28 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

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.

 

 

I'll just keep that one for reference....got a feeling it will come in handy sometime.

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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.

 

Ukraine is demanding no more than a return of the land seized by Russia since 2014. It is an entirely reasonable and justified demand and imo should be a pre-requisite for the commencement of any talks.

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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.

 

You can apply hypothetical counterfactuals to anything: With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure that pre-WW2 British governments would have framed a different strategy in Palestine.

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Ukraine can negotiate with Russia, probably conceding the 4 Oblasts and definitely conceding Crimea. 

 

Allowing Russia to obtain the 4 oblasts and Crimea would be a reward for acts of naked aggression. 

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, the longer the war continues the more deaths on both sides there will be. That is a truism.

 

Support from the EU is not wanting. Hopefully, the US will soon vote through a further aid package for Ukraine.

 

Please refer to the thread entitled, "Avdiivka about to fall?". Thaibeachlovers holds a similar view to you and we had a long exchange there in which I offered  counterarguments.

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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

 

 

That conclusion rests on the assumption  that a Russian victory is inevitable. That is by no means certain 

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Ukraine is demanding no more than a return of the land seized by Russia since 2014. It is an entirely reasonable and justified demand and imo should be a pre-requisite for the commencement of any talks.

 

 

You can apply hypothetical counterfactuals to anything: With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure that pre-WW2 British governments would have framed a different strategy in Palestine.

 

 

Allowing Russia to obtain the 4 oblasts and Crimea would be a reward for acts of naked aggression. 

 

 

Unfortunately, the longer the war continues the more deaths on both sides there will be. That is a truism.

 

Support from the EU is not wanting. Hopefully, the US will soon vote through a further aid package for Ukraine.

 

Please refer to the thread entitled, "Avdiivka about to fall?". Thaibeachlovers holds a similar view to you and we had a long exchange there in which I offered  counterarguments.

 

 

That conclusion rests on the assumption  that a Russian victory is inevitable. That is by no means certain 

Thanks ray Wonderfull post I think some of the Putin supporters need to take into account of the Ukrainians seeing their families murdered women raped kids kidnapped lands stolen tends to focus your resolve just a bit no do they thak into account the memory of what hitler tried to do (almost verbatim reasoning I might add on the part of putin)as far as the USA just reference all the recent elections the republicans are getting slaughtered (with good reason I might add) let Europe take up the slack till we can get out (house) in order!salva Ukraine 🇺🇦 

11 hours ago, impulse said:

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.

While it's not this topic you mentioned it so........

 

I wish posters would stop saying that the Palestinians had

anything to do with resisting the Israelis in 1948. It was Jordan, Syria and Egypt that sent armies. The Palestinians had no army, no training and no weapons sufficient to resist. They didn't even have a country to lose as Jordan, with the British egging them on had annexed Palestine to stop the Palestinians  having a homeland.

If there is anyone to blame for the chaos to come, it was the British.

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Ukraine is demanding no more than a return of the land seized by Russia since 2014. It is an entirely reasonable and justified demand and imo should be a pre-requisite for the commencement of any talks.

 

 

You can apply hypothetical counterfactuals to anything: With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure that pre-WW2 British governments would have framed a different strategy in Palestine.

 

 

Allowing Russia to obtain the 4 oblasts and Crimea would be a reward for acts of naked aggression. 

 

 

Unfortunately, the longer the war continues the more deaths on both sides there will be. That is a truism.

 

Support from the EU is not wanting. Hopefully, the US will soon vote through a further aid package for Ukraine.

 

Please refer to the thread entitled, "Avdiivka about to fall?". Thaibeachlovers holds a similar view to you and we had a long exchange there in which I offered  counterarguments.

 

 

That conclusion rests on the assumption  that a Russian victory is inevitable. That is by no means certain 

I was going to respond to impulse's post, but I can't improve upon your response.  Thanks.

If this does not scream stalemate, I don't know what does? 

Quote

Former NATO Secretary General suggests accepting Ukraine into Alliance with no guarantees for occupied territories

"Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Former Secretary General of NATO, has put forward a proposal for Ukraine to join the alliance, but that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty should not apply to the territories occupied by Russia. "

https://news.yahoo.com/former-nato-secretary-general-suggests-141300284.html

 

There only one issue in my mind, if I understand the provisions for membership correctly.

I thought that Ukraine  could not join while it was at war. 

So does Rasmussen also suggests that Ukraine sues for peace, and concedes 1/3 of it's territories to 

Russia? Otherwise, in my mind, Ukraine would still be in a state of war with Russia and as such it could not join the alliance.  

"In a rare visit to Kyiv this April, Stoltenberg said Ukraine's "rightful place" was in NATO but later made clear it would not be able to join while the war with Russia,  "

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-would-happen-if-ukraine-joined-nato-2023-07-05/#:~:text=It is cited as one,an attack on all allies.

 

So what has changed? 

If Ukraine is doing so well in this war. why is the west willing to give up a substantial percentage of Ukraine and Maintain a  "Not stalemate" 

Are things so bad, that the west is willing ro rush in to the aid of Ukraine? 

So many questions so few answers,It would truly be funny if it was not so tragic for Ukraine and it's people. 

On 11/9/2023 at 4:12 AM, 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.

But Americans are satisfied with the public  service statements and  pictorial "evidence" to confirm combined US  military  might and assistance in "provision" of aid which in reality is a mortgage on Ukrainian territory  ahead of  Russia.

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

So what has changed? 

If Ukraine is doing so well in this war. why is the west willing to give up a substantial percentage of Ukraine and Maintain a  "Not stalemate" 

Are things so bad, that the west is willing ro rush in to the aid of Ukraine? 

So many questions so few answers,It would truly be funny if it was not so tragic for Ukraine and it's people. 

IMO they can't admit that it's stalemate, as that implies Russia might not lose, and Russia losing is the ONLY thing that makes throwing billions and billions of $ into the bottomless pit that is Ukraine worth while.

How can they explain to the ambulance drivers in the UK that they couldn't have a pay rise because all the money was wasted in Ukraine with ZERO to show for it?

 

IMO, western "leaders" that went along with the story that Ukraine could defeat Russia if only the west will give it lots and lots and lots of taxpayers money, will be looking seriously embarrassed come the next election.

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

So many questions so few answers,It would truly be funny if it was not so tragic for Ukraine and it's people. 

IMO most questions when it comes to anything to do with government decisions that are not entirely "logical" are answered if one "follows the money".

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO they can't admit that it's stalemate, as that implies Russia might not lose, and Russia losing is the ONLY thing that makes throwing billions and billions of $ into the bottomless pit that is Ukraine worth while.

How can they explain to the ambulance drivers in the UK that they couldn't have a pay rise because all the money was wasted in Ukraine with ZERO to show for it?

 

IMO, western "leaders" that went along with the story that Ukraine could defeat Russia if only the west will give it lots and lots and lots of taxpayers money, will be looking seriously embarrassed come the next election.

 

On the other hand, Russia has not won - and does not appear to be winning - which is the important thing.

 

You conveniently forget to mention the resources (both human and economic) that Russia is allocating to this war. There may come a time when the Russian people tire of the hardships that this is causing them.

 

I don't usually like to use anecdotal evidence but as a UK taxpayer, I have no objection to money being allocated to Ukraine to fund their war effort and my family and friends all feel the same way. Maybe we are outliers amongst the UK electorate but I doubt it.

On 11/12/2023 at 5:50 AM, sirineou said:

If this does not scream stalemate, I don't know what does? 

"Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Former Secretary General of NATO, has put forward a proposal for Ukraine to join the alliance, but that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty should not apply to the territories occupied by Russia. "

https://news.yahoo.com/former-nato-secretary-general-suggests-141300284.html

 

There only one issue in my mind, if I understand the provisions for membership correctly.

I thought that Ukraine  could not join while it was at war. 

So does Rasmussen also suggests that Ukraine sues for peace, and concedes 1/3 of it's territories to 

Russia? Otherwise, in my mind, Ukraine would still be in a state of war with Russia and as such it could not join the alliance.  

"In a rare visit to Kyiv this April, Stoltenberg said Ukraine's "rightful place" was in NATO but later made clear it would not be able to join while the war with Russia,  "

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-would-happen-if-ukraine-joined-nato-2023-07-05/#:~:text=It is cited as one,an attack on all allies.

 

So what has changed? 

If Ukraine is doing so well in this war. why is the west willing to give up a substantial percentage of Ukraine and Maintain a  "Not stalemate" 

Are things so bad, that the west is willing ro rush in to the aid of Ukraine? 

So many questions so few answers,It would truly be funny if it was not so tragic for Ukraine and it's people. 

"why is the west willing to give up a substantial percentage of Ukraine"

 

When did a former Secretary General become "the west"?

Russia confirms damage to warship in Black Sea

On 11/9/2023 at 8:37 AM, heybruce said:

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

We are aware, we are also aware they have been encouraging former soviet republics to join Nato......do you think that could be the problem today?

On 11/9/2023 at 2:37 PM, heybruce said:

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

While they do not, to my knowledge, have American troops in Ukraine, they certainly seem prepared to sacrifice Ukrainian lives in a war unlikely, IMO, to result in a Ukrainian "victory".

They have apparently already diverted munitions elsewhere, which makes me wonder just how committed they actually are to Ukraine.

Words from Biden claiming support do not result in a win on the battlefield without something more substantial being sent.

On 11/12/2023 at 1:15 PM, heybruce said:

I was going to respond to impulse's post, but I can't improve upon your response.  Thanks.

 

2 months later, thousands and thousands more dead.  Has the situation improved for the Ukrainians?  How many more dead do they need before they accept reality, even if it isn't fair? 

 

Maybe a whole generation of young men.  Many being chased down by recruitment squads.   Who are dying for the right to live under one corrupt flag instead of another.

 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While they do not, to my knowledge, have American troops in Ukraine, they certainly seem prepared to sacrifice Ukrainian lives in a war unlikely, IMO, to result in a Ukrainian "victory".

They have apparently already diverted munitions elsewhere, which makes me wonder just how committed they actually are to Ukraine.

Words from Biden claiming support do not result in a win on the battlefield without something more substantial being sent.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Coming from someone who 'understands' fighting to the last man on other conflict, this is pretty dishonest.

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

2 months later, thousands and thousands more dead.  Has the situation improved for the Ukrainians?  How many more dead do they need before they accept reality, even if it isn't fair? 

 

Maybe a whole generation of young men.  Many being chased down by recruitment squads.   Who are dying for the right to live under one corrupt flag instead of another.

 

 

One could almost believe you care about Ukraine and the Ukrainians.

 

How are things working out for Russia and Russians? All them dead young men, not a whole lot gained....