Jump to content

Ukraine must cede territory in peace talks, says US


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

He wants an end to the war not a ceasefire

Likely he suspects it would be used to conscript more men and build up their equipment, which he obviously doesn't want. I agree he wants an end, and he keeps what he has PERIOD.

  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, worgeordie said:

Why must Ukraine cede its own land , just because the Americans say so ,

great way to start a negotiation , then in a couple of years when Russia

has strengthened its army ,it will try to take the rest of Ukraine ,Russia

needs to piss off back to Russia and stay there....

 

regards Worgeordie 

Can I borrow your crystal ball. I want some winning lotto numbers.

 

How many dead Ukrainians are acceptable to try and keep that land?

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

You only named Ukraine , there are two in this war ,Trump thinks and has said it , because Russia

has lots a lot of people and equipment that Russia in a settlement should keep the land it has stolen.

 

regards Worgeordie

All right then. Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing. Is that acceptable to you?

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Kursk salient is gone. Troops now surrounded and withdrawing. I said this may happen last week and got the usual vacuous laughing emojis. Nobody had the balls to challenge me though. The only card albeit a small one that Zelensky had has folded. Always was a strategic error and has now proven to be the case.  

 

Looks like it....unfortunately:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/whats-happening-russias-kursk-region-why-does-it-matter-2025-03-12/

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 5:19 PM, nauseus said:

It was inevitable. No way Putin would allow it to remain before the end on the war. Zelensky would have used it to negotiate Russia leaving part of Ukraine. That option has gone, along with the "best troops" ( if that was even true ), and a lot of equipment.

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 5:39 PM, worgeordie said:

I said if the Germans had landed in England , there is a difference Singapore not their country,

But if you think so your the Man  555

 

regards Worgeordie

I'm being realistic. You claiming every British man would choose death over surrender is nonsense.

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 5:24 PM, jayboy said:

 

There was another occasion when a wicked aggressor was winning a war in which it sought sought to exterminate a militarily inferior country.The leader of that country said:

 

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

By your debased morality that leader should have  kept his bravado to himself and sough a humiliating accommodation with the aggressor.

That was a speech. Britain was lucky that Churchill had rearmed the airforce, as without the airforce Britain would have been lost, and it was only that Hitler stopped attacking the airfields and attacked London instead that saved the airforce.

Churchill made another speech which you may recall "never have so many owed so much to so few" etc.

 

Ukraine doesn't have a Churchill, and they are losing. Speeches won't fix that.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/13/2025 at 5:22 PM, worgeordie said:

You seem happy about that , you a Russian lover ? you think it's OK for Russia to

invade Ukraine ...

 

regards Worgeordie

My happiness or otherwise is no concern of yours.

Try discussing the topic instead of me.

 

Yawn.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Britain was lucky that Churchill had rearmed the airforce, as without the airforce Britain would have been lost

How could Churchill be responsible for rebuilding the RAF.  He only became PM on 10 May 1940 and the Battle of Britain is deemed to have started on 10 July?

He was out of government for al of the 1930's until he became First Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of war.

  • Agree 1

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...