may not be founded in reality. Even if American aid to Ukraine ceases in the long term, Russian forces would still encounter extreme difficulties just in seizing the remainder of the territory that Moscow claims, much less advancing beyond it.
Walker_352@reddit
I dont think it'll be like that, but we'll see what happens.
A peace agreement this year is more likely imo anyways.
OrganizationDear7634@reddit
that’s not how peace treaties work or anything work
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
He said they are meeting to see what both sides want and might be willing to concede, they don't have the exact picture yet. Maybe people should wait for them to talk before flipping out. Just getting Russia to come back to negotiations was a huge deal after what happened the last four tries.
Frost0ne@reddit
There is large role of previous administrations in creating current conditions. US and Europe are responsible for playing with Ukraine NATO membership. Everyone in NATO knew that they won't have Ukraine invited in near future and yet they weren't vocal about it. Pushing towards conflict was literally in RAND strategy of competing with Russia. Most of the Trump team admitted it being a proxy war, therefore they know they can't push peace on Russia too much anymore.
vl0x@reddit
Then why did Russia do nothing when Finland and Sweden joined? I thought Putin said that was another red line?
Frost0ne@reddit
Finland has roughly the same population as Saint Petersburg, which is right next to its border. Both pose less significant threat and they were already de-facto NATO members. With Ukraine it is different story.
Radiant-Ad-4853@reddit
🤣 think you need a further 25% tariff to calm you down
vl0x@reddit
Don’t worry, I won’t forget to say thank you after he does.
JarasM@reddit
Wasn't it supposed to be 250% now? You're behind
Radiant-Ad-4853@reddit
true.
NearABE@reddit
They should reform Warsaw Pact.
Business-Donut-7505@reddit
We should be funding Ukraine so we can get a very weak Russia that hopefully deposes Putin and his regime.
We should also be working towards moving away from US security guarantees and work towards the EU being a bulwark in its own right. Drop NATO and leave the Americans to fight China by themselves. They have shown they aren’t a reliable partner.
NearABE@reddit
The European union would still have the eastern europeans. Russia is already extremely week. Notice that they are still stuck in a peer to peer conflict in Ukraine for over three years. Russia would be failing horribly if Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, most if the Balkans, and all if the Baltic states were counter attacking. Russia depleted the entire Soviet reserve just fighting Ukraine. Georgia and Kazakhstan open up new fronts. If Turkey, Greece, and Finland also went to neo Warsaw Pact then Russia would quite likely fail a war.
By keeping France UK and USA outside as NATO the assumption of nuclear war is removed. The neo Warsaw Pact also would not have adequate military to do anything rash like a full invasion sacking Moscow. The states bordering Russia would take enough harm in a war that they will prefer to avoid it. It is far more stabilizing.
The neo Warsaw Pact could use NATO standard weapons.
Stigger32@reddit
Oh fuck off. This kind of talk is what got Ukraine where it is now.
Russia is not unbeatable. And the aid the west provides is not that bloody onerous.
Everyone harps on about the cost. Well when was the last time you read or heard of a government program or other funding being cut or curtailed because aid going to Ukraine cut into the budget?
Fucking NEVER.
It’s all weak as piss politicians kowtowing to perceived bad public opinion. Which is totally out of step with reality.,
EVERYTHING negative about aiding Ukraine can be traced back to the Cretinous Wanker in the Kremlin.
Jeez. The west needs to grow a pair and just get it done.
The irony of all ironies is that if Russia loses everything to Ukraine. We will actually have a more stable world economy. Ok maybe not while a certain toddler remains in the whitehouse…
Remember that Ukraine provided more than 10% of the world’s grain before dickless invaded.
FatPagoda@reddit
All security treaties are non-binding. States are free to ignore them. Most of the US's treaties, including ANZUS, only require congress to consult on the issue. It really just comes down to whether states signal a willingness to abide by the spirit of a treaty. This is why things like the UKs commitment to put boots on the ground to maintain a ceasefire is so important. To be perfectly honest at this point no US led treaty is going to provide the correct signalling. NATO is important because European states at least show some willingness to abide by it.
throwedaway4theday@reddit
Russia needs to be pushed back on HARD by the whole international community, not just the US. Wars of conquest are 100yrs out of date and have no part in modern day. The fact that everyone didn't rush boots on the ground to defend Ukraine is a fucking travesty and the most dangerous geopolitical move since chamberlaine bent over for Hitler.
Asleep_Horror5300@reddit
Again, they did not have explicit security guarantees in the Budapest memorandum. Outside of the signatories pledging not to attack or coerce Ukraine. Obviously Russia has been in violations since at least 2014, earlier if you count the absolute stooges they planted in charge of Ukraine.
US was within everything it promised and more as the memorandum didn't say you have to defend Ukraine or send them weapons. That was until Trump started blackmailing Ukraine with the minerals deal.
braiam@reddit
Remember kids, Russia red lines are a joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Identified_red_lines
Walker_352@reddit
Not paying attention to ruski red lines is how this war happened in the first place lol.
Even in this war, have you forgotten when Ukrainian power plants were not constantly bombed or they could safely export their grain?
braiam@reddit
So, exactly which Red Line was crossed when Crimea was invaded?
LostInTheHotSauce@reddit
Access to their only warm water port on the Black Sea because of a coup government?
braiam@reddit
What the hell are you talking about? Novorossiysk exists. If you are speaking about Kharkiv Pact, that thing was rammed through without the proper vote, so as a de jure it was an illegal agreement (or at least, one that would very unlikely survive scrutiny by a fair court). The constitution of Ukraine prohibits the state to host other country military, if the first argument isn't enough for you.
So, if Russia was defending their interests, they are in a legal shaky ground already, as their presence is either unconstitutional or illegal depending the argument presented. Hell, in 2011, 3 years prior there are quotes about the whole charade "Russia wants to annex Crimea and is merely waiting for the right opportunity, most likely under the pretense of defending Russian brethren abroad". So, Russia giving passports to residents of a region should be seen as a way to claim rights over that region, despite already agreed statements about the sovereign of Ukraine and its territory.
AlexFullmoon@reddit
Well, no. Access to Sevastopol as Russia's main military fleet base on the Black Sea. There are several ports in Krasnodar region.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
yeah, I don't know why people have such a hard time with this. it would be like Panama suddenly pivoting towards china and giving them control of the canal and thinking that the US response would be a strongly-worded letter.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
How is Sevastopol anything like the Panama canal?
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
they are both waterways with critical strategic importance for the countries we're talking about
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
So do you generally agree that Brits, French and Israelis had every right to seize the Suez canal?
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
In geopolitics, having the right doesn't factor into it. Countries do what they can within their capability to protect their security and strategic interests.
politicians talk of rights and norms as moral cover when crafting a political narrative to justify their decisions, but these standards are discarded as soon as they no longer align with a nation's real security and strategic interests. for better or for worse, machiavellian realism is the real international law.
iMossa@reddit
A President that get elected cause his promise of EU trade deal only to than cancel the deal and make a Russian one. Yeah, I wonder why his voters got pissed.
Not only that but he wanted to use deadly force against the demonstrators, fled the country and in his absent the parliament had to remove him as the president of Ukraine.
He's a traitor to his people and could still be a Ukrainian would it not be for his many stupid decisions. Even just stepping down as the opposition wanted would have been enough.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Dude... what is this nonsense about the warm-water port. This is just blatantly false.
LostInTheHotSauce@reddit
do you want to tell me why or not lol
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Literally the largest port in all of Russia is on the Black Sea and ranks 3rd in all of Europe based on moved cargo.
Neomataza@reddit
Go ahead and flag yourself as russian. You're not fooling anybody.
Musikcookie@reddit
Dumb af. The only thing stopping Russia is then end of a barrel to their face. They are currently attacking a country that was denied entry into Nato to appease Russia and Russia is trying to conquer it whole, while this would increase their borders to Nato. Use Ockhams Razor. The simplest explanation is that Russia is an imperialist country that wants to take more land.
Of course that doesn‘t make many of the things the west did or does good (I see your country flag is set as Afghanistan, so you should know first hand) but if you have to defend Russia by claiming how bad the other side is, then you are just using rightful criticism as means to justify a morally abhorrent invasion of a sovereign country.
And yes, I would say the same for many of the western wars in the middle east and also about Israel attacking Palestina.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
Not fucking Russia up for invading Georgia in 2008 is how this war happened.
Wars happen when imperialist powers are appeased.
They are prevented when imperialist powers are deterred.
Reagalan@reddit
To quote the Devil Herself:
source
MrCockingFinally@reddit
In terms of domestic policy, she was certainly the devil.
But in terms of foreign policy, she had the right idea.
Had the cavalry arrived in Georgia in 2008, or in Ukraine in 2014, or in Ukraine in 2022, Russia would not dare to escalate. But as things are going they will be looking to try something against a NATO member within a few years IF they get their way in Ukraine.
Reagalan@reddit
The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if my government straight up intervenes on the side of Putin to force an "unreasonable" Zelenskyy to make a peace deal.
andraip@reddit
War didn't happen because of any red lines. Putin saw an opportunity to expand militarily and miscalculated Ukrainian resistance.
Trepeld@reddit
Lmao interesting to see an Afghan bend over backwards to carry water and false narratives for… Russia.
Sno_Wolf@reddit
Russia has issued it's final warning.
Gackey@reddit
I don't understand why people insist on continuing to spread misinformation like this. The Budapest memoranda is freely available online, it's short, it takes less than 5 minutes to read. There are no security guarantees in it. The only thing it says it that there will be a meeting in the UNSC if something happens to Ukraine. That's it. That's the only guarantee it has.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
It can only be Ukraine, there's not really any leverage against Russia. If they don't get what they want they simply keep fighting until Ukraine collapsed. According to Ukraine's head of intelligence, that will be before the end of summer.
This is the kind of confusion of propaganda that got Ukraine destroyed in the first place.
Look at the war in Georgia, the situation was nearly identical down to John mccain, lies about NATO, and ethnic separatist provinces.
If Georgia had believed Russia was just exercising imperialist ambitions, they could have dropped out of peace talks early in the invasion and focused on fighting a hopeless war with no allies, exactly as Ukraine did. Why on earth would Russia take a break if they wanted all of Ukraine? A pause will only reduce their advantages.
Which situation turned out better, Georgia taking Russian demands seriously, or Ukraine deciding to ignore them and fight a war instead?
No guarantees of any kind
Russia has never demanded removal of the Ukrainian government, they need someone in place to govern western Ukraine, as that area will never accept Russian rule, it would be an endless insurgency with no benefit to Russia. Basically they need a government there to uphold the peace and prevent endless border attacks after the war ends.
They already offered joint development of these minerals, it would assure the US will keep a lid on Ukrainian extremists that likely are against surrender, ending the war and ceding of land.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
This either shows an absolutely stunning lack of understanding of the situation. Or, more likely, you are parroting Russian propaganda.
You seem to assume Russia can continue indefinitely and they absolutely cannot. Their economy already has issues with inflation and a lack of manpower. Their artillery advantage is down to 2:1, and 50% of their shells are from North Korea. They have already worked through a massive proportion of their Soviet stockpile and shortages of heavy equipment are already apparent.
Better sanctions enforcement, especially of the oil price cap, more military support for Ukraine, and allowing Ukraine to use JASSM to strike targets deep inside Russia will lead to Russia's military and/or economic collapse before the end of 2026. NATO can very easily keep Ukraine going longer than that.
Have you read what Putin has to say on the issue? Have you watched his interview with Tucker Carlson? Have you followed Russian state media? Have you heard of the book: "Foundations of Geopolitics?"
Russia's views on former Soviet and Warsaw pact states is clear. They believe them to be rightfully part of Russia's sphere of influence, and they should either be subservient or taken over and Russified.
A pause let's them stop paying insane amounts of money to get military contractors to sign up. Itvlets them get their economy under control. It let's them rebuild their military. All while political support for military aid to Ukraine collapses. A pause is exactly what Russia needs.
We haven't seen the end of the Ukrainian situation. Or even the Georgian one. But you seem to have a very Rosy view of the Georgian situation. They are 100% subservient to Russia. They will never be able to join NATO or the EU. If Russia feels like taking them over completely they can just roll in. Georgia will never be truly independent unless Russia suffers another '90s style collapse. The Ukrainian people looked at that outcome, and decided it's worth telling Russia to go fuck themselves.
Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's 1996 borders and never threaten Ukraine militarily or economically. How is that going?
But you are right, a piece of paper is not a guarantee. That's why they want much stronger security guarantees this time.
So what the fuck was that push towards Kyiv early in the war?
Exactly, they want a compliant Russian puppet. Or at least a state so weakened they have no choice but to roll over and do what Russia wants.
Well of course they would be fine with that agreement that literally gives them everything. No way in hell Ukraine will agree to that though.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
You seem to think Ukraine can hold out indefinitely. They don't even function without massive amounts of aid. They cannot replace their losses Russia has been clear that they cannot afford to lose this war. Through the entire war they have maintained pressure on Ukraine with a smaller force than Ukraine has (according to Ukraine and western reporting). Even now, half of their army is resting at any given time, aside from millions of conscripts who don't fight in Ukraine.
Russia also has had multiple elites call for the use of tactical nukes. I don't think they see any chance of making nice with Europe after the war so they would rather stop playing nice and cautious.
If you really think there is a chance that Russia could fail of approach collapse, do you honestly think they will just pack it up and go home?
Or will they commit another 300,000 or 500,000 or 700,000 troops? Along with an all-out missile and bombing campaign? Or maybe a few tactical miles, since Europe is planning for war instead of reconciliation anyway?
Do you think Russia will give up nicely and give up their status as a world power? Or go ahead and finally overwhelm Ukraine? Or maybe just use tactical miles instead of losing the war?
Ukraine hasn't held that territory for 10 years already. No one is asking them. Maybe they should have stuck with the negotiations in 2022 where Russia agreed it will stay in Ukraine. Why they would decide it was better to fight a war, after they already failed to recover the territory in 8 years of fighting, they made or were forced to make a horrible choice.
That force was smaller than the kyiv police department, it was not a serious threat to take kyiv. They withdrew and had peace talks where they agreed Ukraine will keep the renegade provinces.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
No shit Sherlock. Why do you think Russia is trying so hard to get NATO to cut aid?
Ukraine can hold out basically as long as they get enough aid from the west. They already replaced the guy in charge of mobilization and are reforming how their mobilization is working. At some point they will run out of manpower, but they will run out of metal first. Even the current challenges with manpower are largely caused by a lack of metal. Quite understandably, troops don't want to go into combat undertrained and under equipped.
I think you are remembering reporting from late 2022 before Russian mobilization. That has not been the case for a very long time.
Source?
Using tactical nukes in Ukraine doesn't benefit Russia. It will likely turn India and China against them. And promote an even stronger response from NATO. All for questionable battlefield utility.
More likely Russian combat power will be degraded until they can no longer hold the line.
Even more likely Russia is willing to accept peace terms more favourable to Ukraine to avoid collapse.
Where are they planning to get those troops? At some point, they will have to go to general mobilization. Something that Putin has been desperate to avoid. Force them to either lose or mobilize, then you can get some concessions.
The fuck do you think they have been doing so far?
See my above point.
You say this like it's a bad thing. The guy 2 houses down from you breaks into your neighbors house, claims half as his own, burns down the other half, rapes his wife, and steals his washing machine. Then he threatens to do the same to you. Would you make nice? Or would you buy a gun and tell him if he puts a toe over your property line he'll eat lead?
Russia is reliant on North Korea, Iran, China, and India to keep fighting. They aren't a world power anymore.
You say this like they could have won at any time.
Better to fight a war and die that live as a Russian puppet.
Cope harder Vatnik.
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
I think this is the essence of your entire point of view. You don't care how many Ukrainians die. You don't care if their entire country is destroyed. Their negotiators got Russia to agree that the separatist oblasts stay in Ukraine, and Ukraine go on to finally resume working on EU membership. Wow. A fate worse than death. Good thing they quit negotiations and got a few hundred thousand Ukrainians killed before fulfilling all of Russia's demands. The only thing the fighting accomplished was to give their land to Russia instead of getting it back, as their negotiatiors had fought for.
You think Russia is just fighting for whatever crazy reason, but if they're on the verge of defeat they wouldn't use a nuke because why? If they're facing defeat, why would they care what China thinks?
They just hosted half the planet in Russia while fighting the west. Everybody wants to join BRICS. They have influence and military in the middle east and basically just replaced France in multiple African nations, all while fighting a major war in Europe that has exposed European NATO as a fraud. They are not on the US level but they are a world power. They won't be if they lose the war.
Late last year they were estimated to have 1.5 million volunteer men and 2 million reserves (conscripts). Of those, Ukraine says 700,000 are fighting in Ukraine. So it doesn't seem like a stretch to send another 500,000 men or so, does it?
They have been steadily reducing Ukraine, waiting for whenever someone will come to their senses and give in to their security demands. Every month or so any potential deal means more for Russia and less for Ukraine. Returning the land is already off the table. Ukraine lost all those men for nothing. Russia has a lot more effort they can put out, including tactical miles. Ukraine can't replace their losses and are completely dependent on outside aid for everything except probably drones, although all the parts are imported. But even in drones they are out produced by Russia alone.
It's hard to see how they reach that point when Ukraine has far fewer men available. And also without Russia respetong to a last resort to avoid disaster.
So lazy. That's wikipedia-level information, almost anyone can see it's true. The force that threatened kyiv was smaller than the kyiv police force, to small to encircld the city and absolutely not a threat to capture it. How is that coping? Even your insults don't make sense.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
good point about extremists
zapporian@reddit
Well yeah. The WH admin’s “plan” on that front is a literal reddit / twitter shitpost take, apparently used / misinterpreted 100% unironically, pushed from the top down by unqualified terminally online idiots / elon musk et al.
Like, seriously, we’re dealing with NCD don’t-touch-our-boats shitpost logic, used unironically by the US POTUS / cabinet, with a “proposal” / grand master plan. That ALL the US needs to do to secure ukraine for US interests is to just hand that over to US multinationals, which will magically safeguard / force the US to safeguard those assets since hurr durr US is a superpower, and hurr durr US multinationals just do whatever the fuck they want in third world global south countries within / subjected to the US’s sphere of influence.
Nevermind that… jfc where to even start. First of all most of those resource estimates are bullshit. No US company in their right mind would invest into resource extraction in ukraine as is. Russia most certainly DID NOT and WILL NOT agree to any of this, for obvious f-ing reasons. The US has ZERO leverage if you just throw it all away, and help russia win this war wothout compromising. Nevermind that even if this idiotic thesis DID hold, YOU (ie trump / republicans) are the f—-ing US govt, and now are / would be responsible for implementing security (HOW???) for those new “us interests”, IF putin somehow suffered a brain hemmorage and agreed to all this shit / literal 5th grade i-am-very-smart “peace plan” / negotiating strategy.
This admin seems to, frankly, be currently melting EVERYONE’s brains in the geopolitics / military / etc space on BOTH sides of the atlantic, since nearly all qualified people - hell rubio included, sort of - seem to be incapable of grasping / comprehending that US leadership has been taken over by new management, and that management / top level decision makers thereof, are completely retarded.
(and/or russian plants, and retarded)
Seriously, at this point I’m starting to get concerned that the UK / France / Europe (and hell pretty much all US allies in general) might get actually really fucked via assumptions that there is SOME kind of rational plan or reasoning behind the trump 2.0 admin and its foreign policy objectives.
there isn’t.
bending over backwards to do whatever you think trump wants you to do will not help you
Top level US leadership is demented, utterly irrational, and has no plan.
The fact that there are some severed truncated organs of the US state dept (ie rubio, etc) that are still halfway functioning / trying to function does not, in fact, help.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
If we were, then we'd have said boats surrounding every Russian port and our planes filling Ukrainian airspace, and the entirety of our communications with Russia would be "pull back to Ukraine's 2014 borders and then we'll talk".
zapporian@reddit
Yes. Unfortunately the shitpost here is from a circle jerking echo chamber of trump / maga sychphants, who are echoing old misappropriated left wing talking points about US power / megacorps / imperialism / “the war in iraq was fought over oil” / etc, recontextualized as a semi-ironic “hey why don’t we just try doing that; US corporate business interests + lobbying (nevermind that WE are the govt) will surely and naturally win out vs the russian f—-ing military in our harebrained plan!”
We have, somehow, ended up in this position as US conservatives / the base thereof have completely devolved into 14 year old oppositional-defiance-disorder contrarian morons, AND expaned their party into a big tent election winning (ish) coalition that includes EVERY US conspiracy theorist + paranoid anti-US govt individual / cosplayer thereof under the sun
If the trump admin were run / influenced by r/NCD that would be one thing (and great for ukraine / terrible for russia); but unfortunately (and fortunately?) it is not
AutoManoPeeing@reddit
They can have Congress guarantee the treaty. Still though, the President would have ultimate saying their response to a violation by Russia, and a supermajority Senate could overturn it.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
Hahahahahah. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Fuck, that's a good one mate. I needed a laugh.
NearABE@reddit
Nuclear weapons are worse than useless. Building or maintaining them would drain resources away from defense weapons that can be used. Exchanging nuclear missiles with Russia would be suicide for most of Ukraine’s population. Radiation poisoning and radiation burns are really horrible ways to die.
blodskaal@reddit
Then why does North Korea still exist? Your thinking is flawed
TetraThiaFulvalene@reddit
Because they're in range to decimate Seoul with traditional artilleri.
blodskaal@reddit
That's dumb. The only reason South Korea is not attacking is because there is a nuke on NK end. If that nuke didn't exist, neither would NK
TetraThiaFulvalene@reddit
They didn't have nukes for decades. Why didn't they invade then? It was always a mix of China (mostly) and Russia (partly) defending NK, and NK answering an invasion by shelling Seoul to the ground.
NearABE@reddit
North Korea existed for a very long time without nuclear weapons. Would be an example supporting the fact that a small country can repeatedly piss off a nuclear power whole holding just a conventional deterrent.
MrCockingFinally@reddit
Yeah, but then invading Ukraine would be suicide for Russian elites in Moscow and St Petersburg. That's kinda the point of mutually assured destruction.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
Taliban took back Afghanistan. Syrians took back Syria. You just need some sort of collapse on the Russian side and then everything will happen in "reasonable time period".
Monte924@reddit
No, Rubio deserves all the criticism he gets because he is only really demanding concessions from Ukraine. Rugbio is trying to act like Russia failing to take over all of Ukraine, is someone how a consession from Russia, but its not. Russia would be happy to accept a deal that only gives them southern and eastern Ukraine, because they can always invade again AFTER they rebuild their military. Rubio's statements are completely one-sided and fully fits into what Russia wants. Ukraine is the ONLY side that loses anything.
If Rubio was actually trying to be fair he would be saying that Security guarantees for Ukraine MUST be part of any peace deal.
Pklnt@reddit
Rubio is partly right, partly wrong.
There is no world where ANY peace deal entails that Ukraine loses territory, for all we know there is a world where the US/Europe (or both) go to war to make Ukraine regain all its territory.
But in our current world, Rubio is probably right here.
The US doesn't want to give security guarantees to Ukraine, the US doesn't want to go to war to save Ukraine.
Europe doesn't want to give security guarantees to Ukraine without US backing, Europe doesn't want to go to save Ukraine either.
So what options are left to Ukraine exactly? They were not winning on the battlefield under Biden, they certainly won't under Trump.
What's happening here is that the bully is winning, it's unfair, but that's literally the nature of wars, they're not meant to be fair.
styrolee@reddit
The answer is Ukraine holding out until Europe builds up the capability to provide security guarantees on its own, which looks increasingly more and more likely. Ukraine may not be winning, but it also doesn’t look like they’re loosing any time soon either. Russian advances last year proved equally lackluster, and unless they are about to get some massive game changing boost to their military capabilities, they’re just going to run into the same issues that Ukraine experienced when they tried to go on the offensive.
Ukraine is playing for time. They’re not in imminent risk of collapse, and as long as they continue to hold out then the likelihood that they get more assistance from other sources increases. They’re in a very similar to China in 1937/1938 - they don’t have a real chance of winning, but they’re not really about to loose either, so better to fight on until conditions improve.
The only countries which really need the peace deal right now are the U.S. and Russia. Russia cannot sustain the economic and demographic damage of the war right now and this sudden turn in U.S. attitudes was its last best hope to get the deal that it wants. Putin and Russian media have been praising the U.S. and Trump for doing the diplomatic work for them, because they don’t have a backup for if the negotiations don’t work out and they have to plan a new invasion of Ukraine.
The US in turn needs a negotiated peace now because Trump has staked his reputation (what little he has) on ending the war in his first hundred days. If Ukraine doesn’t play ball then he doesn’t have much leverage either, as even scaling back aid and has not resulted the budging of the Ukrainian position. This is why Trump has resorted to extreme measures such as threatening to deport every Ukrainian in the U.S. and hinting at the possibility of providing support to Russia. Such actions are unlikely to materialize though as while public will to scale back aid to Ukraine may be rising, support for openly supporting Russia and deporting 250,000 white Christians still is a minority position among even his own supporters.
The question people should be asking themselves is not whether or not Ukraines present position is ideal, but whether its future prospects are any better. Ukraine may be suffering in a permanent state of war, but it’s been in that same state for over a decade now and it’s not really like public support has wavered. What’s another year of war, if every year a European response appears more and more likely? To say Europe isn’t in a position to provide security guarantees now may be true, but it does appear to be moving in that direction, and as long as that continues to happen Ukraine is not going to give into a deal in which they get nothing. At the end of the day, worst case scenario is that they hold out only to take the same deal a year from now, which doesn’t seem like nearly as big a risk to a population with part of their country under occupation than it may appear to American politicians living in Washington. Just look at what Syrians got after fighting an even longer and bloodier conflict. You might say they have nothing to gain from continuing the conflict, but I think to a people who have been offered nothing, they have nothing to loose either
Pklnt@reddit
How can you people say this kind of shit when Russia is on the offensive for more than a year and keeps gaining way more territory than Ukraine ever did during the counter-offensive.
cultish_alibi@reddit
That's just factually wrong and ridiculous. You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you're a liar. Ukraine reclaimed far more ground in the 2022 counter-offensive than Russia has claimed in the last year.
If Russia keeps capturing Ukrainian territory at the rate of the last 12 months, it will literally take a century for them to conquer the whole country. Look at the maps, educate yourself. https://deepstatemap.live/en"
Pklnt@reddit
I'm talking about the 2023 counter-offensive.
Hyndis@reddit
That tells me you don't know about attrition warfare.
The point is to grind down your opponent. Doing so incurs losses of course, but the calculus is that the larger country has more men and materiel and will win with the exchange rate.
Once the other country is exhausted its lines rapidly collapse, typically within a matter of weeks.
The rate of territorial gain in attrition warfare is slow at first, then its very fast.
styrolee@reddit
That’s a pretty weak comparison. Russian offensives haven’t really gained much territory either, and the only reason why they could be said to have gained more territory since the Ukrainian counteroffensives is because the Ukrainian counter offensives didn’t gain much territory either. Also Ukrainian and Russian offensives had vastly different purposes. Ukrainians largely targeted high value targets such as major cross roads and supply centers. Russian offensives have only targeted lower priority, less defended targets. Even the offensives today in Kursk, while extensive, are targeting territory which Ukraine only seized for propaganda purposes and always intended to give up at first sign of Russian resistance, so Russia is expending extensive resources all for a low value publicity attack. Russia can and will continue to make small such incursions all across the Ukrainian front line over the next couple of months, but unless they launch a massive offensive on a strategic Ukrainian center like Kharkiv or Zaporizhzia like they did at the beginning of the war (which they seem no where close to doing) they haven’t really impacted Ukraine’s ability to fight and all they did was achieve a Pyrrhic victory.
Pklnt@reddit
Ukraine gained ~350km² during their counter-offensive which lasted 6 months.
The last 6 months Russia gained 7 times more.
styrolee@reddit
For reference 350 Km^2 is an area about half the size of NYC, hence not a substantial gain.
Pklnt@reddit
You're moving the goalpost.
You claimed that Russia would experience the same issues than Ukraine during the counter-offensive, but it's simply false, Russia the past few months is on average gaining more every month than the entire Ukrainian counter-offensive.
styrolee@reddit
How am I moving the goalpost? I stated the area wasn’t a significant area, you provided the number, I provided a comparable area in order to understand that number in context. 350 Square Km is not a significant area of land. The Battle of the Bulge, a battle in WW2 launched by an army which historians agree was nearly completely beaten and couldn’t have won Germany the war, was fought over an area of approx 1300 square km (or over 3 times the area being claimed as being captured by Russia in the most recent offensives). 350 Square Km is nothing in comparison of the size of the front lines and certainly in comparison of the size of Ukraine. Please explain how that should be seen as a “major Russian victory” when it falls to less than a quarter of Nazi Germany’s least successful offensive and is mostly made up of empty farmland and forests.
Pklnt@reddit
Factually false, they conquered way more.
Factually false, they gained much more in comparison.
styrolee@reddit
You didn’t address anything I said. Those aren’t even quotes from that comment. You must really have run out of things to say. Go back to your Le Pen cave and quit peddling bullshit doomsaying without any context or evidence and that can’t stand up to even a modicum of pushback.
Hyndis@reddit
Macron says his plan to rebuild the French military will take at least 5 years. Based on how rapidly Ukraine's front lines have been collapsing within the past few months, Ukraine doesn't have 5 years.
They probably don't even have 5 months anymore.
Pokrovsk is nearly encircled. Ukrainina troops in Kursk are nearly encircled and are rapidly retreating, and Russia is now pushing forward across the border into Ukraine to cut off those retreating troops.
styrolee@reddit
Do you have an actual source for that claim about Macron because I have not seen one source which says anything close to that. Also rebuilding the French military isn’t really the same thing as being able to provide support the Ukraine. All Europe has to do is increase its production of military equipment and donations which is likely to achieve in just a few months. Furthermore, European countries are already in discussions of sending peacekeeping troops immediately. That’s a much more immediate time scale than Months or years.
Hyndis@reddit
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250304-france-pushes-wartime-economy-us-turns-back-on-ukraine-europe
styrolee@reddit
This article and that quote says nothing close to the statement that France (or any other country in Europe for that matter) will be unable to support Ukraine for another 5 years. It just says that France likely won’t meet NATO spending goals for another 5 years. That’s just a goal set in 2024 to meet US demands for parity in spending, and doesn’t have any bearing on military readiness. France already spends above the 2% GDP threshold which is the traditional minimum number for military readiness set by NATO in the past.
European countries already spend collectively more than Russia does on the military, and they also have a massive technological advantage too. Russias biggest advantage over Europe is troop numbers, but these are relatively easy to rapidly scale up and the gap is rapidly closing as European countries are beginning to reintroduce conscription. Russia hasn’t been able to defeat Ukraine, a country a fourth the size of it in terms of population. Do we really expect them to win against a continent with 3 times the population and 4 times the GDP?
Hyndis@reddit
Hypotheticals and plans for the future don't help Ukraine change the fortunes of the war. If Europe wants to support Ukraine currently there already needs to be European regiments and divisions on trains to deploy to the front lines in Ukraine.
Europeans need to stop talking and start doing if they want to change the outcome of the war. Time is a luxury Ukraine doesn't have.
Good_Daikon_2095@reddit
ukraine has been damaged economically and demographically way more than russia
Monte924@reddit
You are actually just explaining how Trump is trying to help Putin obtain total victory with their invasion by only putting pressure on Ukraine, and demanding THEY effectively surrender territory to Russia, while getting NOTHING in return, which will result in Ukraine being invaded again in the future. It is TRUMP that has been stripping Ukraine of their options
Biden absolutely would have pushed for a deal that grants Ukraine security guarantees in any peace deal, but that is the exact reason why Putin was working to help get Trump elected. By maintaining support for Ukraine, Biden was putting pressure on Putin, but Putin knew that if he could just hold out long enough for Trump to get elected then trump would hand him victory on a silver platter and Trump is delivering
Al-Guno@reddit
No, Biden wouldn't have or he would have done so. The simple reality is that not even the more warmongering president of the USA will go to war against Russia for Ukraine, because the underlining principle that guided American foreign policy since the cold war is that nuclear war can not be won and, therefore, must never be fought. And a war between the USA and Ukraine is too close to the nuclear threshold.
Simply put, this isn't a videogame. This is real life and in the risk calculation for the USA, Ukraine isn't worth the risk.
Monte924@reddit
No, Biden wouldn't have sent them to help them in the war, but he WOULD have been willing to provide them NATO protection as part of any peace treaty. The reason a peace treaty never happened is because Putin knew that if Trump won the election then he would win the invasion.
If Harris had won the election, then the conversation around Ukraine would be very different. Harris would have been maintained FULL support for Ukraine, and Russia would know that there would be no end to Putin's war and Putin would have no path to victory. The pressure for Putin to end it would have risen. Ukraine could have gotten a deal that would have gave them security, but Trump has taken that away from them because he is demanding Ukraine's surrender
Al-Guno@reddit
If Ukraine enters NATO, it means the USA defends them if they are attacked. Had Biden been willing to do so, he would have done it. He didn't. And when, at the start of the invasion, the idea of a no-fly zone was tossed around, he was very clear that meant WW3 and it wasn't happening.
Biden was very clear in that US troops would not be fighting Russia.
Monte924@reddit
First, joining NATO would have required an agreement by all members, and Putin stooge in Hungary would not allow it. Second, Ukraine joining NATO during the invasion would mean that NATO members would have to join the invasion. That is something that Biden and other members did not want.
No, What Biden WOULD have been willing to do was use NATO has a deterrent. Allow NATO troops to act as a deterrent against FUTURE Russian invasions. If NATO was present in Ukraine and defending it, then Russia would never even think of trying to invade again. US Troops would not be fighting Russian troops, because Russian would be unwilling to attack.
This is the reason why Putin will not allow Ukraine to have any form of protection. He wants to be able to invade again... and Trump is going to let him have it
Al-Guno@reddit
And what if Ukraine joins NATO and Russia calls the bluff? The fact that Biden put together one of the most anti-Russian cabinets in modern American history and even then he wasn't willing to go to war for Ukraine should make it clear how willing is the USA to go to war against Russia for Eastern Europe.
Trump is ending the European delusion that any American president would be willing to risk the nuclear anhilitation of the USA for them. If the Europeans leader mature, then they'll be able to make informed choices about European security.
Monte924@reddit
They wouldn't.
Putin only invaded Ukraine because he thought it would be easy. He thought his tanks could roll up to Kyiv, Zelensky and the government would flee, the army would retreat, and he'd take the capitol in a week. Putin never expected a REAL war that would cost him billions in resources, countless human bodies, and trash his army... And after Russia struggled against Ukraine with only equipment support from the west, Putin would know full well that he would have no hope of beating the US and Europe in a DIRECT fight
Al-Guno@reddit
So Ukraine doesn't need NATO to prevent a second war
Ironshallows@reddit
Ukraine is never getting into Nato, empty that thought from your thinking process. Not one country other than Poland, wants to go to war against Russia for Ukraine to keep their teritory. Thats reality. Thats not some armchair fantasy people keep with "hopium" that somehow Russia will be pushed back into Russia and Ukraine will get their 2014 or 2008 border back. Life isn't a video game, and Putin will absolutely nuke Kyiv to keep them out of Nato.
anotherblue@reddit
Poland will definitely not go to war against Russia.
Ironshallows@reddit
Well, taken in isolation, every polish person I know (of which I know a dozen, I work with Polish/Ukraine people) and they're all in their 30's, would love to go kill some Russians if they could, and they have said, and I'll take it with a grain or half pound of salt, they think Poland as a country would love to go in and roflstomp ruskies.
ShootmansNC@reddit
They could have volunteered for ukraine, but they didn't.
It's just worthless posturing from people with no stakes in the war, eager to see it continue as long as someone else is doing the dying for them.
Poland as a country doesn't seem to agree with them.
ShootmansNC@reddit
Poland doesn't want to either, if you ask their citizens.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/9/7502003/
Pklnt@reddit
In the end literally no one is obliged to help Ukraine or attack Russia.
Perhaps you haven't figured it out yet, but it's a war and it's not supposed to be a fair affair.
Monte924@reddit
That's certain what Russia wants you to say, since it will allow them to continue their invasions and take more and more territory from other countries. Heck, Putin is hearing Trump talking about Pulling Troops out of Europe and thinking about whehther or not NATO will really protect the baltic states. Abandoning Ukraine means EMBOLDENING Putin and future wars
Many wars end with peace treaties that are either fair, or atleast results with concessions on both sides. Not all wars end with SURRENDER and future wars. Trump has the power to determine if this will end in peace or surrender, and he is pushing for surrender
RaulParson@reddit
Counterpoint, the important thing to realize about Rubio here is he's not just Saying Things which may or might not be correct, but doing something more. Rubio is a person in a very particular position and a very particular reputation as a spineless invertebrate who will say what the admin he sold his soul to will tell him to and damn what he himself might think. This makes what he says not an opinion, but a signal, and it's a bad signal.
Any peace deal which will end up getting signed will probably have both sides agreeing to things they don't want to, since total victory seems completely impossible. Those things will be concessions, and the lesser each of the concessions the more need to be made. With this sort of talk the territorial concessions from Ukraine will be worth not as much as they would be otherwise, since it's not a "okay, as you can see our allies would support our We Give Nothing position but we're willing to move towards We Give Up This And That here" but instead "it's the expectation of our allies that we give things up, so here it is". Doing ambiguity in his signalling would cost Rubio and the US absolutely nothing, and yet he is doing "straightforward" answers. It's basically doing concessions to Russia for nothing that is what makes it very much wrong.
Western_Objective209@reddit
When you're defending, you just need to keep fighting. See: 2 Afghan wars, Vietnam War, even WW1 in France. It looks like that's what Ukraine will do if they try to force an unfavorable peace on them.
Making Ukraine into a porcupine is a valid strategy. That was what Biden was trying to do; the US has already ramped up artillery production from something like 3k shells/month to 70k, Rubio has just decided this strategy is not worth it and wants Ukraine to fully capitulate
Pklnt@reddit
Defending doesn't mean you'll eventually win. See: Every wars when the Imperialist power won.
Western_Objective209@reddit
The imperialists haven't won a war in like 100 years at this point
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
this entire thread is about Russia and a war they are winning. before that there were several countries that tried to resist or revolt against the USSR and failed. then there were the numerous governments toppled by the US to install a leader favorable to their interests.
BenjaminBroccoli@reddit
Fighting for how long? There is a point here where even "winning" is not worth it for Ukraine. It's not "just" keep fighting, its taking the enormous cost it takes in lives, money, infrastructure, etc. It's questionable how they would recover from their current position, let alone another 3 years of war.
Western_Objective209@reddit
If you do the calculus in a cold-hearted way, joining the EU is worth almost anything. Every former Warsaw block country has seen dramatic economic growth and foreign investment, while countries that stayed under Russia's influence have stagnated.
If they want to keep fighting, it should be up to them. The cost for the US has been minimal. And Russia's economy is suffering. They continue to have high inflation and stagnating growth, as well as shrinking stockpiles.
BenjaminBroccoli@reddit
Yes, it would be great for them, but that money has to come from somewhere and a lot of eu countries would be opposed to them joining, especially in their current state. Ukraine would have a long, LONG way to go before being able to join. As in decades.
I mean, it is. But other countries arent obligated to pay for it. I'd also argue most Ukrainians dont want to keep fighting. Thats one of the big reasons they're having manpower problems.
NearABE@reddit
I am skeptical. The war has been stalemated for several years. Biden administration trickled in weapon systems. In most cases if Ukraine had gotten the arms 6 months sooner they would have been much more effective. Biden’s administration had to avoid starting world war three. Or at least they believed that they had to avoid that risk.
With Trump’s administration it is quite clear that they would prefer to just have peaceful trade with Russia. The “carrot and stick” approach is USA’s traditional diplomacy. Since the carrot is now believable they can also deploy a much bigger stick.
Satyrsol@reddit
Well, some of the west, but the bullies have convinced enough of the world that they’re victims, and a nuclear power’s involvement on Ukraine’s side would force nuclear escalation from Russia, and that it would be the West’s fault for escalation.
A non-nuclear power could engage, but none are willing.
Hawkster59@reddit
Dont forget the kharkiv offensive, the kherson offensive, and the successful push back of russians from kyiv. It is possible for ukraine to regain territory, but you are right that it is realistically a commitment that few of Ukraine's allies wish to make. Cedong territory is easier for others, harder for ukraine. Even impossible. Giving Putin anything will ensure he will try again.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
Rubio can demand whatever he wants from Russia, unless the cost-benefit tradeoff makes accepting the demands in Russia's interest, demands are worth less than nothing
Monte924@reddit
And Rubio is demanding nothing, because the Trump administration has no interest in putting any pressure on Putin. They want Ukraine to effectively surrender
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
the administration is talking about new tariffs on russia if they don't accede to a peace deal. if that transpires, would that count in your mind as putting pressure on russia? if not, what is your bar?
Monte924@reddit
No. Trade with Russia has been at an all time low since the start of the invasion. Imports from Russia are down to only 30% what they were before the invasion. The less trade you have with a country, the less effective cutting off trade is. Russia wouldn't even notice Tariffs against them. Heck, why tariffs when he could make it a full embargo and eliminate trade all together?
What Putin hates the most is military support for Ukraine. He needs to win the war and he can't do it while Ukraine is receiving weapons from the US. Giving weapons and support to Ukraine is the hardest form of pressure on Russia... and that is what Trump has cut off.
LordAmras@reddit
Not even Zelensky thinks he can get Crimea back, he is probably even willing to compromise on some of the Donbass, but he said multiple time he need assurances in case Putin attacks again, which they are not willing to give.
cultish_alibi@reddit
So is this the new tankie line? "I don't support the far-right extremists in the US government, but I totally agree with them 100% about Ukraine"
It's not a very good disguise. The US government is far-right, and Russia is far right, and everyone can see your agenda from a mile away.
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
I'm FAR from a tankie, and I don't at all agree with the US about Ukraine. Why be so aggressive? My comment was solely about the headline being over-the-top when the specific Rubio quote I copied is simply correct regarding how the war has gone. Unless you have any better ideas as to how to restore the 2014 borders?
ParticularClassroom7@reddit
Russia doesn't need to compromise. They are winning. If Ukraine doesn't capitulate, they will go all the way up to Galicia, set up a puppet government in Kiyv to have a neutral buffer zone in the middle, and take everything to right of the Dnieper + Odessa + Mikolaiv.
Vaxtez@reddit
As much as i side with ukraine, i just think it will be near enough impossible for the pre 2014 borders to return (especially crimea). Rubio is right in saying that Ukraine will have to concede land for any form of peace with russia
reelznfeelz@reddit
It is just so shitty though. I wish the whole world would come together and say “No, Russia gives back what it stole usijg military force including Crimea. You have 12 months to make an orderly surrender of the land or we force you to do it”. Signed, the entire western world. It’s just so unfair that because it’s really difficult, they can keep whether they stole.
Like if I steal your car and reprogram all the entertainment settings so somebody says “well just give them back some of the car because it would be complicate to put it back how it was, next time font get your car stolen loser”. While the criminal learns that stealing stuff does indeed pay.
It’s not gonna happen. The EU is going to say they’ll support Ukraine‘s sovereignty if we just draw the lines where they’re at right now and Russia promised to try not to steal any more land. But it sure is unfair and awful.
iampuh@reddit
That's common sense. But if you mention it in a popular thread, you are a getting downvoted. They are lucky if they keep their territory and Russia knows this. It's an unfortunate situation, but they either fight until the last Ukranian, which should not be the way, or face reality and give up territory or even independence. The lives of the Ukranian population is more important. This is an unpopular opinion, I know, im a coward blablabla...but that's what's really important. Their lives.
TechHeteroBear@reddit
There's some logic to it sure... but what's Russia giving up... the conquest to take over Ukraine in full? The allowance for Ukraine to join NATO? Russia isnt comprising one iota in this deal. They win. Ukraine loses outright if a peace deal is made. They only win temporary peace with the threat of Russia to do it again. Because we all know what Putin will do again in 10-15 years time after this peace deal. And we'll be hemming and hawwwing again. Exactly like what happened when Putin went for Ukraine again in 2022.
robotoredux696969@reddit
Yeah I hate to say I agree with him but he’s 100% correct on this.
Coco05250905@reddit
What a bunch of cowards. Tell Putin to give up all Ukrainian lands. Quit taking the easy way out. America should stand for better. Step up the aid for Ukraine make Russia feel the pain for being the aggressor.
StrawberryGreat7463@reddit
So we have no idea what russia is willing to compromise on?
gee good things we have already made a bunch of concessions for Ukraine
fucking master negotiator here.
ClevelandDawg0905@reddit
Russia isn't going to away lands they have taken. As far as compromise, they could stop their advance. They been advancing a lot this past year. Ukraine is losing ground. They are 'winning'. Ukraine's attempt to gain leverage in Kursk has backfired.
Monte924@reddit
Russia "stopping their advance" is NOT a concession
pkdrdoom@reddit
Seriously, are people this ignorant/dumb or are they just regurgitating Russian narrative they heard on US' right wing crazy media?
>As far as compromise, they could stop their advance.
Insane take if it isn't a bot/troll.
AccomplishedLeek1329@reddit
That is the winning side's concession in every war that doesn't end in one side's unconditional surrender.
See: Franco-Prussian War, the brother's war, treaty of brest-litvotsk ect.
War is inherently unfair.
You're just historically illiterate.
pkdrdoom@reddit
Except the only ignorant and illiterate one is you, as what you are proposing is surrendering, which is totally different to what we are talking about here. And hence why the genocidal Russian dictatorship wouldn't have to do any concession...
What you are promoting is basically the same thing Putin is promoting through Trump, hahaha...
Kyudojin@reddit
What??? How would that not be a concession? Do you think they're gonna go "my bad" and just leave?
pkdrdoom@reddit
How could that be a concession...
It's like pretending Ukraine should say "come back tomorrow" and accept whatever Trump's nonsense is regarding giving up resources and agreeing to be invaded again.
Kyudojin@reddit
You're doing a non sequitur for some reason. It is a concession for Russia to stop taking land. It would also be a concession for Ukraine to neutralize to appease Russia's security concerns. There will likely have to be a couple concessions on both sides for this to stick.
pkdrdoom@reddit
Only some troll would imagine that to be a concession.
It's like if you were a woman, and your husband, who is a drunkard who doesn't work and doesn't live at home anymore, (a husband who also has shown often to rape you and beat you) comes to mug you for some money for vodka.
At some point, you resist, and your husband proceeds to punch you relentlessly, and in the middle of it, some cop shows up and says, "You two stop this!". The cop attempts to physically stop the struggle by grabbing one arm from your husband to minimize the punching situation.
Your husband doesn't stop, but as you defend yourself, you manage to explain that the person is your husband and that he's trying to steal from you.
The cop says "alright I'll settle this", and asks you to let your husband go and keep the money. And you ask the cop that you will do so, but that you require that the cop enforces some restraining order that you had set up earlier. The cop says that he will not do such a thing.
Not only that , but you mention to the cop that you would want to change the lock on your home's door, and the cop forbids this as well, tells you that his would be taunting your husband and an escalation to the issues between you two.
As your husband continues to punch your face, you ask the cop to please formulate an agreement with your husband so that it prevents him from attacking you again.
The cop tells you he already had thought of some deal, tells you that in the future, you have to let him come home whenever he wants and let him do anything he wants to you. And... that in the future, you should also let him steal anything from you.
You complain to the cop saying all of this is unfair and that you aren't gaining anything from this.
The cop gets mad at you and throws a temper tantrum as he lets go from your husband's arm, allowing him to punch you again with both arms again.
You complain and demand an explanation from the cop, and he says he did so because you didn't say "thank you" to him.
The cop gets so annoyed at you (somehow) that he tells the aggressor, your husband, that he can do whatever he wants, and he will sit and watch.
Some neighbor who was watching all this situation develop comes and says that you should agree with the cop's propositions because you both, your husband and yourself, are both making concessions.
When you ask, "Which concessions is my husband doing?" Both the dumbass neighbor and the cop say to you that your husband is going to stop beating you today.
The neighbor and cop both tell you that this act is a good compromise, as it would be some sort of sacrifice for your husband, because the act of punching you was giving him lots of pleasure, and that he will now suffer today.
You tell your them that they are both crazy and the neighbor says (ignorantly) that you are doing a "non sequitur."
And then proceeds to "explain" how your poor criminal husband would be less violent if you stop demanding to change the locks on your home. And that at the end you will both incur in concessions (except the neighbor would fail to mention any valid concession that your husband would have to agree on doing)
ShootmansNC@reddit
"If you sign this peace deal we won't take more of your land" is indeed a concession.
Ukraine can't stop Russia militarly so willing to stop through diplomacy is a concession from Russia.
You could argue it's not fair, but war is never fair for the losing side.
isotope123@reddit
Well yes, but actually no. If the Ukraine is seeding ground to Russia, they aren't in any position to negotiate, unfortunately. The United Shits of America decided to stop supporting them, and without that military aid, Ukraine is destined to lose.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
Let's say that the USA did support Ukraine at 100% of what they have been.
What outcome do you think Ukraine will have one year from now?
isotope123@reddit
Impossible to say for certain, but likely the status quo it has been.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
So even if the aid wasn't stopped.
The end of this war is already known.
"It's all over... But the crying."
isotope123@reddit
They could have always sent more aid, but didn't happen. In a kinder world they would have.
Diaperedsnowy@reddit
So could have Canada, so could have Europe.
But at this point all the aid in the world won't make a difference when there is no manpower to use it.
isotope123@reddit
Yep, everyone made fun of Russia for their meat grinder tactics, but it works.
201-inch-rectum@reddit
when the alternative is that Russia keeps advancing, "not advancing" sounds like a pretty good compromise
ClevelandDawg0905@reddit
Well the problem is Ukraine been retreating giving the Russians more leverage to take a bigger slice of Ukraine. Ukraine has been unable to force out fortified Russian lines. Attrition warfare is already favoring Russia.
StrawberryGreat7463@reddit
That’s not a compromise, thats about the bare minimum for a ceasefire
ClevelandDawg0905@reddit
Then the Russians can continue their advance.
StrawberryGreat7463@reddit
well probably something along the lines of territory or peace agreement to be short. And yeah they have some leverage. That’s sort of why I made a comment about trump giving them more leverage and not less. Before negotiations really even begin.
Hyndis@reddit
Why would Russia agree to any of that? They have the superior position on the battlefield and every day that passes they crumble Ukraine's lines further.
This is not a stalemate between equally matched armies. One side has a much larger economy, larger population, and bigger manpower pool than the other.
The winning army is the one who dictates terms and the losing army is the one who hopes the terms aren't too severe. Ukraine might still be able to carve out a deal where it survives, though it will be significantly smaller.
Worst case is Russia forcing unconditional surrender where Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign nation.
Burpees-King@reddit
Russia has already ruled out a ceasefire along the frontlines.
BlueSpaceSherlock@reddit
Which qualifies as a compromise considering Russia wanted (and presumably still wants) a subordinate Ukraine and Ukraine wanted 1991 borders at minimum.
ADM86@reddit
That’s not a compromise…and if they were winning they would have acquired more territory by now.
ClevelandDawg0905@reddit
Do you think the Ukranians are losing ground to Russia over the past year? Kursk military offensive by Ukraine has backfired. There pockets of Ukranian trap and surrounded. Over 25% of Ukraine is occupied by Russia. That isn't Ukraine winning.
jorel43@reddit
That's not how wars of attrition work
SoftDrinkReddit@reddit
imo here is my position if i was Ukraine
ok we officially secede Crimea and the Donbas
in exchange rest of Ukraine will join the EU for Security guarantees
Sanctions on Russia will be lifted in a phased basis based on continued Russian compliance on the peace treaty
Frozen Russian assets will be used to rebuild rest of Ukraine
if Russia refuses to agree to that then there is literally no point negotiating with them
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
we can stop negotiating, then our options are a) pull support and let it shake out however it shakes out, which will probably not end up better for ukraine, or b) keep throwing money and weapons at a losing fight with no end game or exit plan.
is there some other outcome you foresee after negotiations end?
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
That'd already be a pretty big "concession" for Russia based on previous demands, which included a "neutrality" clause inserted into the Ukrainian constitution, Russia as a "security guarantor state" for Ukraine, and a \~90%+ reduction in Ukraine's armed forces.
steauengeglase@reddit
"We promise not to kill you in a nuclear hell storm, though we can't promise not to continue threatening to kill you in a nuclear hell storm. We also can't promise to not continue killing Ukrainians --that card is far too valuable to give up. We also promise to allow the United States to take the blame for all of this and Ukraine must have a new Russian friendly government."
"Hold on, Biden will take the blame for this? And you'll punish that Ukrainian Jew who didn't do me a favor? This is too much for me to handle. Oh man, this is too much."
"Yes, and we'll look the other way if you invade Greenland."
"Stop! I can't take it. Please. My doctor says I can only have one orgasm a month. If you do me any more favors I might die."
"We'll also say that your allies are the worst people on Earth, for at least a week."
"A whole week? Stop it. I can't breathe. I'll give you the locations of Ukrainian children's hospitals if you just stop. You can bomb the shit out of them, I don't care. This is too much."
"And you will withdraw from the Baltic states."
"Ungggggggggh!"
"And move US forces from Germany to Hungary, so that it creates a hostile, suspicious atmosphere among your allies, as they all wonder what are we up to?"
"My brain is melting. Please stop. I'm getting sucked into a orgasmic void that I may never return from."
"And you will do everything in your power to get kicked out of NATO."
"UNCLE! UNCLE! UNCLE! I can't handle it. This ecstasy is too much."
"All of those Europeans who think they are better than you will hate you for the rest of their lives."
"I just came 8 times in less than a minute. Someone, please put their finger up my butt and tell me that fake green marble, obsidian and gold leaf are the best color combination ever!"
r0w33@reddit
I have still not heard a peep from this administration about the difficult things Russia might need to do for peace.
In fact, it still seems very much like the Trump admins position is "Ukraine will give up everything and maybe more than Russia is asking, in exchange for nothing at all."
What exactly is the incentive for Ukraine here?
jank_king20@reddit
Russia doesn’t NEED peace the same way Ukraine does, obviously the incentives are different.
r0w33@reddit
So how does pressuring and undermining Ukraine lead to Russia wanting peace?
Also, if Ukraine is so desperate for peace (even if it means surrender), what is the need to apply so much pressure against them?
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
Ukraine is being pressured so it submits to taking a peace deal instead of asking for more military aid. What's being done by cutting off aid and intelligence now is showing Ukrainian leadership what lies ahead of the US decides to pull out entirely.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
They already cut aid and intelligence, and voted with Russia in the UN. There's isn't anything "more ahead". They've played all their cards already.
Weird_Point_4262@reddit
What's been taken can be returned. Ukraine has agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the US, intelligence and aid has been restored.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/03/11/ukraine-agrees-to-30-day-ceasefire-proposal/
r0w33@reddit
This answers neither of my questions.
_lindt_@reddit
Russia wouldn’t have any reason to continue the war if all their demands are met.
ExtensionEconomy9004@reddit
The whole stick is about forcing Zelensky's hand because he will never negotiate otherwise. I know he likes to say that he already proposed many peace propositions to the UN and the likes but, if you look them up, it is laughable. His peace talks can be shortened to "Ok, so we win and Russia lose."
I know it's hard for western people that are mostly watching mainstream medias to understand it but... life isn't fair, guys. Ukraine is currently losing very hard and, at some point, you need to understand that. If the US need to force Zelensky's hand to have peace, then great, cause it will never happen otherwise.
Make-TFT-Fun-Again@reddit
Zelenskyy is voicing the will of his people, enjoying 68% approval rating. If the Ukrainians didn't want to fight, they wouldn't. Instead they are showing the resolve of a people who knows what will happen if they lay down their arms.
ExtensionEconomy9004@reddit
You might want to read something else than Reddit or Western news when it comes to this war because both of them are heavily biased towards Ukraine. We all saw how the EU is trying to present Zelensky as the Messiah, here to bring Freedom and Peace to the world, when he is just another corrupt oligarch in a war of corrupt oligarchs.
-> Zelenskyy is voicing the will of his people, enjoying 68% approval rating
Yeah, if you forget that the people on the front line mostly do not vote because they are busy, that most anti-Zelensky people fled the country long ago (either going to the EU or even Russia) and that the Ukrainian government has entire control over all the medias. It's easy to have "high" popularity when you censor everyone who says negative things about you and when your population is scared of being forcefully conscripted if they go against you...
-> If the Ukrainians didn't want to fight, they wouldn't.
Ever heard about conscription? Right now, if you do a tiny bit of research, you'd find that the Ukrainian police patrol the cities all day and forcefully take away people on the streets to send them to the front line. Most Ukrainians don't want to fight, they are forced to against their will for the most part. Those currently fighting just want to go home after years of continuous fighting. I know western medias censors those things but more and more Ukrainians started to defect as the war goes on.
-> Instead they are showing the resolve of a people who knows what will happen if they lay down their arms.
Most Ukrainians you hear praising Zelensky's stance online live in Western Ukraine and are not conscripted or have fled. It's easy to promote the war continuing when you aren't the one fighting in it. Also, going against Zelensky right now is the same as treason due to the war so people don't want to have problems (even worse if they still have family in Ukraine). We all saw what happened to the generals and politicians who went against him or criticized his stance. All are in jail or were fired.
Make-TFT-Fun-Again@reddit
Afghanistan was supplied with 3 trillions worth of aid, gear and weapons. The moment the Americans left, the taliban took over. If the Ukrainians did not want to fight, they would not have fought- especially not as tenaciously as they have.
iMossa@reddit
Putin is the aggressor, he can stop the war whenever he wants too. Zelensky wants his people safe from a invading force, that includes his people on occupied land.
Your reasoning stinks of Russian propaganda.
Hyndis@reddit
And he doesn't want to stop the war. What then?
Saying "swiper no swiping" doesn't work in real life. Its not like Dora the Explorer where you can remind someone to stop stealing and they stop.
You need the ability to enforce the demand, which means using force. Unfortunately Russia appears to have the most force on the ground in Ukraine, so ultimately Russia decides what is right.
If other countries don't like Putin using his might to decide what is right they should step up to send boots on the ground to overpower Russia and to impose their own version of justice. However everyone knows European countries aren't going to deploy boots on the ground to fight Russians. The US isn't going to do so either. No one has any real appetite for it.
ShootmansNC@reddit
One of the many baffling, PR directed decisions from his administration.
But doesn't the decree specifically forbids Zelensky himself from negotiating while Putin is in charge? Z only has to resign (or be deposed) for it to be void.
Make-TFT-Fun-Again@reddit
Bruh their economy is imploding, cold war stocks are running out, they are facing massive boycotts, their projected power is waning, their arms sales have tanked, they experience 40% stagflation and 15% of their refineries are down at any given moment.
Burpees-King@reddit
Russia’s economy grew faster than the G7
“The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Russia to grow 3.2% this year, significantly more than the UK, France and Germany.”
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399.amp
BaguetteFetish@reddit
There's no intention of creating an incentive for Ukraine because Trump's administration doesn't want them to come to a deal, they want to be able to shut off support.
Once that's done, the slow and gradual Ukrainian defeat that was happening under Biden becomes a much quicker affair.
ZhouDa@reddit
Ukraine wasn't losing under Biden. It was a stalemate with attrition favoring Ukraine winning in the long run. Now that's no longer the case, and I'm sure we will find out it was Trump giving Russia intel that changed the course of the war more than cutting off aid did.
BaguetteFetish@reddit
Attrition going so well their country was bombed to rubble, their conscription requirements ever dropping, men being kidnapped in vans to die on the frontline and vastly underrepresented casualty numbers.
And war of attrition? I remember when the narrative was a glorious summer counteroffensive to reclaim territory, when did that change to suddenly winning by attrition?
Or were they winning by attrition in the huge casualties taken in the disorganized retreats from avdiivka, bakhmut and velyka novosilivska. Were those actually glorious victories where they killed 10 Russians for every 1 Ukrainian?
Or are you perhaps referring to the total collapse and depletion of Russian stockpiles and the Russian economy which is any day now.
ZhouDa@reddit
Rubble is an exagerration, and Russia is losing oil refineries, oil depots, manufacturing plants, etc. through drone attacks over the past six months, basically the basis of their entire economy is imploding.
And Russia was forced to beg North Korea for cannon fodder who are all but useless on a modern battlefield. And the money has dried up for Russia vaunted bonuses that keeping their supply of fresh troops coming in. Why would anyone enlist to fight for Russia if they aren't getting paid anymore?
Ukrainians soldiers are fighting to survive and their casualty numbers reflect that strategy, whereas Russian troops are thrown away with no regard for human life, leading to roughly 3x times as many Russian casualties.
That's just wishful thinking on your part tankie.
Yes war of attrition.
You mean the counter-offensive that US and Western allies pushed on Ukraine to start early before they got all the aid they were promised and forced Ukraine to end because the US cut off aid for six months? Regardless Ukraine did claim several hundred square kilometers from that counter-offensive through the most fortified part of Russia's lines, on top of 10K+ square kilometers Ukraine took back from Kherson and Kharkiv. At it's peak Russia controlled 27% of Ukraine, now they control 19% of Ukraine, in a war that Russia expected to last a week or two.
When Russia's supply lines and economy became more wide open than their defensive lines. Ultimately it's how every asymmetrical war ends up like this. Sooner or later Russia will be forced to leave Ukraine when they can no longer continue or are unwilling to burden the costs, just like the Soviet Union/US/Great Britain were forced to leave Afghanistan, or how US left Vietnam, etc.
Already covered it as due to the effects of US cutting off aid during a counter-offensive. Also a majority of Ukrainian troops were able to escape the enclosure, it was bad but ~1,500 casualties isn't enough to change the outcome of the war when you have 600K+ troops. Bakhmut saw more Russian casualties than Ukrainian ones, and only when that started to change at the end was the place finally abandoned. Velyka N. was a minor village, not really helping your case if that's your most impressive victory before Trump backstabbed Ukraine.
Russian troops were literally using mules to maintain their supply lines in some parts of Donbas, if you don't believe the detailed satellite photo analysis of Russia's stockpiles that maybe will last another year at most, then believe the very obvious signs of Russian logistic issues that were only getting worse as time went on. But sure, go trade your currency for rubles if you the Russian economy is doing so hot right now...
Burpees-King@reddit
Lmao are your points are either flat out wrong, or just an exaggeration.
Keep being delusional though
Pklnt@reddit
They were literally losing, people need to stop with the cope take that Biden was actually making sure Ukraine could win, he wasn't.
Russia would have won under Biden at a much higher cost, that's the only difference.
mycargo160@reddit
Sweden and Finland joining NATO was the moment Russia lost the war. They could take all of Ukraine and Moldova and they still lose the war.
Pklnt@reddit
That's not how it works.
ZhouDa@reddit
Yeah that's bullshit. Russia was hardly gaining any ground and their economy was imploding and exploding from drone attacks. while their stockpiles were drying up and they lost over 850K troops. If Russia pulls off a win in Ukraine now, they will 100% owe that to Trump's election.
Not sure why so many people are deluding themselves in thinking Russia was going to win this one without a divided NATO that Trump created.
Pklnt@reddit
Russia was gaining more land since Kursk than before, they were not hardly gaining any ground.
And it's always funny hearing that Russia's economy is imploding and on the brink of collapse but if somehow they win in Ukraine, Europe is next.
ZhouDa@reddit
It would still take them 50-100 years to annex Ukraine at the rate they will gaining ground. They can't sustain the war though at a fraction of that rate. And when was the last major settlement Russia has taken since Aavdiivka for that matter?
What they won exactly? They've lost nearly a third of the territory they had at their peak and are losing men and material at an alarming rate. Also economic implosion and attrition is a slow burn effect, there are plenty of examples of countries facing financial ruin that are still doing well on the battlefield until suddenly they can't anymore. Think Germany in WW1 for a good example of this, or Russia in the Crimean war.
If Europe kicks up their support in Ukraine to make up for America's betrayal they probably won't be. But if Europe remains complacent and thinks that what they were doing up until now was enough then they well then they are going to pay more to stop Russia later.
Mystery-110@reddit
That's not a good argument.
Russia is literally breaking Ukraine's last line of defense right now. After it falls it'll take just few months to capture anything east of Dnipro except Eastern Kyiv & Kharkiv(which will be encircled and under a siege)
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
I assume you're referring to the string of fortified cities from Kostiantynivka to Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. While a Russian seizure of Chasiv Yar is probably inevitable and will threaten to unhinge this line, it will take Russian forces significant time (likely 6+ months) to fully capture it.
Probably unlikely, given that Russia (and Ukraine) lacks the ability to reintroduce maneuver warfare to the battlefield. The ubiquity of drones and the increasing efficiency of AI-powered sensors on both sides has "informationized" the battlespace to the degree that neither side can achieve surprise or mass sufficent forces to exploit breakthroughs. This is why Russian attacks mostly consist of small groups of dismounted infantry. Anything larger or more mechanized than that is detected before it even moves, causing larger and/or mechanized attacks to lack surprise and get bogged down in costly attritional fighting.
It is about as unlikely that a lack of fortifications will change this dynamic as it would have been to assume that a lack of trenches would've restored maneuver to the Western front in 1916, because regardless of the trench systems, the ubiquity of machine guns would compel both sides to return to trench warfare anyway.
ZhouDa@reddit
Yeah because of Trump's betrayal (which I'm sure goes further than we know and involves feeding Russia intel). Talking about what is happening in the last month because of Trump isn't a good argument towards the state of the war under Biden, which is the only outcome I was discussing.
I've heard that argument numerous times about fallen settlements before though, and every time Ukraine has been able to regroup and put up another barrier. Maybe this time will be different, but I'm skeptical it will be. It will probably depend on how long it takes Europe to replace Starlink.
Mystery-110@reddit
These major lines of defence were built over several years after 2014 war. Ukraine won't be able to build another major line of defense in a short time. Now it'll have to rely on natural defense like rivers etc.
PreviousCurrentThing@reddit
How are people still not getting that Russia's strategy since the withdraw from Kyiv has not been to gain territory, but to destroy the combat capability of the AFU?
If this war continues at its current pace, the AFU won't have any men in five years. The movement of the frontline doesn't matter all that much.
ZhouDa@reddit
Well they failed at that then too. AFU is far more combat capable than they were at the beginning of the war when they had maybe gotten a $1 billion in aid from the US over the last decade mostly to fight a guerilla war. If Ukraine had the forces they do now at the beginning of the war they would have won by now, and it was only Russia ability to escalate their own force deployment and pulling in a lot more soldiers that they were able to keep up.
That's a ludicrous prediction. The scale of the war is not something where either side are going to run out of an available pool of men. To give you an idea of how big that pool can be, realize that Ukraine lost ten million men in WW2, whereas the war in Ukraine you are looking at deaths in the tens of thousands and casualties in the hundreds of thousands (and for Russia of course both in the hundreds of thousands).
True, and neither does manpower pools. The war will be won or lost by material and economics.
Pklnt@reddit
If your argument is that Russia couldn't conquer all of Ukraine, sure, but that's not what I was implying.
I'm implying Russia is winning in the sense that they'll be the ones to keep the territories they've conquered and since no one wants to deal with Russia directly they would have also be the ones that would have held most of the cards for a post-war Ukraine (NATO, EU deals etc).
ZhouDa@reddit
Keep is strong word when Russia can't maintain the security of those regions and Ukraine will never give up trying to recover those regions. In other words they will always be economic sinks for the Russian economy requiring enormous expenditures to protect that will eventually overwhelm the Russian economy just like Afghanistan did the Soviet Union.
There won't be a deal so it cards don't matter until Russia runs out of them and are forced to finally compromise. As I said, Ukraine knows this is an existential fight for their survival and so will never surrender. Putin thinking he's in a superior position will just ensure he will never offer a Ukraine a real way out and thus will keep Ukraine fighting. I actually think Putin would be worried about there being a peace as it would mean the consequences of his war would likely catch up to him.
Also as an aside I think Europe would be willing to put troops on the ground, but only if they believed Ukraine was truly losing and not just the losing you are suggesting where they simply can't get back their territory. Macron has already discussed sending troops if Russia was to approach Kherson or Kyiv.
Pklnt@reddit
Ukraine tried that when they were in a much better position and it utterly failed.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
After mid-2023 neither side was going to win a conventional military victory in this war. Russia lost its chance to do so in the initial invasion, and although there was hope that the AFRF would suffer a theatre-level breakdown (like it did in late 2022 in Kharkiv) during the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023, that didn't happen.
The reality is that both sides lack the ability to restore maneuver warfare to the battlefield, which precludes them from destroying or defeating a large portion of the enemy military. The ubiquity of drones and other long-range sensors backed by AI has "informationized" the battlespace to the degree that neither side can (a) achieve surprise or (b) safely mass enough troops to exploit breakthroughs.
This is why Russian forces attack using small groups of dismounted infantry. Anything larger or more mechanized than that gets almost immediately detected and subsequently locked in highly destructive attiritional fighting, allowing only for gradual territorial gains at high cost.
The only thing that could change this dynamic is if Ukraine's air defenses dwindle to the point that the VKS can obtain lasting air superiority over Ukraine. Given how the VKS performed in the initial week of the war (the only time it was deployed at scale throughout Ukraine), unless something major has changed in how the VKS operates, I can't see even this scenario resulting in large-scale territorial gains for Russia and/or allowing Russia to inflict operational-level defeats on Ukrainian forces.
Pklnt@reddit
Was Russia en-route to march back in Kiev and enforce an Ukrainian capitulation? No.
Was Russia en-route to force Ukraine to lose territories that Russia is occupying? Yes.
new_name_who_dis_@reddit
They will have to concede by allowing some of the Trump administration members to suck their dicks. Gay sex is illegal in Russia so it's a big concession for some of them.
Apart_Ad6994@reddit
Why would they disclose that info during an active negotiation?
Biuku@reddit
Ironic him saying that, given the only way to make this work is for Florida to cede territory to Canada. We will need breathing room for our people during winter. Peace is possible. Stop the dying.
Have you even said Thank You?
Hyndis@reddit
"You and what army" is the only thing that matters on the battlefield. The other guy has the bigger army? They decide what the terms are.
You don't like the terms? Try to find a bigger army. Can't find a bigger army? Then you're accepting the terms imposed.
Thats how wars work.
Biuku@reddit
I don’t hear a “Thank You”.
Hyndis@reddit
The bigger, victorious army will make the losing side say please and thank you as they're forced to sign an unconditional surrender.
Might makes right. Again, thats how wars work.
Biuku@reddit
Well, yes. In make-believe. In reality, the US can turn 250,000 Cambodian children into balls of fire and ash, but the full might of the British Empire couldn’t kill more than 10 Irish rebels without the world compelling its acquiescence, leading to the Republic.
The United States will lose because it is evil. You know it is evil. I know it is evil. The whole world today knows it is the greatest threat to freedom that exists today, save for the country that “cucked” the USA.
Canada will win because it is good. The whole world knows it is good. The majority of America knows it is good.
Canada is 40 million people willing to pay any price to survive evil. The United States is barely a country — 2 opposed groups that hate one another. It is an egg that will crack if not handled with gloves.
Armedfist@reddit
It is not up to the president to cede territory. Bylaw it has to be passed by the rada.
shoulda_been_gone@reddit
I think in fairness, whatever amount of territory Ukraine agrees to cede to Russia, the united states should cede an equal amount of territory in, say, Texas to Ukraine.
If the US doesn't want to do that, they just aren't interested in peace and only want to see people die.
Significant-Oil-8793@reddit
What should the US do that? Ukraine is fighting a proxy war and no one wants to put their boot on the ground. If anything Ukraine just weakens Russia for Europe and the US just for geopolitical reasons.
Ukraine will get billions instead but life or land loss could not be recouped. I wish that Ukraine could have be smarter and played both side for its own advantage but the sake of joining EU/NATO, Ukraine decided that they rather sacrificed hundred thousand of their people instead.
zhivago6@reddit
Ukraine is fighting a colonial war against an Imperialist aggressor, the Russians call it a proxy war in order to devalue the strength of their enemy and degrade their support. In your case at least, that propaganda was effective.
Ukraine chose democracy over Russian subjugation, and the only protection is nukes or NATO. This is the exact same situation Poland found itself in during the 1990's, that's why they blackmailed Bill Clinton, they told him it was nukes or NATO, and he chose NATO.
Instead of the current administration doing everything Russia wants and try to force Ukraine to surrender, a strong president would start the negotiations with Russia be telling them they were giving Ukraine nukes - on account of Russia breaking the previous agreements. That should be the start of the talks, and see what Russia offers to prevent that.
Significant-Oil-8793@reddit
Sure called it propaganda and bots of whatever you felt like. What ultimately is that EU/NATO are using it to weaken Russia. That's why there is no talk about cease-fire unless Russia needs to give back such territory to Ukraine, which is great but impossible.
Russian are slowly winning the attrition war and Ukraine are in no position to demand it all yet.
What you are instead suggesting are further escalation because Ukraine are losing. Even EU/US don't mentioned it as everyone are smart enough. Threaten to give Ukraine nukes and you pretty agree with Russia that Ukraine is a threat to their existence.
Russia going to give Belarus nukes and can give to Iran and NK.
Wishful thinking is really great when we are enjoying our lives elsewhere in the world.
zhivago6@reddit
Sorry to have to tell you this, but Iran and NK already have nukes. Belarus won't be trusted with nukes, so it doesn't matter if they are in the country or not, which they might be.
Russia is winning the war of attrition, but also so desperate that they needed tens of thousands of North Koreans to help them, which means they too are at their own breaking point. Remember that Germany was on the verge of default and bankruptcy when they invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Hitler was desperate to get a major war started because the debts his entire economic machine ran on were piling up. He blamed Chamberlain for outsmarting him and preventing war in the Munich treaty for rest of his life and aids said he was still bitching about it in the weeks before he shot himself.
There is no further escalation, Russia is committing weekly or daily war crimes against POW's and civilians. If Moscow could get nuked in a decapitation strike and end the war then the world would benefit and the Russians would have brought it upon themselves. The Russians do not want to all die, and if you think Putin is insane enough to launch an all encompassing attack and destroy the world, the majority of governments on planet Earth have made a different assessment. It is wishful thinking to assume a country that plays at nuclear blackmail and wins will not continue to blackmail the world next time they want to seize territory, which will be less than a decade.
BoysenberryNorth@reddit
Muh north Korean, God I love it whenever you guys use this as a sign of desperation. I guess Kursk is falling apart because of North Korean and Trump support, not because Ru still has massive reserves. And how would you guys even know if Ru beg for troop or North Korean just volunteer to send troop in exchange for experience, tech transfer, and more trade.
More advanced weapons/intelligence to the proxies, more tech trade with Iran and NK or even China. Im sure with you there are more ways Ru can fuck US up. And what with the war criminal part, do you just want to add it as ad hominem or something?
And they are still gonna play it, and most world leaders, unlike an average redditor, won't just call it a bluff and go full world war.
zhivago6@reddit
The US is currently doing a "most corrupted country" speed-run, so you can stop using Russian state media as your source. It's hilarious how you losers can't seem to comprehend you are being manipulated.
Responsible-Bar3956@reddit
good thing that leaders have some remaining common sense and aren't driven by emotions.
201-inch-rectum@reddit
sorry for your plight, but since when is the US responsible for Ukraine's defense when the EU is right there?
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Can you explain to me then why US didn't mind their business and sign on the Budapest memorandum? If you aren't interested in being the world's police then stay out of the affairs of the self defense of other countries.
201-inch-rectum@reddit
pretty sure Obama breached that agreement in 2013, which opened the floodgate for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2014
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
expose me but why does the US owe Ukraine anything at all, including what we've already given over the last few years?
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
Can you explain to me then why US didn't mind their business and sign on the Budapest memorandum? If you aren't interested in being the world's police then stay out of the affairs of the self defense of other countries.
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
here is what the US committed to in the Budapest memorandum:
Respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity or political independence.
Refrain from using economic pressure to influence Ukraine’s politics in a way that would subordinate it to another country’s interests.
Seek immediate UN Security Council action if Ukraine becomes a victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
Refrain from using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, unless Ukraine attacks the signatory first in alliance with a nuclear-armed state.
Consult with one another in the event that any of these commitments are called into question.
None of these commit the US to policing or enforcing the other signatories' adherence to the agreement.
Wayoutofthewayof@reddit
That's not my point. What business does the US have in meddling in security affairs of other countries, but then you are shocked that people feel like the US has an obligation to intervene in the security affairs now?
Why is the US against Ukraine developing nuclear weapons now if that's the only way to protect their territorial integrity without aid from the US?
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
at the collapse of the USSR, the judgment made at the time was that its a security risk for the entire world for more countries, such as ukraine, to have nukes. This is reasonable in general, but especially in a fledgling country in a time of transition and great uncertainty in a highly corrupt country, especially since there have been several verified cases of attempts by criminals to sell nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium in former Soviet Union states, and who knows how many instances of sales of nuclear material that were not detected.
In retrospect, some think that the consequences of Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons were worse than the risk of them keeping them. Of course, we don't know what would've happened if they did keep them, maybe it would be a better situation and maybe not.
But in any case, there are definitely risks in a wider distribution of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, and so that's why the US, the UK, and Russia all believed that it would be better for their own security and for global security for Ukraine not to have nuclear weapons.
trustmebro5@reddit
Why would the US be obligated to do anything remotely similar to what you are suggesting?
dosumthinboutthebots@reddit
Rubio Is a Coward and idiot just like the rest of the loon bins who hate america and the west. Just because he pretends to be against trump every now and then doesn't mean he's not complicit in the complete betrayal of everything America is or the deliberate undermining of it.
JConRed@reddit
The USA should deal with their internal struggles before they try to play at the big boys table.
Radiant-Ad-4853@reddit
The slava crowd needs to realise that unless they are going to fill Ukrainian depleted army all they are doing is talk . Ukraine can not replace its men period .
loggy_sci@reddit
This “if you’re not willing to enlist for Ukraine you don’t truly care about it” is such bullshit lol
KHRZ@reddit
And so Britain, France, Denmark, Turkey and your own country Australia are willing to send peace keeping forces to Ukraine. This is your chance to be usefull.
kirime@reddit
They are only willing to send troops after the negotiations are concluded, the war ends, and a new border is in place.
Not a single country even floats the idea of sending troops to actually fight there.
Radiant-Ad-4853@reddit
If you are not texting this from an Ukrainian trench you have nothing . I don’t want Australia to send Ukraine anything .
KHRZ@reddit
If you don't sit in the Australian government, you got nothing. They want to go with the intelligent policy of aiding their allies.
eeeking@reddit
This is an ignorant proposal.
Prior to 2014 Ukraine was already in effect a "demilitarized buffer zone" between Russia and NATO. And Russia invaded.
After 2014, Ukraine effectively conceded Crimea, as well as large chunks of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia invaded even further in 2022.
For Ukraine to give further territorial concessions would simply prolong this "salami" tactic by Russia.
mattenthehat@reddit
Classic trump administration procedure of denying something before doing it. I give it 2-4 weeks before this changes to "considering providing Russia with specific intelligence to protect their non-combat troops" or something.
yogopig@reddit
Insane they even have to deny it
Current-Wealth-756@reddit
i'll take that bet
Financial-Chicken843@reddit
Territorial expansion through aggression is back on the cardss boiz!!!
juliocezarmari@reddit
USA must cede Alaska to Putin- Nevermind, might give Trump another bad idea.
NearABE@reddit
Give them a nice sand spit in the Sea of Azov.
Just for environmental reasons a moratorium on oil or gas extraction is ideal for everyone. Maybe 40 years? Russia should agree to keep the price of gas high so that the energy transition in Europe continues. The gas revenue should pay for photovoltaics in both Russia and Ukraine.
Kumimono@reddit
*any peace deal negotiated between Putin and Trump
SomeDumRedditor@reddit
Well you can’t exactly run an administration planning for territorial expansion without legitimizing land-grabs elsewhere, now can you?
The entire selling point, if there ever was one, to post-CW Pax Americana was one big bully keeping wars for territory in-check. Of course in practice there’s Swiss cheese level holes in that plan (one about the size of Africa) but, any “rules based order” is objectively superior to “might makes right.”
Oh well, I guess it was inevitable really. It’s not like the Cold War was about two altruistic empires with differing ideas helping out. See y’all at WWIII, the warcrime memes are gonna be lit.
MrMikeJJ@reddit
Okay, cede Florida to Russia.
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
Sorry empleadoEstatalBot,
I can't seem to open this link =(
I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.