Jump to content

Putin Promises 'Immediate' Peace if Ukraine Drops NATO Bid and Cedes Occupied Territories


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

if he wanted to erase Ukraine he would have done it from the start. 

 

Putin has always said Ukraine joining NATO was a no, The US has pushed this further, the head of nato openly said this some months ago. 

Yes he could have with nukes.

But he doesn't want to use nukes because of MAD. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NanLaew said:

 

He's what now?

 

What writing?

 

Ukraine is a America's puppet and doesn't matter is they agree or not.

 

He can see the US, NATO and their allies' waning interest. He can do this "special military operation" until the proverbial cows come home which is something the US, NATO and their allies can't.

You're out of touch.

The west's interest is the opposite of waning.

That's why fascist dictator Putin is freaking out now.

The west is even trying to Trump proof the support for Ukraine now. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Your article is over 2 years and at the time that Ukraine was about to sign the peace deal with Russia.

 

Try to keep up.

Well done, I am amazed at your chrono-numeracy skills.

My post was entirely relevant to the post I replied to, yours' isn't.


The OP also contained references to the past e.g. WWII, the old Soviet Union and 1962 Russian missiles in Cuba.
 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

no, there were talks on the table in April 22, the uk and us put a stop to them. negotiations could have ended the war back then. so all the dead since are on the shoulders of the BOJO and Biden.  

 

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So the Kremlin propaganda narrative goes. 

 

Sorry to break it to you @Jingthingbut @frank83628is correct.  Confirmed by one of the Ukrainian negotiators.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/

Edited by expat_4_life
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

if he wanted to erase Ukraine he would have done it from the start. 

 

Putin has always said Ukraine joining NATO was a no, The US has pushed this further, the head of nato openly said this some months ago. 

They are quasi NATO already, another fight he's lost

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jas007 said:
2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Los Lobo,

 

That article is two years old, so not too relevant today.  In ant event, given the continued U.S. meddling in Ukraine since at least 2014, I’m sure Russia wasn’t taking promises by Zelensky at face value.  And remember, US Secretary of State James Baker once promised Russia that NATO would not expand one inch eastward. That was way back in 1991, I believe. And yet, look at what has happened since. Country after country in Eastern Europe has joined NATO or is in the process of doing so.
 

Now, more than ever, the issue is important to Russia. They don’t want NATO on their doorstep in Ukraine.  That’s understandable. At this point, it’s obvious the U.S. wants nothing more than to harm Russia in as many ways as possible.  The rationale that NATO is only a defensive alliance won’t fly.

 

Imagine hostile forces were established in Tijuana, or Juarez, or Cuba.  Hostile forces armed with all the latest military equipment, including missiles. The U.S. establishment would go nuts.  They don’t want that kind of threat right on the border. Again, that’s understandable. Why should it be any different for Russia?

.


Jas007,
 

Yet it was relevant to your post.

And was your previous reference to WWII, the Soviet Union and Cuban missiles and now 2014 and James Baker in 1990 relevant now in 2024?

 

 

Edited by LosLobo
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2024 at 1:34 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Hitler lost. If he had nuclear weapons would he have lost?

 

Different times, different scenario.

Same megalomaniacal dictator traits though.

Time does not change that.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Is that a dodgy link.........?  :unsure:

 

You seem to think Ukraine should have said to Putin, "Yes Sir", well that is the cowards way out, When Hitler and Japan went on their rampage, we all could have  said, "Yes Sir".

But we didn't, because we knew we were in the right, they were just scum aggressors.

So I put you and a few others down as Red's, or cowards.....:coffee1:

 

there are plenty of links to choose from, the one i posted was quoting from a Ukrainian paper, i thought that might satisfy some of you, rather than it be a 'right wing putin puppet outlet'. google it yourself, there are namy to choose from 

  • Confused 2
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2024 at 1:42 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Yes, he would have lost, the same if Putin used nuclear weapons, he would lose within seconds

And so would everyone else!!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some bickering and personal attacks, against community rules removed. Stop it now and stay discussing the topic, not each other.

 

Rule 9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

there are plenty of links to choose from, the one i posted was quoting from a Ukrainian paper, i thought that might satisfy some of you, rather than it be a 'right wing putin puppet outlet'. google it yourself, there are namy to choose from 

Is it the Ukrainian version of The Guardian, Daily Worker or Morning Star............. 😜

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Los Lobo,

 

That article is two years old, so not too relevant today.  In ant event, given the continued U.S. meddling in Ukraine since at least 2014, I’m sure Russia wasn’t taking promises by Zelensky at face value.  And remember, US Secretary of State James Baker once promised Russia that NATO would not expand one inch eastward. That was way back in 1991, I believe. And yet, look at what has happened since. Country after country in Eastern Europe has joined NATO or is in the process of doing so.
 

Now, more than ever, the issue is important to Russia. They don’t want NATO on their doorstep in Ukraine.  That’s understandable. At this point, it’s obvious the U.S. wants nothing more than to harm Russia in as many ways as possible.  The rationale that NATO is only a defensive alliance won’t fly.

 

Imagine hostile forces were established in Tijuana, or Juarez, or Cuba.  Hostile forces armed with all the latest military equipment, including missiles. The U.S. establishment would go nuts.  They don’t want that kind of threat right on the border. Again, that’s understandable. Why should it be any different for Russia?

Have you seen how long the Finnish border with russia is?

Well done putin,great strategy!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I hear Russia is recruiting. Why don't you join their genocidal war against Ukraine. Or at the very least donate you pension to it?

If you are already doing this then please ignore. But if you're not and you are blowharding for more war then could I suggest putting your money where your mouths and keyboards are.

 

https://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/war-bonds--invest-to-support-ukraine

 

 

Screenshot 2024-06-16 132739.jpg

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2024 at 8:15 AM, Jingthing said:

Putin doesn't want peace. But he wants the world to think he wants peace.

 

So. There's a war right now, right? And peace would mean a ceasefire, right?

 

So, if both party agree on peace and one side doesn't follow it. What would it mean?

 

Let me help you, bro, as you seem to have difficulties with that part.

 

It would mean there would be still war and no ceasefire.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...