That's how Ukrainian "peace talks" always go after the failed Istanbul talks in 2022, it's just PR stunts and charity collecting events.
Zelensky had even signed a law back in 2022 making it illegal to negotiate with Russia, they'd have to repeal it first to engage in any actual talks.
TBH Russia is not willing to negotiate and their demands regarding disarmament and lack of security guarantees in Turkey were so exagerraded it was not even funny
from u/crusadertank
What was agreed
Ukraine, while being allowed to pursue European Union membership, wouldn’t be allowed to join military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
No foreign weapons would be allowed on Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine’s military would be limited down to a specific size.
The Crimean Peninsula, already occupied by Russia, would remain under Moscow’s influence and not be considered neutral.
Russia would give up the territory it captured since the 2022 invasion
The treaty was to be guaranteed by foreign powers,
What was not agreed
How much the Ukrainian military would be limited.
How the guarantors would react. Russia wanted all guarantors to respond directly to the breaking of Ukrainian neutrality. Ukraine wanted only it's airspace to be closed by the guarantors.
Moscow also pushed for the Russian language to operate on an equal basis with Ukrainian in government and courts, a clause Kyiv hadn’t signed off on
The future of the area of eastern Ukraine covertly invaded and occupied by Russia in 2014, wasn’t included in the draft.leaving it up to Putin and Zelensky to complete in face-to-face talks
So much of this was already agreed upon. Only some specific details were missing and progress was being made on them.
In general the head of Ukrainian negotiations even said that for Russia the neutrality was the only important topic. Everything else they were willing to give ground on.
You present it like some small detail but "It was not agreed on how much Ukrainian military would be cut" is quite a crucial thing tho. Search what Russia demanded, basically disarmament and no security guarantees. I wonder why.
Because that military was used to commit ethnic cleansing and there was a planned long range artillery invasion deep into native Russian territory with USA's support?
It still is. You get news all the time about USA crying to Ukraine "stop wanting to invade deep into Russia" and then there were all those ukrainians and nato troops larping as Russian separatists doing terrorism in Belgorod. And if they weren't planning invading Russia why would they be amassing long range artillery that can shoot across the entire Donbass straight into Russia? They didn't make it a secret. Hell all the news of "Russia isn't going to invade" was in response to this planned invasion, they were actually saying "Russia isn't going invade in retaliation to this amassing of long range artillery"
There are no NATO troops in Russia what are you talking about?
RN they are at war with Russia so ofc they do offensive actions. But saying that Ukraine wanted to invade Russia for land before the war started is just asinine.
Ukraine was also famously provided with a notable amount of long range artillery only after Russia invaded. You are just making stuff up
> Because that military was used to commit ethnic cleansing and there was a planned long range artillery invasion deep into native Russian territory with USA's support?
Do you have any sources for these baseless claims?
That is not what providing a source is...
Provide me an actual press release or something credible from the foreign ministry that says what you said.
For example:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-russia-falsely-blames-ukraine-for-starting-war/a-60999948
Both the OSCE and the ICJ found no evidence of russias claims of genocide commited by ukraine.
That's generally how it's done when you lose a war, yes. Japan was limited *immensely* following WW2, iirc they were initially only allowed 15,000 troops, which as time has gone on the restrictions have lifted. So was Germany.
And do you think it matters to the EU?
We are only interested in making Russia not being able to invade further. Moldavia, Georgia, Chechenya, Crimea, Ukraine, 40 years of occupation of Central Europe I think that's enough.
I really don't care what the EU does. It's entirely their prerogative since...ya know... Russia is at their doorstep if it wants to be.
The EU *should* be funding Ukraine if that's what it sees fit, but that's not really the case now is it?
Much like the US funding NATO's defense budget with a blank check so Europe can rest on its laurels and not contribute shit...the US now has to fund both to defend against a country thats not a direct threat.
I'm sick of feeling like a second class citizen in my own country to Europeans and Ukrainians I dont know or care about.
If y'all want war with Russia, go for it, the us should stay the hell out of it and maybe make it's own citizens a priority for once.
We specifically fund Ukraine because we don't want war with Russia and US does too. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
> The EU *should* be funding Ukraine if that's what it sees fit, but that's not really the case now is it?
But it is. Entirety of Central Europe heavely supports Ukraine. Baltics too, way above their weight. Most of Ukrainian equipement is serviced in Poland. UK does fund Ukraine too
The thing is most EU states are opening their factories since just a year. Also the fact that Germant believed Russia will gladly offer peace (a sensible one too) and were stalling everything did not help.
There is nothing I don't understand. The US is pulling the weight and every other country gets to say "I'm helping!" While contributing nothing that makes any meaningful impact. If the US pulls out, Ukraine crumbles tomorrow, and if that's the case it should crumble.
With what we've invested into a corrupt, Nazi state we could have solved homelessness and hunger in the US, several times over. Again, we are treated like second class citizens of our own country to fund a country that's known to be corrupt and known to have a massive neo Nazi problem. It's sickening.
The EU should be solely responsible. It's their fight, Russia and the US aren't the mortal enemies they once were during the cold war that everyone tries so desperately to make it seem like. Russia *doesn't care* about the US and they'd care even less if we quit funding Ukraine. They aren't our enemy....they are YOURS.
And are you voting for people that want to create a proper, collective welfare and healthcare infrastructure?
> They aren't our enemy....
I think you need to learn more about international politics
> Nazi state
Lol. Show me where Ukraine follow doctrine of corporationism
They have entire brigades that fly Nazi flags and use Nazi insignias, with their troops tatted with swastikas.
We can try to memory hole it if you want but that's just disingenuous, brother.
Even if the entire EU was pulling its weight (the countries adjacent to Ukraine have, unsurprisingly, ramped up defence spending over the past couple of years; the others have been more reluctant), they'd likely struggle to manufacture enough ammo to outcompete Russia.
But if The West capitulated, Russia would likely demand the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts and the Republic of Crimea at a minimum. Either during negotiations or within a few years, it would likely go after Kharkiv, Myoklaiv and Odessa Oblasts as they have significant Russian minorities and it would use the "Russophones are in danger" excuse again. Once they'd been incorporated into Russia (along with Transnistria), Moldova would likely be their next target as it has a very small military and isn't part of either the EU or NATO (while trying to engineer the transformation of the rump of Ukraine into a clone of Belarus - nominally independent but in reality a Russian puppet - since he's stated numerous times he doesn't believe Ukraine should exist, and any notions of an independent Ukraine or a separate Ukrainian language and culture are entirely due to historic European meddling).
Given Putin wants everywhere with a significant Russian minority to be part of the Russian World, if the world stood by and took no action against annexing even more of Ukraine and Moldova, he'd likely reason nobody would do anything if he helped himself to the rest of Georgia and any other renegade former SSRs. If even that drew no military response from The West, would he be content or would he test NATO's resolve by trying his luck with the Baltic States?
Didn't German officials confirm that they used the Minsk agreements to set up Ukraine for a conflict instead of abiding by what would be a better alternative to war?
>Didn't German officials confirm that they used the Minsk agreements to set up Ukraine for a conflict instead of abiding by what would be a better alternative to war?
No they did not say that. PS they only thing that could really be agreed was the cooling of the front line.
Why do you think there are two Minsk treaties btw. Russia and DPR didn't honour the first one. They went to the offensive shortly after Ukraine pulled back thier military.
Neither side honoured the second one to completion. Ukraine was by all means closer to honoured thier parts simply because.
A key agreement was that Russia was to pull back its soldiers out of the country. Something they never did.
Yeah, Ukraine would have been retarded to agree to that. Basically, the whole negotiation was an attempt by Russia to cease the shitshow they ran head first in so they they can retry the same garbage a few years down the line.
Best litmus test to know whether someone is a dumbass or not is to see them try to frame Russia as an honest party to any type of negotiations when they not only broke their prior agreements with Ukraine, but also bald-facedly lied to everyone for months leading up to the invasion, claiming it was all fear mongering.
The only medicine for these types of right rogue states is force, and thankfully NATO stood their ground and didn't leave Ukraine to be fed to the wolves.
But Ukraine did agree to it?
The only discussion was that Russia wanted 85,000 troops and Ukraine wanted 250,000.
Considering that before 2014 the Ukrainian military was around 150,000 then it is not exactly anything crazy by either side and probably both would agree to something around this.
> Russia wanted 85k and Ukraine 250k
Yeah, such a small silly deatil, eh? XD
Poroshenko did not followed much of Mińsk but Załęski did. In fact, he campaigned specifically for that. Russia in exchange did nothing and only bought itself some time to invade later.
It is quite minor if Ukraines pre war military was 150k. Almost perfectly between these.
And especially these were negotiations. The Ukrainian chief negotiator said that Russia in principle would accept this.
> but Załęski did
He campaigned for it and then refused to do anything that he was supposed to do. He was supposed to arrange a meeting with the leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk first, which he refused to do.
> Russia in exchange did nothing
After Zelensky made his meeting and agreed on a referendum that all would agree on then Russia would ensure that the militants in East Ukraine would not resist the Ukrainian army. But Russia only were supposed to act after Ukraine did.
But Russia did not agreed to that. They specifically demanded way less. They also demanded handing over all long-range equipment like Toczkas and most of armour.
> He campaigned for it and then refused to do anything that he was supposed to do
He ordered a retreat to positions specified in Mińsk II. He also gave up military hostages. Russia in response fucking invaded xD
> He was supposed to arrange a meeting with the leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk first, which he refused to do.
Nothing like that was specified in Mińsk II. Russia was obligated to remove all their military equipment years ago.
> After Zelensky made his meeting and agreed on a referendum that all would agree on then Russia would ensure that the militants in East Ukraine would not resist the Ukrainian army.
Yeah, sure you know that Best what would Putin do.
Also, allegedly DNR and LPR were not controlled by Russian government, no?
BTW
"I don't know where your lawyer learned law to say that, in a sovereign country, legal texts are proposed by separatist groups and not by democratically elected authorities." - Macron talking with Putin a day after Invasion started once Putin accused him of not impleneting "offer" sent by DNR.
> But Russia did not agreed to that. They specifically demanded way less.
Yes it was some negotiations. But as the lead Ukrainian negotiator said, the Russians only cared about Ukraine not joining NATO. Anything else was only dressing.
So he said that the Russians were happy to agree to pretty much anything as long as Ukraine does not join NATO.
> He ordered a retreat to positions specified in Mińsk II. He also gave up military hostages. Russia in response fucking invaded xD
The withdrawal of troops was literally point 1 of the Minsk agreement. And was only done in 2021 partially. It was not even the full withdrawal of heavy equipment that was in the Minsk agreement.
Next he needed to meet with the heads of Donetsk and Luhansk. Which both Poroshenko and Zelensky refused to do.
Also the law they passed said that the referendum was under UN guidance. The Ukrainian law said it would be under Ukrainian guidance only.
Infact that law was completely against Minsk II and so only when Ukraine withdrew that law in January 2022 did the Normandy format happen to decide what will be next.
Because Ukraine did not fulful a single one of the Minsk conditions fully. Which their media happily talked about.
>Nothing like that was specified in Mińsk II. Russia was obligated to remove all their military equipment years ago.
Russia withdrew as a response to Ukraine doing it. But since Ukraine only withdrew partially then so did Russia from the border.
Also point 4 of the Minsk 2 agreement says
> On the first day after the pullout a dialogue is to start on modalities of conducting local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," and also about the future of these districts based on the above-mentioned law.
So after the withdrawal of heavy weapons, Ukraine is to start dialogue on elections in LDPR. But Zelensky never did this, even when both the heads of Donetsk and Luhansk agreeded to meet him.
>Also, allegedly DNR and LPR were not controlled by Russian government, no?
It just stated Russia would help Ukraine regain control over the border and disband all militant groups in the area. So Russia would stop any militants that cross the border basically.
> Macron talking with Putin a day after Invasion started once Putin accused him of not impleneting "offer" sent by DNR.
Macron is an idiot this is not a hard idea. If we followed his advice then the US is an illegal country and is actually still part of the UK.
Or that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are not legitimate countries since the USSRs elected government did not sign the document for these countries to leave.
But as Putin respinds to Macron,
> "They (The Ukrainian government) are not democratically elected," Putin retorts. "They came to power in a bloody coup. People were burned alive, it was a bloodbath. Zelenskyy is one of those responsible," adds the Russian president, referring to the burning of a building in Odessa in 2014 in which pro-Russian activists died.
How was Załeński responsible if he was not even a politician yet. Putin as always lies
> But as the lead Ukrainian negotiator said, the Russians only cared about Ukraine not joining NATO. Anything else was only dressing.
Yeah so they agreed on that. Yet Russia did not allowed for Ukraine to be able to defend itself. That's like the most crucial thing, not something minor. Ukraine was not joining NATO anyway FFS xd
> And was only done in 2021 partially. It was not even the full withdrawal of heavy equipment that was in the Minsk agreement.
Still quite a notable thing, no? Russia was supposed to withdraw too. There was not even partial withdrawal on their side. In fact, they moved forward.
> Because Ukraine did not fulful a single one of the Minsk conditions fully. Which their media happily talked about.
Like, IDK why are you surprised, it's not a secret. Yet they did a lot. Russia in return did not even partially implanted one thing. Like they failed to provide a ceasefire even, that's precisely why EU needed to interveen and we have Two Mińsk agreements.
> It just stated Russia would help Ukraine regain control over the border and disband all militant groups in the area. So Russia would stop any militants that cross the border basically.
Dude, the government of these states are not even in there but in Russia and real control is that of russian military. There are no elections, freedom of speech, but there were forced expulsions, ressetlements by Russians, forced labour and literal work camps. Russians turned Donieck into a pure extraction colony that operates on quasi-fascist basis xd
Oh BTW it does not matter anyway because it was annexed by Russia. Now it's a colony within Russia and it only proves "protection of Donbass Russians" was never the goal.
> How was Załeński responsible if he was not even a politician yet. Putin as always lies
As you said, Zelensky became president saying that he will follow the Minsk agreements. And then never did. If he didnt like them then why campaign saying that you will follow them?
> Yeah so they agreed on that. Yet Russia did not allowed for Ukraine to be able to defend itself.
Russia put in that if Ukraine were to break neutrality of be invaded then all of the guarantor countries would militarily support Ukraine.
Ukraine was allowed to be protected. Just was not allowed to be a threat to others.
> Ukraine was not joining NATO anyway
We know that now. [but at the time](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/) the US was saying out loud that Ukraine can join NATO. And Zelensky came out later and said that he was told to pretend to the world that Ukraine could join NATO.
> Still quite a notable thing, no? Russia was supposed to withdraw too. There was not even partial withdrawal on their side. In fact, they moved forward.
[Russia did withdraw troops](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2019/11/09/ukraine-and-russian-backed-rebels-begin-troop-withdrawal-in-eastern-regions) as a response to Ukraine doing it.
Seperatist troops and Ukrainian troops withdrew at the same time from the frontline and Russian troops pulled back from the border.
> Russia in return did not even partially implanted one thing. Like they failed to provide a ceasefire even,
Russia did try to provide a ceasefire. But those seperatist soldiers were not Russian and they had limited control over them. The same as the far right units in Ukraine also refused to follow the ceasefire.
but again. Russia was not supposed to do anything until Ukraine met its obligations. Which it never did.
> Dude, the government of these states are not even in there but in Russia
This is something so easily checked to be wrong. The governments of these areas were in the cities the whole time.
> There are no elections, freedom of speech, but there were forced expulsions, ressetlements by Russians, forced labour and literal work camps
Funnily enough all the stuff that came out in the recent US report about Ukraine. The list for Ukraine is longer though.
> Now it's a colony within Russia and it only proves "protection of Donbass independence" was never the goal.
Russia claimed to protect the people of Donbass not its independence?
All the way up until 2022 Russia claimed Donbass to be part of Ukraine. Just not under the illegitimate government.
>Russia claimed to protect the people of Donbass not its independence?
>All the way up until 2022 Russia claimed Donbass to be part of Ukraine. Just not under the illegitimate government.
Claimed doesn't mean anything when their actions shows that not the case.
>But Ukraine did agree to it?
>The only discussion was that Russia wanted 85,000 troops and Ukraine wanted 250,000.
So they didn't agree to it
>Considering that before 2014 the Ukrainian military was around 150,000
I wonder what happened around 2014 🤔. Considering Ukraine didn't even have 200k before the start of the invasion, and 85k is half of what it was prior to 2014, there is a logical reason why Ukraine would see this request for what it is, which is nothing less than a softening of the Ukrainain military for further geopolitical demands later.
>It was Ukraine that refused to follow the Minsk agreements
As did Russia and the LDPR, and so we all clearly know they were never going to be a lasting solution, and that was always by design. The only reason the Minsk agreements even came into effect was because Russia directly intervened when their propped up mafia republics were on the verge of collapse. Ukraine and NATO correctly called the agreements out for the charade that they were and got busy towards militarising Ukraine for potential further conflict instead of naively trusting Russia.
>Then why is NATO only sending the minimum possible to Ukraine
The minimum possible is $0, so they're obviously not sending the minimum possible. They send as much as they're comfortable sending. It's more so about the stance they take where they inflict real consequences on Russia for their actions. If Russia could get away with taking over Ukraine for low cost, they would, and the higher the cost for what they want, the better that reflects geopolitcally for us in the West.
>So they didn't agree to it
They agreed to limit their military. Negotiations were ongoing to how much it should be limited.
> I wonder what happened around 2014
Ukraine went to war? And if they were not at war then they would logically return to peace time numbers?
Russia only asked for 85k as their starting position and Ukraine 250k. That is the point of negotiations. To find a common middle ground. And considering the middle ground is literally Ukrainian peace time numbers, I dont think that is a hard point of debate.
> As did Russia and the LDPR
Russia were supposed to act only after the president of Ukraine met with the leader of Luhansk and Donetsk. He never did and so nobody else did anything. Although of course ceasefire breaking was common between both sides I agree. But the whole thing was waiting on the Ukrainian president.
> Ukraine and NATO correctly called the agreements out for the charade that they were and got busy towards militarising Ukraine for potential further conflict instead of naively trusting Russia.
Ukraine and NATO lied because they thought Russia would lie? Talk about projection I guess.
> The minimum possible is $0, so they're obviously not sending the minimum possible
The minimum possible to make it look as if they are doing something. If they wanted to end the war they are more than capable to do so. But they dont want the war to end.
The US has 2500 Bradleys in storage. They gave Ukraine less than 200. That shows the level of commitment that they have.
> the better that reflects geopolitcally for us in the West.
The west wants Russians to die. Not Ukraine to win. This I completely agree with.
Well sure but my point was that if you are in a war then you want more troops. When the war ends then you reduce your army back to around what you are at when you are not at a war.
> Makes you wonder how would things develop if they had more numerous army back then
Probably worse. Ukraines army was heavily underfunded and unmotivated. That is why most just didnt even bother to fight.
Not if there's a good risk of your aggressive, expansionist neighbor who has already invaded you recently and multiple times throughout history coming back again. The same neighbor who is demanding you make your army tiny and forbids you from having any alliances? What suicidal nation would agree to those terms?
And again. Ukraine did agree. And Ukraine was not forbid from having nations agree to protect it, infact Russia encouraged this. The only requirement was Ukraine had to remain neutral militarily.
So NATO could protect Ukraine. Ukraine was allowed to join the EU that has a defence treaty.
Just Ukraine was not allowed to become an integral part of NATO.
The Ukrianian military was to be limited to peace time numbers.
And I guess no NATO was not to protect Ukriane.
Just the EU+US+UK+China+Turkey+Belarus if Russia invaded them .
Except those "peace time numbers: you're touting are half of their pre-war army. So, it's actually less than peace time.
And you expect them to accept some vague "guarantees" when Russia, the US, and China had already guaranteed their territorial integrity before this conflict? Why would any sane leader agree to such demands when it has led to this?
They were negotiations. You act as if countries just make a claim and stick with it forever.
The idea of negotiations is you make a claim and work towards something both sides find acceptable.
Ukraine and Russia both were happy with a limited Ukrianian military. The negotiations were to see how limited.
>guaranteed their territorial integrity before this conflict?
It is different. That guarantee was that they would respect Ukraines territorial integrity. There was nothing about protecting Ukraine.
This one was about those countries specifically would be requited to go and help Ukraine if invaded. Effectively a defence treaty with all the guarantors.
>Why would any sane leader agree to such demands
Except Ukriane were happy with the points until they were told if they fight on they will get even more
"They were told if they fight they would get more."
They were invaded by Russia three times in a decade, and the last one had Zelensky trying to call Putin on the eve of the invasion begging him to make a deal and call off the attack, yet Putin refused to take his call. It's a blatant lie and flat out Russian disinformation to act like anyone other than the Russian Federation was responsible for this war happening. Ukraine did not want a war with Russia.
The only source for your information is "Zelensky said so" there is nothing else that confirms it.
But anyway let me restate. There could have been peace. Ukraine in the EU. Protected by all the major powers. All land except Crimea returned.
And Ukraine refused it because the west said if they fight more they will get Crimea too.
How many thousands have died for this? How many thousands more will die for this?
I am not going to defend Putin because I don't like him. But Zelensky is by far the biggest opponent of the Ukrianian people currently.
With a straight face, you're going to claim that Zelensky is a bigger opponent to Ukrainians than Vladimir Putin? A man who said their language, culture, and identity aren't real? That they belong to Russia? That they're nazis? The man who has been bombing then, torturing them, and raping them for the past two years?
What a sick joke.
Are you with a straight face going to pretend that all those Ukrainians in the east are not real Ukrainians?
Those who were killed and murdered by the Ukrainian far right because they want to be close with Russia. Do you just want to forget all of them exist just because you dont agree with them?
Again, I dont like Putin. But there was a chance to end the fighting and deaths. Zelensky refused it. How many people are dying because he wanted fame and fortune?
What you're saying is a flat out lie. Russians terms for not invading Ukraine (even though they swore they weren't going to and all the accusations were Russophobia) included NATO returning to its 1997 borders, which
A.) Zelensky had no control over, and
B.)was never going to happen because NATO isn't going to abandon half of its members to Putin's imperial ambitions.
The unmarked Russian soldiers and their local allies (who were also killing Ukrainian civilians who didn't support them btw) deserved their deaths for starting a violent conflict in Ukraine to gain Putin more land.
> included NATO returning to its 1997 borders
You will have to give a source for that one. Because all articles never link the source or state an "anonymous source"
Putin was always clear that Ukraine in NATO was too far. But everything else he was fine with.
>deserved their deaths
Nothing more to really be said after that
I do care about Ukrainian lives. I don't give a damn about Russian invaders, their useful idiots, and their paid agents.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/
They specifically mentioned it in a proposal they sent to the US.
I asked for the original but dont worry I found it. It has 8 points
1. In the first article, Moscow proposes that the U.S. agree to act on the basis of the principles of indivisible and equal security and non-damage to each other's security, for which it proposes to make mutual commitments not to take actions or carry out activities that affect the security of the other side.
1. The parties should not use the territory of other states to prepare or carry out an armed attack against Russia or the United States.
1. The U.S. must commit to exclude further eastward expansion of NATO and refuse to accept former Soviet states into the alliance. This requirement applies at least to Ukraine and Georgia, which constantly speak of their aspirations to become members of the alliance.
1. The United States should not establish military bases on the territory of States that were formerly part of the USSR and are not members of NATO, nor should it use their infrastructure for any military activities, nor should it develop bilateral military co-operation with them.
1. Russia also proposes to mutually refrain from deploying armed forces and weapons, including within the framework of international organisations, military alliances or coalitions, in areas where such deployment would be perceived by the other side as a threat to its national security, as well as to refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear weapons and from locating surface warships of all classes in areas outside national airspace and outside national territorial waters from which they could be struck.
1. Russia has also proposed a return to the principle of refraining from the deployment of land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside national territory.
1. Moscow also considers it necessary to exclude the deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territory
Please tell me which of these 8 points are "NATO returning to its 1997 borders,"
The only one that I can see that is even close is that both Russia and NATO should refrain from deploying troops where it can be seen as a threat to the other. Which is very different from what you are trying to claim.
> I do care about Ukrainian lives. I don't give a damn about Russian invaders, their useful idiots, and their paid agents.
People you dont agree with deserve to die is what you are saying. I mean come on that is worse than anything Putin has said.
People who are waging violent armed conflict to seize land for Russia do deserve to die. Disagreeing is not the issue here. I certainly didn't say you deserve to die even though we obviously disagree. Nice strawman though.
Putin said Poland was at fault for Hitler invading when he was justifying his own invasion of Ukraine to Tucker Carlson. He literally compared himself positively to Hitler. This was in the middle of an hour long rant about how Ukraine real and didn't deserve to exist. I'm confident that everything I've said in my life is not worse than what the sick old fascist has to say.
> Putin said Poland was at fault for Hitler invading when he was justifying his own invasion of Ukraine
So you are caught lying about one point you move on to another.
Lets look at what he said
> Why did the war start with Poland on 1 September 1939? Poland was uncooperative. Hitler had nothing left to do when realising his plans than to start with Poland.
He said that the war started because Poland refused the German demands. That is it. Not saying Poland is bad or criticising them. Just saying that Germany invaded because Poland refused their demands.
Is that something you disagree with?
> People who are waging violent armed conflict to seize land for Russia do deserve to die. Disagreeing is not the issue here. I certainly didn't say you deserve to die even though we obviously disagree. Nice strawman though.
I am saying anyone you disagree with because the Ukrainian army has killed many who have not taken any part in a violent uprising.
I just spoke about the Ukrainians in East Ukraine who are being killed by the Ukrainian army and you said they all deserved to die. I didnt say anything about militants.
I was speaking about the protests that were violently put down. things like the Odessa trade union fire. People who simply did not want their elected government overthrown and were killed for it.
He was making an allegory for his invasion of Ukraine. Saying that Poland refused to negotiate is implying they were at fault. Nothing I said was a lie.
Civilians in Eastern Ukraine killed in collateral damage were unfortunate, and they were killed by both sides. While there may have been some instances of war crimes committed by militias, it wasn't Ukrainian government policy to kill civilians in the Donbass. It has, however, been Russian policy to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, and to put Ukrainians through filtration camps where those who are opposed to Russia have been tortured and/or executed.
Ukrainians opposed to Russia were also detained or disappeared in Crimea and the Donbass when they were initially invaded. In Odessa, FSB operatives and their local lackeys tried to replicate the seizures of Donestsk and Luhansk and exchanged gunfire with Ukrainians, killing two Ukrainians while losing a number of their own. The Ukrainians ended up fire bombing the building resulting in dozens of deaths. They were militants, and I stand by what I said. They deserve what they got for starting a violent uprising to seize land for Putin. I only wish that those who violently seized power in the Donbass and Crimea had met similar fates.
> He was making an allegory for his invasion of Ukraine. Saying that Poland refused to negotiate is implying they were at fault. Nothing I said was a lie.
No he was not. He was explaining how Poland took parts of many different countries, one of which ended up being part of Ukraine now.
Putin does not imply something, he very openly states what he wants to convey. Just because you believe in something it doesnt make it true.
He is not saying that it is Polands fault for the war starting. He is saying that Poland refusing to negotiate is what made the war start specifically on that date and not a different one.
> it wasn't Ukrainian government policy to kill civilians in the Donbass
You know it was the Ukrainian government who both created and sent those far right militias to the East right?
You cant claim that they created the killers. Sent them to do the killing. And then pretend they dont know anything about it.
Lets look at [Azov](https://web.archive.org/web/20140529000045/http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/dobrovoltsi_nadegda_ukraini_i_armii_misli_pro_azov_1635465)
> The Azov Battalion is a volunteer unit. According to documents, it is a special company of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the city of Mariupol. The main task is to fight saboteurs and terrorists on the territory of Donetsk region in the Azov region: Mariupol-Berdyansk.
It literally states they are part of the Ukrainian government whos job is to do that. How can you state they had no involvement?
> It has, however, been Russian policy to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine
That is the same as any major military? They dont target it anywhere near as much as the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia for example
> and to put Ukrainians through filtration camps where those who are opposed to Russia have been tortured and/or executed
filtration camps are typical in any war. Or do you just want to let anybody into civilian centres from a warzone with no checks?
But yes the torturing is bad. But is also on both sides of this.
> I only wish that those who violently seized power in the Donbass and Crimea had met similar fates.
How many Ukrainians have died as a result of Maidan? Do you also wish the deaths of all of those in the Ukrainian government who took part in it? Should we speak about the American politicians at Maidan? Should they all die too since they are responsible for death, torture and a violent uprising?
If your country got overtaken by a far right coup would you just accept it and wish death to anyone who tried to resist it?
These are totally not nato troops and not nato nuclear rockets. See, they follow Ukraine chain of command. Who gets orders and battle plans from the Pentagon. Totally independent honest native Ukrainian soldiers.
Thats been Russia's goal the entire time. They want Ukraine as a submissive, toothless vassal state, just like how Belarus is.
Russia has zero interest in attacking Belarus because they already control it indirectly. This option of capitulation does save a lot of lives and prevents cities from being leveled, at the cost of freedom.
Is it the best option? I don't know, thats up to the people of Ukraine to make a decision. But its an option.
Yeah, because the Russians were gonna come back in another 5 years once they were properly ready and they didn't want Ukraine to have any friends when they did.
Why, they would have gotten what they needed. Why break a deal that already works for you? And these war ending treating are a little more serious than random non-binding unratified memos.
>Why, they would have gotten what they needed
Russia has for a long to pushed the idea of NovoRussia. They wanted the coastline all the way to Moldova.
This wasn't everything they wanted. They wanted more why do you think they went to Kherson and Kiev.
So they decided that they would take more in smaller bits instead.
They went to Kherson and Kiev to pressure Ukraine into concessions. Their force could never secure the territory you're envisioning, and still can't. A huge frontline, and much of it on the wrong side of the river. Notice that they offered to leave Kiev/Kherson/Zapo/Kharkiv right from the start, which is kind of a silly thing to do if you're looking to achieve what you're talking about.
> Russia has for a long to pushed the idea of NovoRussia.
Who exactly pushed it, aside from rando ultra-nationalists who have largely been killed by the FSB or imprisoned?
Considering it was pushed by RT in 2014 i would very much disagree.
>They went to Kherson and Kiev to pressure Ukraine into concessions described above. Their force could never secure the territory you're envisioning, and still can't. A huge frontline, and much of it on the wrong side of the river.
You seem to very much miss why the initial invasion didn't go exactly as planned.
They never expected major opposition to begin with. Their intelligence pushed the idea that Ukrainian people disliked thier government more than what they did and that they liked Russia more than they did.
There are reasons why a lot of higher intelligence offices were sacked after things went south. Especially the main one involved with Ukraine..
Its not the first time intelligence services are wrong either.
Just look at the evacuation of Afghanistan. Intelligence community thought it would hold atleast a half year more.
Thier terms are a practical surrender especially if we go by what Russia demanded.
You would also have go take Russia word on actually pulling back forces.
An agreement that also sets no limits on Russia and also for some reasons include removing everything that would stop another invasion in a couple of years.
That is the whole guarantor part of the discussions.
The US,UK,France, China and Russia were to ensure Ukraines neutrality. Ukraine also wanted Turkey involved and Russia wanted Belarus.
And the idea was that if Ukraine ever broke this neutrality then all of them would be considered obligated to defend Ukraines position.
Russia wanted them to be actively involved but Ukraine wanted only their airspace to be closed by these guarantors.
So actually if agreed then it would mean if Russia invaded Ukraine again then the US,UK,France, China, Turkey and Belarus would all be obliged to assist Ukraine militarily.
>So actually if agreed then it would mean if Russia invaded Ukraine again then the US,UK,France, China, Turkey and Belarus would all be obliged to assist Ukraine militarily.
We all know what reality would happen regarding China and Belarus. They wouldn't do shit why? because Russia means more.
Us uk, France send equipment but they aren't intrested in a direct attack against Russian forces even today. So why would they want to bind themselves to such agreement?
Why would China and Belarus ever do that? Are they expected to honour it?
Reality they won't.
>One of the problems with this point however is that the US and UK didnt want to be involved in this.
If anyone with half brain believe uk and us are piping aids to defend ukraine are naive. It was always about killing a snake without breaking your stick.
This, and maybe I’ve been living under a rock, but isn’t Russia the aggressor here? They could literally call the whole thing off unilaterally tomorrow. The fact that Switzerland is questioning their own neutrality in this conflict speaks volumes.
As far as I understand, they want 2 things:
1) Ukraine as a non-NATO country even if it's a EU member
2) To keep Crimea and for Ukraine to recognize Crimea as gone
And that's not something they will achieve if they just stop. If they leave the whole region, Ukraine will just join NATO as soon as it can, and this is exactly (apparently) what they're against - in [the comment above](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/1cdifd2/comment/l1cc2mr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) they were OK with like half the NATO troops to be on the ground as guarantor of peace if that means Ukraine is not in NATO.
It was never about Ukraine joining NATO.
Otherwise Russia would have been upset about Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Russia wants to conquer territory, that’s all it is.
It WAS upset about Finland and Sweden joining nato. It was so upset that you made fun of them for it. But sweden doesn't share a border with Russia, and Finland's border is a frozen wasteland and they are historically reasonable enough to negotiate some kind of peace, and they don't threaten Russia's access to the mediterranean. Oh and Finland's border is way way far from any centers of industry or governance.
And remember NATO "radar bases" in Poland? Or were they not upset about those and just wanted Poland's territory? What is this reddit propaganda bots' obsession with territory? What would you even do with it? It's much cheaper to just buy the resources in the territory with money than pay for wars and occupying forces and all that shit. Look at France in Africa, it doesn't want African territory, but it sure as hell isn't leaving and has troops there until kicked out.
>Oh and Finland's border is way way far from any centers of industry or governance.
In many way though Finland is very close to one of thier biggest ice free navy bases with free ocean access.
Its also far closer to help cut off thier second biggest city in the country. The real heart land for Russia would be the Siberian oil deposits.
Russia doesn't have any good Mediterranean access there are two nato members in thier way.
If it's the arctic ocean Finland has only like the tip there, while Russia has tons of arctic naval bases all the way form Finland to Japan. Saint Petersburg for Baltic access was founded exactly for the reason of not having to rely on the Baltic countries and it's nicely safely far away.
Not good mediterranean access is way better than zero access. And without sea access Russia can't even interact with those two NATO countries. Now imagine a third NATO country suddenly lying down all the way across the entire beach saying "no can go anymore"
>Not good mediterranean access is way better than zero access.
In a real battle against nato it would be 0 Mediterranean accses. The straight access to med is held by Turkey and Greece. Russia had no way to the Mediterranean.
>it's the arctic ocean Finland has only like the tip there, while Russia has tons of arctic naval bases all the way form Finland to Japan.
Actually surprising few bases especially of any size and especially and the only one that don't freeze over 70% of the year is pretty close to Finland.
>Japan. Saint Petersburg for Baltic access was founded exactly for the reason of not having to rely on the Baltic countries and it's nicely safely far away.
Saint peterburg isn't far away at all? Also their baltic fleet won't do a single thing with the addition of Sweden and Finland.
You read too much Western news media.
Russia is not the 'orc' or 'inhuman' that they wanted you to think. They have interest and geopolitics games that the US, China or EU plays.
If anything this war opened up my eyes on how language and disinformation was played by both sides.
Look at the map once in a while and it becomes quite easy to see why Russia views Ukraine and Belarus a little differently than Finland and Sweden. A major invasion comes through there once a century or so.
States operate in an environment of pure anarchy, not “rights” are needed. If Mexico decided to pull a Ukriane, we would fucking flatten them - and they understand this.
You ommited the part where they wanted total disarmament of Ukraine, like handing over all their long-range armament, having some under 200 tanks and some 40 thousand soldiers
Now Ukraine is disarmed and has no security guarantees. What stops Russia from doing 2nd Chechen War but in Ukraine?
Russia also demanded that in the event of an attack, all guarantor states had to agree to activate the assistance mechanism. Which basically mean Russia could invade and veto and nobody would be allowed to help Ukraine by treaty.
Don't you think that's like absurdaly small for a country that size and under threat of invasion by allegedly 2nd world power?
They also demamnded to hand back all it's long range equipment and most of armour.
What are Chinese guarantees if China was not consulted?
And no forgein troops nor military system were allowed to station in Ukraine. That's like post-Sudetenland Czechoslovakia situation, just wait for Russia to break the truce
Why are you ignoring the us and UK guarantees? Because you said they were offered 0 guarantees.
And 85k is quite sizable, it's 4x the size of Finlands professional personell.
>And 85k is quite sizable,
When the other army has like 600k in your country currently. 80k is nothing, Russia initially invaded with over 200k.
>Why are you ignoring the us and UK guarantees?
Base you countries on guarantee that it know it won't get.
Us and UK don't want ro Fight Russia directly over Ukraine even now.
Russia has roughly 200k troops in and around Ukraine, not 600k. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/russia-ukraine-military-comparison-intl?cid=ios_app
No it has many more than that. It invaded with bit more than 200k. 2 years later they have increased the spoiler amount substantially.
That number needed to go up to counter the increasing Ukraine number.
Currently in the war they have over 500k in Ukraine.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024
470 is a long way from 600k, and it cites the UK MOD saying Russia is "likely" recruiting 30k a month, without any evidence, who is the same people saying Russia was attacking with shovels and that Russia was running out of artillery ammunition in October 2022. https://x.com/defencehq/status/1584784978327601152?s=46
600k in and around. PS i had already reduced that to 500k.
Your 200k was far worse.
>Russia was running out of artillery ammunition in October 2022.
It was at the rate it was firing then. In reality you don't really run out you decrease the rate of fire to supply.
Russia has since the war not going as planned quickly invested in military industry to increase production of artillery shells.
Something the west didn't do.
Why are you defending the people who invaded another country, started the bloodiest war since WWII on European soil, killed and raped and pillaged their way to occupying a sovereign state and is now making demands when their hubris didn't work out as expected and is trying to paint their counterpart as uncompromising as if they aren't the ones who could stop the war at any time?
It’s kinda dangerous to base your security on country half a world away, don’t you think? UK is also far away enough not to be directly threatened by Russia so they have little interest in giving such guarantees anyway. Even countries that are part of nato like Poland are ramping their security spending though it’s far more likely that us or uk would bother in case of being attacked.
Yeah, US and UK were also guaranting Ukrainian independence post 1989 alongside Russia. You see how lack of allied troops make the difference and why it's backbone of NATO? They offered 0 actuall guarantees that force parties involved to response.
How many people do live in Finland and how many people in Ukraine? XD
That other thread I saw, basically everything else was negotiable, they were Ok if Ukraine negotiated into having something akin to JDF or whatever is the name of Japanese' totally not an army.
>Now Ukraine is disarmed and has no security guarantees
Where did all the Polish, Turk, British and UK troops on the ground suddenly go?
Russia specifically did not agreed on any forgein troops nor armeament systems. Check u/ChaosDancer summary
Also, non of these countries were contacted if the are willing to do so
Are we reading the same link? Because it's the same link I posted before - they agreed that
>The treaty was to be guaranteed by foreign powers
However they had differences on
>How the guarantors would react. **Russia wanted all guarantors to respond directly to the breaking of Ukrainian neutrality**. Ukraine wanted only it's airspace to be closed by the guarantors.
This part is literally in the link you point me to. Like they were OK with direct response - even at the negotiation stage.
IDK what are you reading. "No forgein forces were to be allowed on Ukrainian soil" is literally point 2.
> wanted all guarantors to respond directly to the breaking of Ukrainian neutrality
MF they were the guarantors for 30 years before they invaded
>"No forgein forces were to be allowed on Ukrainian soil" is literally point 2.
That says "no foreign weapons" and no I don't think they write like GRRM who would say "no Dothraki swords in the Highgarden" meaning "no Dothraki warriors" I'm pretty sure it means "no NATO missiles or US tanks".
That's huge overinterpretation but still. So Ukraine was supposed to
> Give most of it's long range arsenal to Russia
> Give up most of their armour
> Reduce their entire army to about 65k people (2nd largest state in Europe, constant threat of Russian invasion, 40 milion people living there)
> No military alliances allowed (I wonder why)
> Security could be guaranteed by states not involved or consulted on whole ordeal
> According to you, such states could station only light troops with no heavy armament in case they would be able to actually defend Ukraine
IDK how do you think it would be acceptable, it just screams "We are going to invade you once we reorganize" and that coming from a country that proved unable to force such demands and was defeated at Kiev. Completely sensible terms
Countries that go at war with other countries can sometimes dictate stuff to other countries, just see what USA did to Japan, or the whole forced denazification of Germany, forcing civilians to dig up mass graves and forcing people to watch footages from camps.
I never said it is somehow "just" or "order" or whatever. USSR went to war with Japan, not the other way around, and got to keep some islands from it, not because they were in the "right" but because they were in the winning team. USA was attacked by Japan first and smacked them back, not because they were the good guys or whatever, but because they were fighting better.
So, if a country doesn't like what another country does, it can attack another country, even if it is an asshole move, and if it wins, it gets to tell that other country what to do.
USA started the war with Iraq and won on completely false pretenses and still got to do what they wanted, because unfortunately it's all that matters in armed conflicts.
Well, don't get me wrong, I am against wars, but that doesn't change shit. My feelings, however strong, do not win or end wars, and I'm just looking at how all the previous wars played out and not sure why this one would suddenly be different.
Country A does something its neighbour, Country B, doesn't like. B attacks A and wins, forcing country A to stop, or loses, and retreats, and country A does what it did before getting attacked.
OR they reach some sort of stalemate and negotiate new terms that are somewhere in the middle ground for both sides.
This has been happening for... forever.
> isn’t Russia the aggressor here?
Umm, no? Kiev invaded it's own citizens who asked for autonomy, driving them to independence. Then it cowardly attacked Russia's military allies who it knew had a defensive pact with them, and would be forced to retaliate.
> They could literally call the whole thing off unilaterally tomorrow.
And what would they get exactly? Why would they do that?
They can not. What do you think the Ukrainians will do to the population in the Donbass if Russia just withdrew? They don't want to become the new Gaza Strip there.
"Swiss neutrality" was always a meme, like Sweden and Finland's "neutrality" who were not members of NATO but pretty much supported every NATO action no questions asked. Ask the Swiss where they stashed all that Nazi gold.
Ah okay, so the shelling of civilians since 2014 didn't happen, but only recently they used American HIMARS to shell a marketplace in Donezk with a significant number of deaths. Add to that the open abuse of Russian-speaking citizens, or "Russian sympathizers", Russian Orthodox Christians, Sinti and Roma etc. on the streets, the banning of Russian literature from schools and universities, restrictive language policies, the neo-nazi shit that goes on in Banderastadt, excuse me, Lvov, every day, etc. - every opposition party has been outlawed, and former members are persecuted.
It literally did not happened. Every single instance of truce breaking used to be recorded. Show me alleged shelling from Ukrainian side post Mińsk 2. In 2019 for example like 20 people got hurt by landmines the entire year.
Instead of what happened is that Russia reminded itself that they propped up two quai-fascist states using paratroopers and corporate bosses and can annex them finally
Both sides were shelling and that terrorist Motorola was literally interviewed by Russian media while firing out of a residential apartment building with the residents inside. When you have urban conflict with civilians present, people are going to get killed, and plenty of the dead were in villages shelled BY Russians.
> Twice as many civilian casualties occurred in non-government-controlled areas (657 civilian casual-ties) as compared with government-controlled areas (270 civilian casualties) (see Figure 5). A further 19 civilians were killed or injured in areas not controlled by either side.
> In Donetsk region, the Mission confirmed 223 civilian casualties in government-controlled areas as opposed to 513 in non-government-controlled areas and 14 in areas not controlled by either side. In Luhansk region, the Mission confirmed 47 civilian casualties in government-controlled-areas, 144 in non-government-controlled areas and five in areas not controlled by either of the sides.
>Among cases related to shelling and SALW, the Mission recorded 459 civilian casualties in non-gov-ernment-controlled areas and 157 in government-controlled areas, while nine civilian casualties occurred in areas not controlled by either side. Among civilian casualties due to mines, UXO and other explosive objects, 105 casualties occurred in govern-ment-controlled areas, 197 in non-government-con-trolled areas and ten civilian casualties occurred in areas not controlled by either side.
Did Russia shell themselves?
This is a bit deceptive and disingenuous when Ukrainian forces were mostly controlling rural areas with the exception of Mariupol, while the "totally-not-Russian separatists" controlled two major urban centers on the frontline. Of course there will be more casualties where there is a denser population. That statistic doesn't prove Ukrainian malevolence or Russian benevolence.
As to Russia shelling themselves, I won't claim they did without proof, but to provoke the Winter War against Finland in 1939, that's exactly what they did.
If Russia wanted to shell Ukraine, they had artillery with enough range to hit them.
And 1939 has no relevance here, considering it was a union of republics led by a Georgian, and the NKVD was also led by a Georgian.
66 killed, 250 inhured for three years in the entire Donbas region, not even Donetsk city and almost all cases were examples of breaking truce by both sides in the line of contact.
And you people claim Ukraine was there constantly shelling civilians out of spite
Did you even read it? It says on page 8 there was 87 dead and 399 wounded in the Donbas region in 2017 alone.
657 civilian casualties in the non-ukrainian controlled parts of the Donbas, compared to 270 in Ukrainian controlled areas between 2017-2020.
The 250 casualties was from shelling in Donetsk in 2017 alone.
459 civilian casualties of shelling between 2017 and 2020 in the separatist regions, compared to 157 in Ukrainian areas.
197 civilian casualties due to mines and UXO in separatist regions, compared to 105 in Ukrainian controlled regions.
You might want to read things before commenting and looking dumb.
> so the shelling of civilians since 2014 didn't happen
Correct. Shelling of russian army in 2014 did happen.
> only recently they used American HIMARS to shell a marketplace in Donezk with a significant number of deaths.
Sounds fake.
> Add to that the open abuse of Russian-speaking citizens, or "Russian sympathizers", Russian Orthodox Christians, Sinti and Roma etc. on the streets
When UAF liberated villages in the Donbas in 2022, local residents were cheering.
Yeah, there's no "open abuse" this is just made up nonsense.
> the banning of Russian literature from schools and universities, restrictive language policies
You mean, Russian language no longer given official status. Caus it was never banned, this is of course fake outrage perpetuated by trolls.
> the neo-nazi shit that goes on in Banderastadt, excuse me, Lvov, every day
Ah yes, the whole "ukraine is run by nazi banderites" bit. lmao.
> every opposition party has been outlawed, and former members are persecuted.
Every opposition party **known to be working with the russians** banned. There are still opposition parties in ukraine, just ones that didn't work with the FSB.
Not nothing. If Russians have settled there illegally, they will be expelled. War criminals and traitors will also probably be tried and punished. But that’s Ukraine’s legal prerogative, and suggestions that punitive action would be taken against legitimate residents is nothing more than Russian projection.
I’m all for minimizing people’s pain and suffering. You’re right Ukraine won’t treat their enemies well, particularly since the full Russian invasion. That said, Putin could clearly care less about the Donbas. The entire thing is a convenient excuse to dominate the region, posture, and create a compelling event to legitimize his leadership.
On Swiss neutrality, true, the big difference now is it’s very public. Point is broader Europe doesn’t want another Warsaw Pact scenario where most of Eastern Europe is dominated by Russia. Can you blame them? Democracy and Capitalism aren’t perfect, but it’s the best system we have.
>You’re right Ukraine won’t treat their enemies well, particularly since the full Russian invasion.
According to Ukraine, these are Ukrainian citizens. I don't think it's healthy that they are considered enemies, and yes, they are, there is a resolution that even partaking in the referendums organized by Russia makes you guilty of high treason. So what are they going to do, persecute millions of people for high treason?
>Point is broader Europe doesn’t want another Warsaw Pact scenario where most of Eastern Europe is dominated by Russia. Can you blame them?
Argument works both ways, can you blame the people of Crimea that they never wanted to leave the USSR? They just found themselves in this new state Ukraine in 1991, and it has been pretty much a disappointment to them.
Yes and no.
Ukraine has been subject to back and forth election interference by Nato and by Russia. After the fall of the soviet union, Russia was promised it'd get a buffer zone between it and nato, but nato has been slowly encroaching on this til one day Russia snapped. The cause of the war is over nazi groups in Ukraine that the US and Nato have been funding to act as anti-russian ground forces in the donbas, which has been a battle ground between Russia and Nato through proxies long before the formal invasion.
This is not a justification for the invasion and Russia is the one who turned cold war tactics hot, but reddit is full of "putler" memes. If we want an adult conversation about the war we need to understand that Russia has actual motives and wants.
The justification for the invasion is that Kiev invaded Russia's military allies that Kiev knew had a defence pact with Russia and Russia would be legally obligated to respond.
“At no point in the discussion did either Baker or Gorbachev bring up the question of the possible extension of NATO membership to other Warsaw Pact countries beyond Germany," according to Mark Kramer, director of the Cold War Studies Project at Harvard University's Davis Center, who reviewed the declassified transcripts and other materials.
"Indeed, it never would have occurred to them to raise an issue that was not on the agenda anywhere, not in Washington, not in Moscow, and not in any other Warsaw Pact or NATO capital," Kramer wrote in a April 2009 journal article.
"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991," Gorbachev told the newspaper Kommersant in October 2014.
The language concerning NATO “expanding” is misleading. Countries apply to be members of NATO; it does not unilaterally decide to acquire them. I wonder why nations bordering Russia would want to apply?
This is incredibly silly pseudo arguments meant to portray Russia as some sort of entirely unreasonable entity. US politics have decayed so far that it cannot talk about its adversaries outside of children's book bad guys.
Here's what's being referred to about nato expansion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
https://www.eurasiareview.com/03032022-nato-repeatedly-assured-russia-it-would-not-expand-oped/
Here is a right wing and a left wing source both pointing out that Euromaidan was a US backed coup
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
If in 2014 China helped launched a coup in Mexico that paved the way for Mexico to "freely and willingly" join a Chinese led anti US military alliance the US would have already started WWIII and we'd all be eating cockroaches by now. We should condemn Russia for playing lethal empire games, but we also need to recognize why those games exist
The US did not “launch” a coup in Ukraine, according to your sources. They backed it. As in, they handed out cookies, made speeches, and talked to people. Apparently someone also saw spooky snipers somewhere listening to Elvis and chomping on Big League Chew.
The objective of the Maidan Revolution was not to eventually join NATO, and I can assure you that joining NATO was not a priority for Ukraine until Russia invaded and began annexing territory.
The one thing that neither Russians nor Western commentators can seem to tolerate is the idea of Ukrainian agency. 🙄
I’d be interested to see evidence substantiating the claim that the same individuals shot both protestors and security personnel. All I could find was this, which makes a strong case against Berkut: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html
It’s plausible that both protesters and security were shot, but it’s not terrible plausible that they were shot by the same people with the same interests.
Again, overlooking Ukrainian agency. The US is not in a position to dictate to the Verkhovna Rada, which elected its leadership after Maidan, irrespective of Nuland’s statements.
And to your point about what would happen if China meddled in Mexican politics, Russia has been very effectively meddling in AMERICAN politics for quite some time now, and yet we do not live in a nuclear wasteland. China has extended its Belt and Road Initiative to countries well within America’s sphere of influence, and yet no invasions have occurred.
>Again, overlooking Ukrainian agency. The US is not in a position to dictate to the Verkhovna Rada, which elected its leadership after Maidan, irrespective of Nuland’s statements.
This gets into a much more in depth conversation, but democracy doesn't quite work in the way you think it does. The key to power is mass mobilization through what's called mass orgs, which are basically fronts for political parties. The US exports this globally through their various "NGOs" and use them to shape politics globally by rallying the masses around specific causes. These orgs can't make a political crisis appear all on their own, Ukrainians were rightfully pissed off about Yanukovych, but they can shape how that resistance mobilizes and ultimately determine election outcomes this way.
This is not a unique issue to Ukraine, this is how the US operates too. It's no accident that America has a string of highly unpopular candidates to choose from, party organizations in the US are deeply undemocratic institutions that are extremely effective at keeping popular political positions out of Washington.
>And to your point about what would happen if China meddled in Mexican politics, Russia has been very effectively meddling in AMERICAN politics for quite some time now, and yet we do not live in a nuclear wasteland.
Lol, no. They bought a few Facebook ads. It exists but it is massively overstated. The democratic party is blaming Russia for its failure to be popular and accuses every instance of protest, anti establishment thinking, and reactionary decay as proof of some sort of wide Russian conspiracy. Russian politics has not been all that successful at penetrating into the American mainstream outside of a few randos like Tucker Carlson. Compare this to Israel which openly brags about its influence apparatus.
> China has extended its Belt and Road Initiative to countries well within America’s sphere of influence, and yet no invasions have occurred.
Aaaaand you're not taking this conversation seriously at all. China has expanded the Belt and Road Initiative into central Asia and Africa, not US border nations. You know those are not comparable situations and are trying to throw out gotcha points. We can analyze the logic of imperialist superpowers without taking one side or the other, ultimately imperialism itself is evil and liberation struggles are what matter.
>Ukrainians were rightfully pissed off about Yanukovych, but they can shape how that resistance mobilizes and ultimately determine election outcomes this way.
This behaviour is not unique to the US though, pretty much every nation applies financial and organizational resources to push its interests in other nations. The US being involved in Euromaidan is not surprising just like Russia being involved in it isn't surprising, the issue is the argument that the US *orchestrated* Euromaidan.
> party organizations in the US are deeply undemocratic institutions that are extremely effective at keeping popular political positions out of Washington.
It's funny becasue the Republican and Democrat parties are the most democratic they've ever been. Democrats don't even have the superdelegates that were all the talk in 2016 anymore. Originally party selection for candidates was far more closed off.
Trump is an excellent example of a candidate that the party leadership would have blocked if they could. The fact that he won the election was what change their opinion of him.
Would you not consider Portugal, Italy, and Central America to be in the American sphere of influence?
I think you are also grossly downplaying the influence of Russia in American politics. The narrative that democrats were crying wolf about Russia to distract from their failures has become a bit stale in light of recent events.
>Would you not consider Portugal, Italy, and Central America to be in the American sphere of influence?
None of those share a direct land border with the US and are threatening to join an anti US military alliance.
For the record, none of these countries should be under US or Chinese or Russian "spheres of influence." That being said, your argument is condemning Russia for building a sphere of influence around its direct borders but the US is just, like, somehow entitled to a multi-continent sphere of influence.
>I think you are also grossly downplaying the influence of Russia in American politics. The narrative that democrats were crying wolf about Russia to distract from their failures has become a bit stale in light of recent events.
Like what? The invasion that happened under Biden's presidency?
Like tying down Ukrainian aid for 6 months. Like Trump threatening to hamstring NATO and abandon Ukraine.
As for NATO expansion actually being a motivating factor for the invasion, I don’t think there’s much actual substance there. As mentioned, Ukraine was not interested in joining NATO prior to 2014, and the disposition of NATO wasn’t even adversarial towards Russia prior to the invasion. NATO also does not have as much influence on the politics of its member states as you might imagine, as exemplified by Hungary and Turkey. Really, the only grievance Russia could have had against NATO before the invasion is that it closed the door on irredentism, but only by military means. It had other avenues. Finally, Russia has expressed limited concern about Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO, despite Finland having the longest border with Russia in Europe. Doesn’t quite add up.
I’m not condemning Russia OR the US OR China for building or maintaining spheres of influence. Geopolitics is geopolitics. Common geopolitical practices, which all three powers constantly engage in, are not just cause to launch an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Meddling, economic pressure, etc. are one thing; illegally INVADING another country and annexing its territory is another.
The Nuland-Pyatt call, the one dropped without context? That was pretty much "handing out cookies" it was US diplomats communicating with Ukrainian politicians and other politicians to try and coordinate the opposition. The agency of the Ukrainians was largely unaffected by these communiques.
I call it bullshit. Ukraine was totally pissed on in 2014 and 2015 by both Obama administrartion and EU govenrments who all treared Ukraine as some sort of Russia Junior.
Ukraine was not on track to join NATO, like at all. And the entuire "NATO encroachment" is stupid - It's Russia that invades new country every several years causing their neighbours to seek defensive alliances
Funny how in the Istanbul talks, EU membership was specifically allowed by the Russians.
NATO goal was explicitly set in Ukrainian constitution, and we were steadily dangling that carrot. I don’t think anyone seriously expected it to happen - precisely because they expected Russia to launch this war first. But if they didn’t, of course eventually Ukraine would have been in NATO.
Deoligarchization lmao, give me a break.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_on_Oligarchs_in_Ukraine
Yeah sure, it was agreed on. Everything was agreed on except that Ukraine would be disarmed and no security guarantees allowed. Just the most crucial things for peace that would secure Russia will not invade
Yeah, it was in their contitution but Ukraine had no chance of joining. Their constitution doesn't change that.
I don't disagree Ukraine is at the center of a new (or continuing) cold war between the West and Russia. NATO hasn't invaded Ukraine though. Russia's motives and end goals aren't compatible with what Ukraine wants and that's what matters here. They want to join the EU and NATO, not become a vassal state for a new Russian Empire.
The nazi group thing is a red herring and excuse for invading Ukraine. Recent polling indicates far right parties, which include these nazi groups, represent maybe 3% of the voting population in Ukraine. I don't have the sources handy, but that was stated under oath by noted experts on Russia and Ukraine in testimony to the US Congress a few weeks ago. Facts MTG disputed of course with her Azov brigade comments.
We all get Putin wants a buffer zone, and there were commitments in the past, but the situation has changed. The problem is countries in the buffer zone largely don't want to be a buffer for Russia. They want to join NATO or the EU because of past and current experience with an expansionist Russia. The West and NATO aren't perfect, but they're a far better partner and ally than a Russian regime run by an authoritarian who has crushed all opposition. And seems bent on returning to the glory days of the Russian Empire and Tsars, something many in the region who aren't Russian aren't overly excited about.
These polls need to be taken in the context of Ukraine has been under constant influx of American soft power NGOs and had some of its leaders handpicked by the US. The Ukrainian population isn't "pro russia" outside of a few strongholds by any means of course even before the war but the idea that they just happen to want to join nato as free individuals isn't correct either. Euromaidan wasn't solely a grassroots movement of the people against a russian puppet, it had quite a bit of "help" along the way
The nazi thing is not a red herring. It doesn't matter that 3% of the country are openly fascist when the US is arming those groups into full fledged paramilitaries. Zelenski is in office because of that dynamic. Zelenski's whole shtick is that he is pro-west, getting the backing of the western aligned parts of Ukraine, but also Jewish and stood up to the neonazi paramilitaries, so some of the ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine would he willing to vote him in as part of an anti nazi front, remembering that hitler was almost as eager to kill slavs as he was killing jews. I do understand that putin has exaggerated the extent of nazi paramilitaries and has portrayed himself as a liberator of Eastern Ukraine but this does not mean there isn't a real and present danger either.
This divide has been growing for a while. I do believe there were diplomatic solutions that could have peacefully resolved this conflict with everyone's dignity in tact but the war is a result of both Russias willingness to invade and the US still acting like the sole world superpower and bully on the world stage.
Yep. Person säger art de är en Trans communist
Men Personen älskar Ryssland och Kina.
Två nationer som skulle definera dom som en extremist och sätta dem i fängelse.
Ryssland nyligen definierade de till terrorister..
Reddit:
Russia is unwilling to negotiate!
Russia is actually willing.
Well they'd demand(and get) way too much from Ukraine, of course Ukraine wouldn't want to negotiate!
So Ukraine refuses to negotiate?
NO ITS RUSSIA WHOS NOT WILLING TO NEGOTIATE!
Ya that's clearly why they went straight for the capital to replace the Ukrainian government with a Russian puppet.
Holy fuck are you Russian bots fucking stupid
They don’t send enough to actually assault the city, this was also obvious from the size of that contingent. They were there to force concessions, not effect a large scale occupation. And they sent terms pretty much immediately, so we know what sort of concessions they were looking for.
They didn't sent enough because they were stuck on the road without gas because early war logistics were a joke. They brought parade equipment and everything.
Literally says this in the article: "The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part."
It's not a negotiation, it's a conference intended to further the goal of peace.
> Literally says this in the article: "The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part."
sounds like a sanctions conference to me, with a side of browbeating and the usual lectures from the usual countries.
why would china abandon russia, whom NATO is trying to defang right now, just so NATO has an easier time coming at them later on? people do realize that the PRC reads everything the white countries writes about them right???
Formally, the Chinese Civil War is not over, with Taiwan claiming that they are being the government of China. Ever since Taiwan has been used as an attack dog against China, with constant provocations in the Taiwan strait.
When they say they would liberate all "russian lands"
When they invaded Crimea I'd say
And Ukraine was supposed to be a easy war for Russia, barely an inconveniance.
Everybody know NATO cannot win an invasion against China. This isnt Battlefield 4.
> Well, only if China attacks first.
they're not going to attack first. they understand the value of pearl harbor for propaganda and are waiting for the US to pearl harbor them.
>But why would the US attack China ?
The only way the US retains its hegemon status is through warfare
But how ? china cannot be invaded. It s just too big and populous.
Not to mention the biggest army in the world in term of numbers.
It would lead to a terrible economic crisis for the US and Europe would not join.
Like the only things keep the US the world's first power is its economy and network of allies. They would loose both here.
Enough of them did to give the operation a veneer of legitimacy, which is the most important thing in these things - euro combat potential is low at the best of times. But there were enough refuseniks to make our leadership concerned, which is one of the reasons why we heated up the security situation in the East. That is not going to be a problem for the next decade or two, our auxiliaries are on a shorter leash now.
Germany and France, the two largest EU members of NATO, refused to join. You don't remember the "Freedom Fry" debacle? 15 of the 28 members of the EU joined. Just over half.
For "vassals" who "do what they're told," that seems a pretty dismal showing.
The UK, would probably obey.
France certainly not, as they have publicy said and done before.
Germany and italy are wild cards here.
The rest lack any usefull long range navy (bare maybe spain).
If they don’t, we will have ourselves a coalition of the willing setup that amounts to the same thing. As to why - because we do not want to be sidelined as the world’s top superpower, and sooner or later we will come to blows over it.
According to their own experts, they have until 2025 until China becomes virtually unbeatable. The clock is ticking. The West was high on neoliberalism and the "end of history" in the 90s, thinking that increased trade and investment with China would lead to the liberalization of China with the eventual ousting of the Communist Party - China was too big to be subjugated to the "Washington consenus" like Vietnam that forced them to privatize up to 70% of their economy. It's pretty clear that the original plan was to get Russia out of the way, which seemed weak on paper, but it turned out to be the biggest geopolitical blunder the collective West has made in this millenia so far.
People do not realise that. they also would never consider reading anything that china writes about NATO countries, which is all you need to know about their abilities to understand and deduce anything.
reminds me of how the anglo-japan treaty ended because the japs could read everything the english were writing about them and they were openly telling the press that the UK had no intentions of honoring the treaty or letting the japanese take china unmolested.
People like me who don't accept bullying, extortion, narcissism or psychopathy and exploitation – will always be blamed by the sick perpetrators of abuse. I know the pattern. And frankly, I spit in your face for condoning the unwarranted invasion, enslavement and genocide and then blaming of a peaceful Ukraine and its people.
People like you are the reason this war, this crime against humanity, even exists. And no amount of projection can absolve you from that.
Literally says this in the article: "The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part."
It's not a negotiation, it's a conference intended to further the goal of peace.
You're regarded 😹
If you get like 50 important nations to roughly agree on Ukraine's terms being the only credible end to the war, it erodes legitimacy from Russian demands and underlines how their stance is isolated and unrealistic. Maybe bits of this info also find their way to Russian ears and more people come to the conclusion that Ukrainian terms are the only realistic way out of the mess.
If a strong vision is established, this could help convince some fence-sitting countries cut ties with Russia and support the Ukrainian vision in some material terms.
It won't bring immediate results, but every little helps.
Or people seeing how delusional these terms are will be convinced that these "50 important nations" were never really interested in ending the war, and the whole point is to prevent any real negotiations from taking place.
I don't think that any sane person is going to agree that Ukraine's terms that include Russia giving up all land that it holds, replacing its government, and willingly subjecting itself to prosecution by Western courts just to ***start*** the negotiations is anything but insanely unrealistic and not made even remotely in good faith.
> Wait lmao did I read that right do they want to leave Russia out of it? "Peace conference" my fucking ass
They are not "planning". They *already* don't.
They never included Russia in "peace talks" before, and don't intend to do so in the future. They whole point of "peace talks" is to create international coalition that would somehow push Russia into surrendering (by sanctions or otherwise). Hence, Kremlin being antagonistic towards such "pro-peace" initiatives.
Their economy grew more than European countries, the sanctions did nothing. Russia still making gains and Europe has to buy LNG from USA, further excasserbating the issue in Ukrainez, and they're terrified of announcing USA & Ukraine sabotaging Nord stream.
Not the first peace conference they already held and left Russia out. Zelensky even signed a peace treaty and Russian capitulation. With the president of Latvia. In fact it's illegal to negotiate with actual Russia.
How do you have a "peace conference" without the two countries at conflict present?
Let me guess the outcome of the "peace conference". Ukraine will somehow take back all the lands occupied by Russia and then there will be peace. Until then, gib monies.
> Let me guess the outcome of the "peace conference". Ukraine will somehow take back all the lands occupied by Russia and then there will be peace. Until then, gib monies.
You aren't thinking far enough. Zelensky's "peace formula" includes whole being Kremlin arrested.
Well the International Criminal Court recognized by most of the world declared him one and has an arrest warrant out for him. But what do they know, right? How about you enlighten us?
Gee, the Western colonial court that never has the balls to prosecute Western war criminals and is so cucked the Americans signed an act of Congress saying they'd literally invade the Hague if any Americans were tried there said a Western adversary was bad? Say it ain't so!
Which part is wild?
The fact that it has refused to prosecute anyone from a Western country for war crimes despite the ample evidence of them during the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, or Israel's current genocide (just to name the most blatant and well known mind you)?
The fact that the US [literally has a law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act) that says they will absolutely invade if the ICC tries to put a US citizen in court?
Or are you maybe just trying to dismiss the cold, hard truth with pathetic attempts at ad-hominems because it makes you uncomfortable and you're really hoping anyone seeing this convo somehow doesn't have Google and five seconds of time to Google this shit?
this whole comment section is shocking tbh. How can anyone give Russia any leeway and call it fair? Doesn't matter if Russia is present at the peace talks or not, Ukraine also wasn't asked when Russia decided to invade and genocide their people in both 2014 and 2022 lol
Here's one now!
* 4-month old account
* Didn't bother to create a username
* Post history shows "Ukraine" as most disproportionately used word, followed by "Russia"
* All relevant posts perfectly echo Kremlin talking points
Lmao. Why do people always focus on the age of the account? I created a new one becuase the old had a name that I used on other apps and I want to be more anonymous on reddit.
Yeah, I like to argue a lot about the war on reddit, am I a troll because of that?
What talking points? That Ukraine is not winning? Everyone outside of r/Ukraine echochamber can see that.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ukraine using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ukraine/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Reaction from the frontline to the news from russia](https://v.redd.it/pvxf3757rx7b1) | [749 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/14homfg/reaction_from_the_frontline_to_the_news_from/)
\#2: [I was awarded today by president Zelensky for my front line journalist work. And of course it was a bad hair day](https://i.redd.it/f6ykxe0t2f4b1.jpg) | [501 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/142jr9p/i_was_awarded_today_by_president_zelensky_for_my/)
\#3: [Today in Finland, Anthony Blinken actually said it out loud: "russia is the second strongest army in Ukraine"](https://v.redd.it/4ubpsj2yyl3b1) | [1017 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/13yd5u7/today_in_finland_anthony_blinken_actually_said_it/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Not only were they asked, both times there was extensive diplomacy trying to make Ukraine honor the agreements they signed before military action.
How quickly the [2013 deal](https://www.politico.eu/article/yanukovych-signs-transition-deal-with-ukraine-opposition/) and the Minsk agreements were memory-holed after it turned out that the new Ukrainian government had never intended to implement anything they signed, nor did the supposed Western "guarantors" of these agreements ever intended to nudge them to.
The signers themselves even proudly came out after the war had started and said that the purpose of these talks and deals had always been stalling and derailing, and they never believed in any actual diplomatic solution.
How can we treat someone seriously in the matter if one does not know that the ceasefire was signed in 2015, after Russia was breaking it constantly?
There were two treaties
>Ukraine will somehow take back **all the clay** occupied by Russia and then there will be peace. Until then, gib monies.
If we're using the Polanball term of "gib monies" then I also suggest we use the beautiful expression "gib clay"
Literally says this in the article: "The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part."
It's not a negotiation, it's a conference intended to further the goal of peace.
You can hate russia all you want, but the idea that the ukrainians have participiated in peace talks more openly and fruitfully then the russians is ludicrous.
You are a account less then a month old with like 6 total comments but half of them are pushing for russia, again, its quite obvious if its not AI, its shills.
I mean you started digging through his Reddit profile to have a 'gotcha' moment. Can not expect him to not do the same. You really into this furry stuff, bro? 🐕😼🐰yiff yiff
Ah, you again, I've dealt with your shilling before, you do it for russia ALL over the place, here, I copy one of your comment again,
Your comment history:
>
>
Lock, wanna lick putins boot harder?
How anyone with even a vague notion of world affairs believes a word coming out of Zelensky's mouth amazes me. This is 90% PR stunt to aid in him getting more money from the west to line his backers pockets.
The world is not black and white. Putin is an asshole dictator, true. it doesn’t mean what Zelensky did is not hilarious. Who calls a meeting “peace conference” without inviting all conflicting parties?
If he was still alive at the end of it, yes, he would have been invited to sign the instrument of surrender, either personally or through sending an emissary representing him.
Wars end with peace treaties, even if it means one side surrenders to the other's demands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender
There isn't negotiation when one side is winning the war through force of arms. The stronger side dictates terms. The losing side is lucky to get what they can.
But Churchill Roosevelt and Dtalin didnt have "peace conferences" during ww2 either,like it's the notion of having a peace conference that's ridiculous not the hesitancy to negotiate with Russia
Ok, not sure I get your point in relation to what I said. I said it wasn't ridiculous that they wouldn't want to negotiate with Russia, just that having a "peace conference" with no intention of negotiating a peace deal is silly.
Ok so we agree that it's stupid, it's just a matter of degree, if that's the case why do this in the first place, and why should anyone take it seriously?
These people through incredible feats of stupidity believe **Vladimir Putin, the guy that literally claimed Poland forced the Nazis to invade them** on HIS OWN CURATED television, would have anything meaningful to say in a peace conference.
In order to get more men back, Ukraine has limited passport services and will only allow them to be renewed in person in Ukraine. That even includes Ukrainians who haven't been to Ukraine in years.
Aid alone won't win this fight.
Imagine developing a peace plan all by yourself and then saying Russia needs to agree to this plan without any of their considerations and then crying when they say no, it was not collaborative and we aren’t participating.
Ukraine is in no position to make unilateral demands like that. Maybe if the battlefield situation was better for Ukraine, but truth is that it is not.
Yeah, I got here by accident after muting it. Like, what the hell? They didn't even read an article, where everything in explained. There are tons of similar comments. I don't even know where to start to disprove things they are saying. I mean, there is no point. Everything was said a thousand times, and fighting windmills was never a good idea.
I've read only two posts and already encountered some claims that are not revelant for a few months. Hell, a lot of them for 10 years.
>The Ukraine peace conference, planned for June 15-16, is to take place directly after the G7 summit of leading democratic industrialised nations in Italy. The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part.
Now Ukraine is seeking a peace deal?
I'm sure if Ukraine calls for its original borders, including Crimea, Russia will will say Ukraine is disrupting the conference.
#####	
######	
####	
> # [Zelensky claims Moscow is planning to derail Swiss peace conference - SWI swissinfo.ch](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/zelensky-moscow-trying-to-prevent-peace-conference/image/jpeg)
>
>
>
> [The Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky, seated at a table before a microphone.](https://www.swissinfo.ch/content/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/04/609890907_highres.jpg) Ukraine is aware of a Russian plan to derail the peace conference, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky. Keystone Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky says Russia wants to prevent the peace conference set to be held in Switzerland in June.
>
> This content was published on April 26, 2024 - 12:32
>
> 3 minutes
>
>
>
> There is a plan to do so, Zelensky told foreign diplomats, including the Swiss ambassador, in Kyiv.
>
> Alleged Russian disruptive activities were not confirmed by the Swiss defence ministry on Thursday at the request of the Swiss News Agency Keystone-SDA; reference was made only to Russian accusations that Switzerland had not invited Russia to the conference at the Bürgenstock resort overlooking Lake Lucerne in June.
>
> More
>
> [The Ukraine peace conference will take place at the Bürgenstock hotel above Lake Lucerne in central Switzerland. The luxury resort has hosted previous peace talks on Sudan (2002) and Cyprus (2004).](https://www.swissinfo.ch/content/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/04/608312335_highres.jpg)## More
>
> ### All you need to know about Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland
>
> This content was published on Apr 10, 2024 Switzerland plans to host a high-level Ukraine peace conference in mid-June. The annoucement comes as Russia and China met in Beijing on Tuesday and reports that US President Joe Biden may attend the Swiss-hosted summit.
>
> [Read more: All you need to know about Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/explainer-latest-developments-on-ukraine-peace-summit-in-switzerland/75388577)The Swiss Federal Office of Police (Fedpol) likewise did not reveal any details. In response to an enquiry, it stated that it “does not explain specific security measures in order not to jeopardise their effectiveness”.
>
> ## Secret service information
>
> In front of Ukrainian diplomats and foreign ambassadors, Zelensky referred to intelligence information. According to this, there is “concrete data that Russia not only wants to disrupt the peace summit, but also has a concrete plan: how to do this, how to reduce the number of participating countries, how to proceed to ensure that there is no peace for much longer”, the president said on Wednesday evening. He did not provide any further details.
>
> Zelensky said that the partners would be informed through diplomatic channels about Moscow’s attempts, based on information from his presidential office. The president further announced that the world’s heads of state and government would soon receive invitations to the meeting.
>
> The Ukraine peace conference, planned for June 15-16, is to take place directly after the G7 summit of leading democratic industrialised nations in Italy. The conference, which will bring together representatives from up to 80 countries, is intended to win over Russia-friendly powers such as India, South Africa and Brazil in favour of Ukraine’s ideas for a peace solution. China in particular is being courted to take part.
>
> ## Incompatible demands
>
> For over two years, Russian troops have been waging war in Ukraine, using violence against the civilian population and destroying non-military infrastructure. This comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the order to invade the southern neighbouring country on February 24, 2022, with the justification of a need to demilitarise and denazify the country. Zelensky, who is Jewish, was to be removed from power.
>
> Russia has pronounced all peace talks without its participation pointless. Moscow has repeatedly emphasised its willingness to engage in talks, but with imposed conditions which are more likely to result in Ukraine’s capitulation. Ukraine’s goal is to regain all territories occupied by Russia, which for Putin would amount to a failure of his invasion.
>
> More
>
> [Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, seated in a chair.](https://www.swissinfo.ch/content/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/04/606100075_highres.jpg)## More
>
> ### Russian foreign minister derides Switzerland as ‘openly hostile country’
>
> This content was published on Apr 19, 2024 Following on Putin’s criticisms of the planned Ukraine peace conference in Switzerland, Lavrov has described Switzerland as unsuitable for negotiations.
>
> [Read more: Russian foreign minister derides Switzerland as ‘openly hostile country’](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/russian-foreign-minister-derides-switzerland-as-openly-hostile-country/76038160)_Adapted from German by DeepL/kc/ts_
>
> This news story has been written and carefully fact-checked by an external editorial team. At SWI swissinfo.ch we select the most relevant news for an international audience and use automatic translation tools such as DeepL to translate it into English. Providing you with automatically translated news gives us the time to write more in-depth articles.
>
> If you want to know more about how we work, have a look [here](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/about-swi), and if you have feedback on this news story please write to [english at swissinfo.ch](mailto:english at swissinfo.ch).
>
>
>
>
>
> External Content
>
> Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
>
>
>
>
>
> Almost finished… We need to confirm your email address. To complete the subscription process, please click the link in the email we just sent you.
>
>
>
> ## Articles in this story
>
> -
> -
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Hi empleadoEstatalBot,
We've found **1 sources** (so far) that are covering this story including:
- SWI swissinfo.ch (Leans Left): "Zelensky claims Moscow is planning to derail Swiss peace conference - SWI swissinfo.ch"
So far, there hasn't been any coverage from the RIGHT.
Of all the sources reporting on this story, **0% are right-leaning**, **100% are left-leaning**, and **0% are in the center**. Read the full **[coverage analysis](https://ground.news/article/zelensky-claims-moscow-is-planning-to-derail-swiss-peace-conference-swi-swissinfoch?utm_source=redditReplyBot&utm_medium=redditReplyBot)** and compare how 1+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
***
_I’m a bot. [Read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/groundnews/comments/j6x7uc/introducing_the_coverageanalysisbot_a_bot_that/) to learn how it works or [message us](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=coverageanalysisbot&subject=Feedback&message=) with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you._
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
316 Comments
njuff22@reddit
Plain_yellow_banner@reddit
njuff22@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
ChaosDancer@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
shifu_shifu@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
shifu_shifu@reddit
Immediate-Spite-5905@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
GlobalGonad@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
GlobalGonad@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Reddit_Bot_For_Karma@reddit
Personel101@reddit
Alternative_Oil7733@reddit
mittfh@reddit
Turtnamedburt@reddit
AccordingBread4389@reddit
shifu_shifu@reddit
onespiker@reddit
TrizzyG@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
onespiker@reddit
TrizzyG@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
wickerie@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
Unusual-Yoghurt3250@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
Hyndis@reddit
Thatsidechara_ter@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
onespiker@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
onespiker@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
onespiker@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
onespiker@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
crusadertank@reddit
onespiker@reddit
king_bardock@reddit (OP)
kwman11@reddit
Winjin@reddit
MyChristmasComputer@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
onespiker@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
onespiker@reddit
Significant-Oil-8793@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
MyChristmasComputer@reddit
Vassago81@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
Moarbrains@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
AccordingBread4389@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
onespiker@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
onespiker@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
onespiker@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
onespiker@reddit
FeeeFiiFooFumm@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
wickerie@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
Winjin@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Winjin@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Winjin@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
msut77@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
Winjin@reddit
msut77@reddit
Snoo-65388@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
Winjin@reddit
msut77@reddit
Winjin@reddit
msut77@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
kwman11@reddit
XasthurWithin@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
Command0Dude@reddit
XasthurWithin@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Azurmuth@reddit
Command0Dude@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
kwman11@reddit
XasthurWithin@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
Moarbrains@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
Moarbrains@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
Bullet_Jesus@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
vegetable_completed@reddit
Bullet_Jesus@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
kwman11@reddit
blackturtlesnake@reddit
mrdarknezz1@reddit
onespiker@reddit
mrdarknezz1@reddit
njuff22@reddit
mrdarknezz1@reddit
njuff22@reddit
mrdarknezz1@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
neo-hyper_nova@reddit
MainPuzzleheaded9154@reddit
Killeroftanks@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
Killeroftanks@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
ScoutTheAwper@reddit
MyChristmasComputer@reddit
msut77@reddit
____Lemi@reddit
dump_reddits_ipo@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
shieeet@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
shieeet@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
XasthurWithin@reddit
booOfBorg@reddit
shieeet@reddit
TicketFew9183@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
dump_reddits_ipo@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
dump_reddits_ipo@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
BillyYank2008@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
XasthurWithin@reddit
spund_@reddit
dump_reddits_ipo@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
booOfBorg@reddit
njuff22@reddit
booOfBorg@reddit
____Lemi@reddit
spund_@reddit
____Lemi@reddit
spund_@reddit
booOfBorg@reddit
Plain_yellow_banner@reddit
njuff22@reddit
S_T_P@reddit
spund_@reddit
AccordingBread4389@reddit
LeviathanGoesToSleep@reddit
continuousQ@reddit
Organic_Security_873@reddit
GodlordHerus@reddit
ferrelle-8604@reddit
__DraGooN_@reddit
S_T_P@reddit
Pyroxcis@reddit
Levomethamphetamine@reddit
Redbones27@reddit
Hubberbubbler@reddit
captainryan117@reddit
Hubberbubbler@reddit
captainryan117@reddit
Pyroxcis@reddit
dump_reddits_ipo@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Tackerta@reddit
j-steve-@reddit
Federal_Thanks7596@reddit
j-steve-@reddit
Federal_Thanks7596@reddit
sneakpeekbot@reddit
Plain_yellow_banner@reddit
LeMe-Two@reddit
Titan_of_Ash@reddit
Titan_of_Ash@reddit
Android1822@reddit
Cocobaba1@reddit
Winjin@reddit
____Lemi@reddit
CoconutCrab115@reddit
Tekniqly@reddit
YourFunAndRichUncle@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
YourFunAndRichUncle@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
throwawayerectpenis@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
throwawayerectpenis@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
j-steve-@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
Analyst7@reddit
msut77@reddit
Analyst7@reddit
msut77@reddit
Roxylius@reddit
msut77@reddit
Hyndis@reddit
msut77@reddit
Hyndis@reddit
msut77@reddit
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
msut77@reddit
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
msut77@reddit
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
msut77@reddit
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
msut77@reddit
CitizenMurdoch@reddit
msut77@reddit
TicketFew9183@reddit
msut77@reddit
TicketFew9183@reddit
msut77@reddit
Gilga1@reddit
HIVnotAdeathSentence@reddit
UnitedMouse6175@reddit
Tekniqly@reddit
throwawayerectpenis@reddit
UnitedMouse6175@reddit
TicketFew9183@reddit
AlbertoRossonero@reddit
CheckMateFluff@reddit
BananaInACoffeeMug@reddit
robber_goosy@reddit
HIVnotAdeathSentence@reddit
Turtnamedburt@reddit
InjuryComfortable666@reddit
Fletaun@reddit
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit