Zelenskiy denies Ukrainian general’s claim war is at stalemate

[Social Media]

 

Volodymyr Zelenskiy has denied a suggestion from the Ukrainian military’s commander-in-chief that the war with Russia has reached a stalemate, and a senior spokesperson for his administration has rebuked the general in question and accused him of making “the aggressor’s job easier”.

Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi had offered his blunt assessment of the situation in an interview published last week. “Just like in the first world war, we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,” he told the Economist, adding: “There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”

 

Zaluzhnyi said the war had entered a phase of attritional fighting in which neither side would make much progress unless there was a technological breakthrough. He also suggested that Russia was slowly getting the upper hand thanks to its superior numbers.

The general said he had underestimated Vladimir Putin’s willingness to sacrifice his own soldiers, saying at least 150,000 had been killed so far. “Let’s be honest, [Russia] is a feudal state where the cheapest resource is human life. And for us … the most expensive thing we have is our people,” Zaluzhnyi said.

Prolonged fighting had put Ukraine at a disadvantage, he admitted. “This will benefit Russia, allowing it to rebuild its military power, eventually threatening Ukraine’s armed forces and the state itself.”

On Saturday, Zelenskiy denied the war was at a stalemate and said more work with allies was needed to strengthen air defences.

“Today time has passed and people are tired, but this is not a stalemate,” he said during a news conference with the visiting European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “Russia controls the skies. We care about our military.”

Zelenskiy acknowledged there had been difficulties in the war, which is in its 21st month, and he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

Zelenskiy denied the war was at a stalemate and said more work with allies was needed to strengthen air defences.

“Today time has passed and people are tired, but this is not a stalemate,” he said during a news conference with the visiting European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “Russia controls the skies. We care about our military.”

Zelenskiy acknowledged there had been difficulties in the war, which is in its 21st month, and he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

What else would he say? What else could he say?

If he admits that he led Ukraine into stalemate which benefits Russia he's doomed, IMO.

 

he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

How big of him to admit that it's all been propaganda and all those men died for what?

No major success is code for "we achieved sod all".

 

Now that Europe hasn't been able to send him as many shells as promised ( link in a different thread ), and the US is sending theirs to israel instead, it can't be looking good for his prospects of leading his victorious troops into the Kremlin.

 

 

[expat_4_life]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What else would he say? What else could he say?

If he admits that he led Ukraine into stalemate which benefits Russia he's doomed, IMO.

 

he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

How big of him to admit that it's all been propaganda and all those men died for what?

No major success is code for "we achieved sod all".

 

Now that Europe hasn't been able to send him as many shells as promised ( link in a different thread ), and the US is sending theirs to israel instead, it can't be looking good for his prospects of leading his victorious troops into the Kremlin.

 

 

 

Good Post by the way IMO ... plenty of points are bang on.

Zelensky is hanging on by a thread, everyone in his admin is starting to turn on him, finger pointing on the wars failure - notice I used the word failure, nobody currently in power is going to go quite that far, but the writing is on the wall.

Russian military forces have increased by a factor of at least 2-3x, while Ukraine is struggling to recruit/conscript, Russian military production has increased accordingly. This war has transformed the old broken down Soviet military into a huge army (soon to eclipse 1 million men) and probably stronger than any force they have fielded since the 1980's.

In a war of attrition I just don't see any way that Ukraine can win, they are out manned.

Only question is how this will all end - I have the suspicion that the non-western US led part of the world (the global majority) will see this as a defeat. We're in for a global political realignment, going to be a tumultuous decade ahead.
 

[thaibeachlovers]

Thank you for the above post.

I think the western alliance, civilization, whatever you like to describe it as is over, and has been for some time. IMO it's too rotten from within to survive but isn't going to go out gracefully. Rome took hundreds of years to decline to the point that the mercenaries hired to protect it simply took it over.

No civilization in all of human history lasts forever, so why would ours be different? If we can't learn to live in peace after 50,000 years, we are condemned to repeat history till we either can or exterminate ourselves.

What we are going through is IMO merely the death throes of western civilization.

I'm not particularly concerned about the Ukraine conflict as IMO it's just another war in a continent perpetually in conflict since humans learned to use a rock to bash another human's head in.

I'm far more concerned about a wider conflict in the Middle east which could bring about another Dark Age of humanity.

[heybruce]

On 11/6/2023 at 12:46 AM, expat_4_life said:

 

Good Post by the way IMO ... plenty of points are bang on.

Zelensky is hanging on by a thread, everyone in his admin is starting to turn on him, finger pointing on the wars failure - notice I used the word failure, nobody currently in power is going to go quite that far, but the writing is on the wall.

Russian military forces have increased by a factor of at least 2-3x, while Ukraine is struggling to recruit/conscript, Russian military production has increased accordingly. This war has transformed the old broken down Soviet military into a huge army (soon to eclipse 1 million men) and probably stronger than any force they have fielded since the 1980's.

In a war of attrition I just don't see any way that Ukraine can win, they are out manned.

Only question is how this will all end - I have the suspicion that the non-western US led part of the world (the global majority) will see this as a defeat. We're in for a global political realignment, going to be a tumultuous decade ahead.
 

Ukraine has survived when everybody, especially Putin, thought it would fall within days.  That's no failure, and I doubt that the Ukrainian people think it is.  At this point Putin is hoping to hold onto the slices of Ukraine he's managed to steal and maybe make Crimea safe enough for his Black Sea fleet to use again.

[RayC]

On 11/6/2023 at 9:11 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

What else would he say? What else could he say?

If he admits that he led Ukraine into stalemate which benefits Russia he's doomed, IMO.

 

he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

How big of him to admit that it's all been propaganda and all those men died for what?

No major success is code for "we achieved sod all".

 

Now that Europe hasn't been able to send him as many shells as promised ( link in a different thread ), and the US is sending theirs to israel instead, it can't be looking good for his prospects of leading his victorious troops into the Kremlin.

 

 

 

Replace "he/ him(Zelensky)" with "he/ him (Putin)"; "Kviv" with "Moscow" and reverse instances of "Ukraine" and "Russia" in your first two paragraphs, and imo that is spot on.

[Wobblybob]

On 11/6/2023 at 9:11 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

What else would he say? What else could he say?

If he admits that he led Ukraine into stalemate which benefits Russia he's doomed, IMO.

 

he conceded that Kyiv had yet to achieve any major successes in its counteroffensive.

How big of him to admit that it's all been propaganda and all those men died for what?

No major success is code for "we achieved sod all".

 

Now that Europe hasn't been able to send him as many shells as promised ( link in a different thread ), and the US is sending theirs to israel instead, it can't be looking good for his prospects of leading his victorious troops into the Kremlin.

 

 

Russias 3 day special military operation really went well didn't, must have come as a great disappointment to all Russian sympathisers that little old Ukraine are managing to show what a bunch of misfits the Russians are, wave after wave of Russians are being slaughtered thanks to Putin and all you people can do is have a go at Zelensky for fighting these murderous invaders. Ukraine says what happens in this war, all the West can do is give Ukraine the weapons, F16 fighter jets are coming next year which should be a game changer. Freedom doesn't come free, it's something these brave Ukrainian soldiers are prepared to give their all for, while we have posters on here flying the white flag whilst shouting we surrender.

[expat_4_life]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ukraine has survived when everybody, especially Putin, thought it would fall within days.  That's no failure, and I doubt that the Ukrainian people think it is.  At this point Putin is hoping to hold onto the slices of Ukraine he's managed to steal and maybe make Crimea safe enough for his Black Sea fleet to use again.

 

You say "no failure", despite ...
NBCNEWS - U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official.

 

Lets review...
For the past 2 years we've had NATO countries send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine, a quantity of weapons so enormous it depleted their own reserves, a vast undisclosed amount of mercenary soldiers, and threw everything but the kitchen sink in terms of sanctions to cripple Russia. The result? It simply didn't work, NATO is now suing for peace and Ukraine will probably end up having lost at least a fifth of its country.

 

All this after having been told during almost the entire duration of the war that Ukraine was winning...

Of course people will be told that it's not a defeat, merely a "stalemate", that NATO comes out of it reinforced with additional members, that it's Ukraine or Zelensky's fault anyhow, bla bla bla...

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

First of which being: if they can't defeat Russia, what hope do they have against China which is likely - just looking at metrics (number of people, production capacity, military budget, etc.) - at least 5 times more powerful? The answer is obvious.

Another one is that all those places around the world who thought they were protected by the US will start (in fact are already starting) asking themselves: "wait a minute... That protection isn't worth much, is it?" And so we'll likely witness very significant shifts of alliances and protection arrangements.

Lastly people in Western countries will at some point wake up from their propagandized haze and ask very simple questions like: why did we ruin ourselves for Ukraine with almost nothing to show for it? Wouldn't we and the Ukrainians have been better off if we'd respected Minsk 2 and if we hadn't tried to convert Ukraine into a Western bulwark against Russia? And so this will likely serve as a hard lesson domestically that we'd better be much more humble about our geopolitical ambitions (assuming the West still is capable of learning lessons, which is far from certain).

All in all, this will undoubtedly be seen by history as the defining event that signified we moved from Western hegemony into a multipolar world. A very long chapter of our collective world history book has just been closed.

 

Only time will tell for sure .....

[Morch]

2 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

 

You say "no failure", despite ...
NBCNEWS - U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official.

 

Lets review...
For the past 2 years we've had NATO countries send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine, a quantity of weapons so enormous it depleted their own reserves, a vast undisclosed amount of mercenary soldiers, and threw everything but the kitchen sink in terms of sanctions to cripple Russia. The result? It simply didn't work, NATO is now suing for peace and Ukraine will probably end up having lost at least a fifth of its country.

 

All this after having been told during almost the entire duration of the war that Ukraine was winning...

Of course people will be told that it's not a defeat, merely a "stalemate", that NATO comes out of it reinforced with additional members, that it's Ukraine or Zelensky's fault anyhow, bla bla bla...

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

First of which being: if they can't defeat Russia, what hope do they have against China which is likely - just looking at metrics (number of people, production capacity, military budget, etc.) - at least 5 times more powerful? The answer is obvious.

Another one is that all those places around the world who thought they were protected by the US will start (in fact are already starting) asking themselves: "wait a minute... That protection isn't worth much, is it?" And so we'll likely witness very significant shifts of alliances and protection arrangements.

Lastly people in Western countries will at some point wake up from their propagandized haze and ask very simple questions like: why did we ruin ourselves for Ukraine with almost nothing to show for it? Wouldn't we and the Ukrainians have been better off if we'd respected Minsk 2 and if we hadn't tried to convert Ukraine into a Western bulwark against Russia? And so this will likely serve as a hard lesson domestically that we'd better be much more humble about our geopolitical ambitions (assuming the West still is capable of learning lessons, which is far from certain).

All in all, this will undoubtedly be seen by history as the defining event that signified we moved from Western hegemony into a multipolar world. A very long chapter of our collective world history book has just been closed.

 

Only time will tell for sure .....

 

 

"But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

 

NATO wasn't fighting, though. Ukraine was. And all them arms, supplies, gear? NATO armies have way more. All them main battle systems not supplied, or supplied in small numbers - plenty of that.

 

What it comes down to is that Russia, for all its boasting, and supposed might couldn't outright win a fight a much weaker opponent, and still can't.

 

If anything, we should be worried NATO will become too complacent after reviewing the sad performance of the Russian forces.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

 

You say "no failure", despite ...
NBCNEWS - U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official.

 

Lets review...
For the past 2 years we've had NATO countries send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine, a quantity of weapons so enormous it depleted their own reserves, a vast undisclosed amount of mercenary soldiers, and threw everything but the kitchen sink in terms of sanctions to cripple Russia. The result? It simply didn't work, NATO is now suing for peace and Ukraine will probably end up having lost at least a fifth of its country.

 

All this after having been told during almost the entire duration of the war that Ukraine was winning...

Of course people will be told that it's not a defeat, merely a "stalemate", that NATO comes out of it reinforced with additional members, that it's Ukraine or Zelensky's fault anyhow, bla bla bla...

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

First of which being: if they can't defeat Russia, what hope do they have against China which is likely - just looking at metrics (number of people, production capacity, military budget, etc.) - at least 5 times more powerful? The answer is obvious.

Another one is that all those places around the world who thought they were protected by the US will start (in fact are already starting) asking themselves: "wait a minute... That protection isn't worth much, is it?" And so we'll likely witness very significant shifts of alliances and protection arrangements.

Lastly people in Western countries will at some point wake up from their propagandized haze and ask very simple questions like: why did we ruin ourselves for Ukraine with almost nothing to show for it? Wouldn't we and the Ukrainians have been better off if we'd respected Minsk 2 and if we hadn't tried to convert Ukraine into a Western bulwark against Russia? And so this will likely serve as a hard lesson domestically that we'd better be much more humble about our geopolitical ambitions (assuming the West still is capable of learning lessons, which is far from certain).

All in all, this will undoubtedly be seen by history as the defining event that signified we moved from Western hegemony into a multipolar world. A very long chapter of our collective world history book has just been closed.

 

Only time will tell for sure .....

 

Minsk 2 never had a chance of succeeding given that Putin undermined it from the outset.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

 

You say "no failure", despite ...
NBCNEWS - U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official.

 

Lets review...
For the past 2 years we've had NATO countries send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine, a quantity of weapons so enormous it depleted their own reserves, a vast undisclosed amount of mercenary soldiers, and threw everything but the kitchen sink in terms of sanctions to cripple Russia. The result? It simply didn't work, NATO is now suing for peace and Ukraine will probably end up having lost at least a fifth of its country.

 

All this after having been told during almost the entire duration of the war that Ukraine was winning...

Of course people will be told that it's not a defeat, merely a "stalemate", that NATO comes out of it reinforced with additional members, that it's Ukraine or Zelensky's fault anyhow, bla bla bla...

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

First of which being: if they can't defeat Russia, what hope do they have against China which is likely - just looking at metrics (number of people, production capacity, military budget, etc.) - at least 5 times more powerful? The answer is obvious.

Another one is that all those places around the world who thought they were protected by the US will start (in fact are already starting) asking themselves: "wait a minute... That protection isn't worth much, is it?" And so we'll likely witness very significant shifts of alliances and protection arrangements.

Lastly people in Western countries will at some point wake up from their propagandized haze and ask very simple questions like: why did we ruin ourselves for Ukraine with almost nothing to show for it? Wouldn't we and the Ukrainians have been better off if we'd respected Minsk 2 and if we hadn't tried to convert Ukraine into a Western bulwark against Russia? And so this will likely serve as a hard lesson domestically that we'd better be much more humble about our geopolitical ambitions (assuming the West still is capable of learning lessons, which is far from certain).

All in all, this will undoubtedly be seen by history as the defining event that signified we moved from Western hegemony into a multipolar world. A very long chapter of our collective world history book has just been closed.

 

Only time will tell for sure .....

 

I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?

 

NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one.

 

Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one.

 

All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through.

[freeworld]

13 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

Ukraine says what happens in this war, all the West can do is give Ukraine the weapons, F16 fighter jets are coming next year which should be a game changer. Freedom doesn't come free,

F16 Game changer-LOL; Where are those promised Abram tanks? what happened to the Challenger tanks and Leopard tanks? they were all supposed to be game changers.

[Wobblybob]

Just now, freeworld said:

F16 Game changer-LOL; Where are those promised Abram tanks? what happened to the Challenger tanks and Leopard tanks? they were all supposed to be game changers.

I said "should", but there again some of us are not fortunate enough to read the future. Whatever you think of the kit the Ukrainians have got they are retaking more ground than the illegal invaders.

Are you of the opinion that Ukraine should just surrender, capitulate or even appease the 2nd biggest military in the world, surely you cannot be impressed by Russias dismal performance can you?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts.

That Blinken guy seems to be a real loser. Failed to defeat the Russians in Ukraine, and failed to make netanyahu obey the American directives in Gaza.

He must be a laughing stock in Washington.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, freeworld said:

F16 Game changer-LOL; Where are those promised Abram tanks? what happened to the Challenger tanks and Leopard tanks? they were all supposed to be game changers.

Too little and too late to make a difference. Two armies using more or less the same weapons and tactics. Ukraine has the more dedicated soldiers, but Russia has more cannon fodder to call on.

Now that the shells are running out for Ukraine ( going to israel instead ) it's not looking good for Zelenski's prospects of the victor's laurels.

 

General Winter has arrived.

[expat_4_life]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic.

 

I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?

 

NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one.

 

Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one.

 

All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through.

 

1) "Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic."
Impressive, resort to name calling and denigrating a community member expressing their own opinion/analysis by name calling, so proud.

2) "I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?"
I respect that you thought the war might end quickly, but it just analysis/opinion, that is all it is - it does not mean that Kiev failing to fall in the opening days of the war was a Russian failure, unless you of course have a link to the Russian military's plans that explicitly stipulates Kiev falling as an objective, maybe a pocket book version that you can share?

3) "NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one."
I did provide a source (the headline anyway), NBC news, you can find the article by searching the headline. Exactly what is suing for peace?  Its when one of the co-belligerents approaches another and seeks to end the conflict (as it appears the US/NATO is preparing to do), and might I add typically the side that is losing.

4) "Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one."
No, a loss in Ukraine by US/NATO would look weak, a geopolitical loss with enormous implications.  What I did was offer my analysis on how China (and the rest of the world) might view a "Russian win in Ukraine".

5) "All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through."

This is all a matter of global political strategic thinking/analysis ... I would agree that the US/NATO losing in Ukraine is a disaster, but that I think the conflict is heading in that direction.  Should the US see it through to a loss?

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, freeworld said:

F16 Game changer-LOL; Where are those promised Abram tanks? what happened to the Challenger tanks and Leopard tanks? they were all supposed to be game changers.

There was a vdo on Al Jazeera of a Leopard tank getting blown up. Perhaps the Russians were waiting for them.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:33 AM, heybruce said:

All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through.

Do tell!

The world was watching as the last Americans ignominiously climbed aboard a helicopter to escape the approaching North Vietnamese

 

The world was watching as they failed to rescue the embassy staff in Tehran

 

The world was watching as the Americans failed to see Gulf 1 through and left Saddam to be killed along with lots more allied boys some years later.

 

The world was watching as America made a humiliating exit from Afghanistan.

 

I think the world is quite used to seeing the Americans not seeing wars through.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

 

1) "Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic."
Impressive, resort to name calling and denigrating a community member expressing their own opinion/analysis by name calling, so proud.

2) "I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?"
I respect that you thought the war might end quickly, but it just analysis/opinion, that is all it is - it does not mean that Kiev failing to fall in the opening days of the war was a Russian failure, unless you of course have a link to the Russian military's plans that explicitly stipulates Kiev falling as an objective, maybe a pocket book version that you can share?

3) "NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one."
I did provide a source (the headline anyway), NBC news, you can find the article by searching the headline. Exactly what is suing for peace?  Its when one of the co-belligerents approaches another and seeks to end the conflict (as it appears the US/NATO is preparing to do), and might I add typically the side that is losing.

4) "Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one."
No, a loss in Ukraine by US/NATO would look weak, a geopolitical loss with enormous implications.  What I did was offer my analysis on how China (and the rest of the world) might view a "Russian win in Ukraine".

5) "All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through."

This is all a matter of global political strategic thinking/analysis ... I would agree that the US/NATO losing in Ukraine is a disaster, but that I think the conflict is heading in that direction.  Should the US see it through to a loss?

"Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic."

 

I did not state that in the post you replied to.  You edited my post to put those words in there for some reason.  Why?

 

Russia attempted to seize Kyiv and other key cities in the first days of the war, and failed miserably, losing many of their best troops and equipment.  Do you think that was Russia's plan?

 

"Russia’s initial military action in Ukraine suggests its forces are making an audacious thunder run to capture key cities on the way to Kyiv, where they hope to isolate and eventually decapitate the Western-backed government and install new leadership loyal to Moscow, analysts and Pentagon officials said Thursday.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/24/ukraine-russia-military-strategy/

 

Talking about talks without including Russia is not "suing for peace".  Try using the phrase correctly.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do tell!

The world was watching as the last Americans ignominiously climbed aboard a helicopter to escape the approaching North Vietnamese

 

The world was watching as they failed to rescue the embassy staff in Tehran

 

The world was watching as the Americans failed to see Gulf 1 through and left Saddam to be killed along with lots more allied boys some years later.

 

The world was watching as America made a humiliating exit from Afghanistan.

 

I think the world is quite used to seeing the Americans not seeing wars through.

Are you aware that the US is not fighting in Ukraine?

[jayceenik]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Are you aware that the US is not fighting in Ukraine?

Indeed, there no GIs dying (now) in Ukraine.

This time the US will let their $$$ and their weapons and the Ukrainians do the fighting for them.

Since the American taxpayer the Europeans and the Ukrainians are OK with that arrangement there should be little or no debate about that US proxy war against  Russia.

 

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, jayceenik said:

Indeed, there no GIs dying (now) in Ukraine.

This time the US will let their $$$ and their weapons and the Ukrainians do the fighting for them.

Since the American taxpayer the Europeans and the Ukrainians are OK with that arrangement there should be little or no debate about that US proxy war against  Russia.

 

More "US proxy war on Russia" nonsense.  Poor, sweet, innocent little Russia can't even invade its neighbors without friends of those neighbors offering a helping hand.  So unfair.

[thaibeachlovers]

Al Jazeera just had a item about Ukraine war widows, but nothing, nada, zero about any advances by either side, which IMO means it's a stalemate.

I'm with the general, and he's an actual military man, unlike the guy that dresses like one on tv.

[sirineou]

 

" Russia's war against Ukraine may end very suddenly, Zelenskyy’s top aide says"

https://news.yahoo.com/russias-war-against-ukraine-may-152000250.html

 

He might know a thing or two about the subject since.

"Over 65 countries gather in Malta to discuss implementation of Ukraine's 10-point plan to end war "

https://english.nv.ua/nation/meeting-of-reps-to-discuss-implementing-ukraine-s-10-point-peace-plan-kicks-off-in-malta-50364042.html

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

" Russia's war against Ukraine may end very suddenly, Zelenskyy’s top aide says"

https://news.yahoo.com/russias-war-against-ukraine-may-152000250.html

 

He might know a thing or two about the subject since.

"Over 65 countries gather in Malta to discuss implementation of Ukraine's 10-point plan to end war "

https://english.nv.ua/nation/meeting-of-reps-to-discuss-implementing-ukraine-s-10-point-peace-plan-kicks-off-in-malta-50364042.html

I wasn't aware that Ukraine was going to ask for a negotiated end to the conflict. I didn't see anything about how they would otherwise end the fighting.

Sounds like something to keep the $ coming in, rather than a serious attempt to get peace, as without Russia, how can anything change?

[Tug]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that Ukraine was going to ask for a negotiated end to the conflict. I didn't see anything about how they would otherwise end the fighting.

Sounds like something to keep the $ coming in, rather than a serious attempt to get peace, as without Russia, how can anything change?

Naa I think it’s more about stoping the rape and murder of the Ukrainian people their sovereignty their nation it’s not about( keeping the money rolling in……..

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Naa I think it’s more about stoping the rape and murder of the Ukrainian people their sovereignty their nation it’s not about( keeping the money rolling in……..

 

You can tell how sincere they are in their desire for peace by the 10 concessions they're demanding in Malta:

 

The ten points of the Ukrainian Peace Formula are as follows:

1. Radiation and nuclear safety;
2. Food security;
3. Energy security;
4. Release of all prisoners and deportees;
5. Implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and world order;
6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities;
7. Justice, i.e., a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression and compensation for damages;
8. Immediate protection of the environment;
9. Security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent escalation;
10. Confirmation of the end of the war.

[RayC]

33 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You can tell how sincere they are in their desire for peace by the 10 concessions they're demanding in Malta:

 

The ten points of the Ukrainian Peace Formula are as follows:

1. Radiation and nuclear safety;
2. Food security;
3. Energy security;
4. Release of all prisoners and deportees;
5. Implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and world order;
6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities;
7. Justice, i.e., a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression and compensation for damages;
8. Immediate protection of the environment;
9. Security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent escalation;
10. Confirmation of the end of the war.

 

I'm unclear about your point?

 

Do you think that those demands are reasonable or not?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

You can tell how sincere they are in their desire for peace by the 10 concessions they're demanding in Malta:

 

The ten points of the Ukrainian Peace Formula are as follows:

1. Radiation and nuclear safety;
2. Food security;
3. Energy security;
4. Release of all prisoners and deportees;
5. Implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and world order;
6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities;
7. Justice, i.e., a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression and compensation for damages;
8. Immediate protection of the environment;
9. Security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent escalation;
10. Confirmation of the end of the war.

Looks reasonable to me.

 

I don't know why you call them concessions, unless you mean that 5, 6, 7, and 9 are clear concessions demanded of Russia.

[impulse]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Looks reasonable to me.

 

I don't know why you call them concessions, unless you mean that 5, 6, 7, and 9 are clear concessions demanded of Russia.

 

I call them concessions because they're insisting on land that Russia already possesses.  Demanding those 10 points is just their way of refusing to negotiate.

 

With the 20:20 clarity of vision that comes from history, do you think the Palestinians would have been better off accepting the UN offer of half the land that had been stolen from them in 1948?  But they held out for "from the river to the sea" and look where they are today.

 

Ukraine can negotiate with Russia, probably conceding the 4 Oblasts and definitely conceding Crimea.  Or they can risk ending up where the Palestinians are today, after sending tens, if not hundreds of thousands more of their men to die in the current stalemate.  Putting all of Ukraine at risk, with support from the EU and the USA waning.

 

Sucks, I know.  But sometimes you have to be pragmatic.