Russia Dismisses Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Offers 3 Day Ceasefire

[ChicagoExpat]

15 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

OMG..is that their only claim to fame since WW2.   The Euro's lack the means to defend themselves against Russia without the USA because they are more worried about their huge welfare state. 

This is 100% true.  However, it does seem to be changing.

[ChicagoExpat]

18 hours ago, frank83628 said:

So if it was a war crime, why didn nothi g happen? You and others here accuse other of war crimes while ignoring you own countries, and some allies too.

It is a war crime to fight on behalf of a state outside of uniform.  The fact that you don't know this is reflects badly on you, not Ukraine.  Best not to comment on issues you don't understand.

[dinsdale]

Just now, ChicagoExpat said:

Little man, I would match my understanding of ANY aspect of this issue against yours anytime, and I'd win.  Oh, wait, I've already been doing that.  Huzzah for me.

 

Keep cheering on Russia, Dinsdale.

Again you fail to recognise the difference between a neutral assessment and a biased one. Russia is winning the protracted war of attrition. This is indisputable. If they weren't the huge eastern front would be being pushed east not gradually moving west and the Kursk Oblast would have expanded from 1000km² rather than as of yesterday now only 17km² held and that will be gone in the very near future^.. These are facts and not cheering on Putin or any of that rubbish.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Again you fail to recognise the difference between a neutral assessment and a biased one. Russia is winning the protracted war of attrition. This is indisputable. If they weren't the huge eastern front would be being pushed east not gradually moving west and the Kursk Oblast would have expanded from 1000km² rather than as of yesterday now only 17km² held and that will be gone in the very near future^.. These are facts and not cheering on Putin or any of that rubbish.

To show us you're NOT cheering on Russia, and that your only stance is a "neutral observer recognizing Russia's inevitable victory" -- go ahead and condemn the war Russia started.  Or the latest civilians killed intentionally.  Or anything, there's so much to choose from.

 

We'll wait patiently.

[frank83628]

14 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

It is a war crime to fight on behalf of a state outside of uniform.  The fact that you don't know this is reflects badly on you, not Ukraine.  Best not to comment on issues you don't understand.

I said 'if', as in 'if it happened', which it didn't 

[dinsdale]

Kursk Oblast Sept 12 2024 and April 29 2025. The blue area is the area occupied and held by Ukrainian troops. Let me point out again this isn't cheering on Putin. It's fact. Note also the grey area in yesterday's map. This indicates the area in Sumy where Russian troops are present but the area is in dispute.

https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/51.2272990/35.2048684

[ChicagoExpat]

11 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

I said 'if', as in 'if it happened', which it didn't 

It did, and Putin admitted it.  Literally no one on either side of the argument disputes this... but you.  At least rouse yourself from your Cheeto-induced stupor long enough to Google something like "Putin admits little green men were Russian" or something before commenting on something that's indisputably true.

[ChicagoExpat]

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Kursk Oblast Sept 12 2024 and April 29 2025. The blue area is the area occupied and held by Ukrainian troops. Let me point out again this isn't cheering on Putin. It's fact. Note also the grey area in yesterday's map. This indicates the area in Sumy where Russian troops are present but the area is in dispute.

https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/51.2272990/35.2048684

As no one is arguing with you that Russia hasn't taken back all or nearly all of Kursk, your posting this sure looks like... cheering.  Oh -- here's a good way to show you don't support Russia -- condemn the invasion, or their consistent targeting of civilians.  Or something.  Third request.  Hard to draw any other conclusion than you do in fact support Russia.

[dinsdale]

4 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

As no one is arguing with you that Russia hasn't taken back all or nearly all of Kursk, your posting this sure looks like... cheering.  Oh -- here's a good way to show you don't support Russia -- condemn the invasion, or their consistent targeting of civilians.  Or something.  Third request.  Hard to draw any other conclusion than you do in fact support Russia.

Simply puerile accusation. I am once again simply pointing out reality. Zero bias. Again I say pointing out that Russia is winning the protracted war of attrition is fact. It's a neutral comment. Do you think in WWII people saying that Hitler was conquering Europe were cheering on Hitler?  Of course not. This is how ridiculous your accusation of me cheering on Putin and being pro-Russian is.

[frank83628]

15 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

It did, and Putin admitted it.  Literally no one on either side of the argument disputes this... but you.  At least rouse yourself from your Cheeto-induced stupor long enough to Google something like "Putin admits little green men were Russian" or something before commenting on something that's indisputably true.

Unless I see Vlad saying it directly I won't believe it, certainly not from any of the BS lying lame stream media.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Simply puerile accusation. I am once again simply pointing out reality. Zero bias. Again I say pointing out that Russia is winning the protracted war of attrition is fact. It's a neutral comment. Do you think in WWII people saying that Hitler was conquering Europe were cheering on Hitler?  Of course not. This is how ridiculous your accusation of me cheering on Putin and being pro-Russian is.

Every argument you make serves the Russian narrative.  You reject any evidence that does not fit the Russian narrative.  You refuse to condemn ANY ASPECT AT ALL of Russia's invasion -- not to mention the invasion itself.

 

One of the most enduring tropes of guys like you is the "Honest Broker" disguise -- "I'm not pro-Russian, just pro-peace!  Pay no attention to the fact that I always argue the Russian side, always argue against pro-Ukrainian points, and refuse to ever criticize Russia's war!"

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

Unless I see Vlad saying it directly I won't believe it, certainly not from any of the BS lying lame stream media.

Because the only guy you trust is "Vlad."  Got it.  And you refuse to look for yourself.  Got it.

 

This was really easy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

 

In^8] March 2014, Putin continued to maintain that there was no pre-planned intervention,^[20][21] but that "the heavily armed, tightly coordinated groups who took over Crimea's airports and ports at the start of the incursion – they were merely spontaneous 'self-defence groups' who may have acquired their Russian-looking uniforms from local [military] shops (voyentorg)".^[22][23] According to the Ukrainian Association of Gun Owners, Ukrainian law does not allow the selling or carrying of firearms other than for hunting.^[24]

On 17 April 2014, President Putin admitted publicly for the first time that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum.^{[25][9][10][26][27]} Later, he admitted that the Russian Armed Forces had blocked the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea during the events.^[2  

In response to the question of the presence of Russian troops in Crimea, Russian Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu said, "Regarding the statements about use of Russian special forces in Ukrainian events, I can only say one thing – it's hard to search for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there," and added cryptically that searching for the cat would be "stupid" if the cat is "intelligent, brave, and polite".^[29][30]

In April 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov [ru] said that the "little green men" were members of Russian Spetsnaz special forces units. According to his information, Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 troops.^{[31][32][33][34]}

[frank83628]

2 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Because the only guy you trust is "Vlad."  Got it.  And you refuse to look for yourself.  Got it.

 

This was really easy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

 

In^8] March 2014, Putin continued to maintain that there was no pre-planned intervention,^[20][21] but that "the heavily armed, tightly coordinated groups who took over Crimea's airports and ports at the start of the incursion – they were merely spontaneous 'self-defence groups' who may have acquired their Russian-looking uniforms from local [military] shops (voyentorg)".^[22][23] According to the Ukrainian Association of Gun Owners, Ukrainian law does not allow the selling or carrying of firearms other than for hunting.^[24]

On 17 April 2014, President Putin admitted publicly for the first time that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum.^{[25][9][10][26][27]} Later, he admitted that the Russian Armed Forces had blocked the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea during the events.^[2  

In response to the question of the presence of Russian troops in Crimea, Russian Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu said, "Regarding the statements about use of Russian special forces in Ukrainian events, I can only say one thing – it's hard to search for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there," and added cryptically that searching for the cat would be "stupid" if the cat is "intelligent, brave, and polite".^[29][30]

In April 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov [ru] said that the "little green men" were members of Russian Spetsnaz special forces units. According to his information, Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 troops.^{[31][32][33][34]}

Wikipedia... go away.

[SMIAI]

There are 34 references in the Wiki. But yet some prefer to believe something that has no credibility at all. The brainwashing obviously works better on the gullible.

[Eric Loh]

44 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Wikipedia... go away.

Hard to defend the indefensible ya. 

[dinsdale]

53 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Every argument you make serves the Russian narrative.  You reject any evidence that does not fit the Russian narrative. 

Ok. You show me evidence that Ukraine is winning the war. Simple as. Do that and I'll admit that my posts are Russian biased.

[frank83628]

32 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Hard to defend the indefensible ya. 

You know anyone can edit wikinpages, that was last edied 2 months ago by  that world renowned political authority  'steel1942'....so must be true🙄🤡

[candide]

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Wikipedia... go away.

B.S. denial!  The Wikipedia article shows several sources for this information.

 

[ChicagoExpat]

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Wikipedia... go away.

"Go away!  This clearly disproves my cherished opinions that had no basis in fact."

 

Frank -- one of the signs of an intelligent person is the ability to admit they're wrong (at least to themselves) and adjust their opinions in the light of new evidence.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Ok. You show me evidence that Ukraine is winning the war. Simple as. Do that and I'll admit that my posts are Russian biased.

Amigo, I've never argued that Ukraine is "winning" the war.  I've argued that Russia is losing the war, or at best is not winning.  I've argued it's been a strategic disaster for Putin, and given you a list of reasons why.  I've argued that in most respects it's been a tactical disaster for Putin, and given you a list of reasons why.  And I've argued that morally, no one should support Russia.

 

But even if I had evidence Ukraine is "winning" (I put that in quotes because while they are losing ground very slowly, this war was supposed to be over in days, and 3+ years on, it's not even close), that shouldn't be the basis of your not supporting Russia.

 

You shouldn't support Russia because 1) it's morally bankrupt to do so 2) the reasons you've used have been falsehoods, or ignorant of key information (such as the "peaceful" handover of Crimea to Russia)  3) it's not in anyone's interest except some really bad people -- unless you actually want the world to be more authoritarian, Russia/China/North Korea/Iran to exert more influence in the world, etc.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

You know anyone can edit wikinpages, that was last edied 2 months ago by  that world renowned political authority  'steel1942'....so must be true🙄🤡

"It's useless to teach a pig to dance -- it just wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

I think we're done, Frank.

[candide]

6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Again you fail to recognise the difference between a neutral assessment and a biased one. Russia is winning the protracted war of attrition. This is indisputable. If they weren't the huge eastern front would be being pushed east not gradually moving west and the Kursk Oblast would have expanded from 1000km² rather than as of yesterday now only 17km² held and that will be gone in the very near future^.. These are facts and not cheering on Putin or any of that rubbish.

Russia may be winning, but only by a small margin. Russia has been throwing all it can in anticipation of "peace" negotiations, for a rather modest outcome, given the price paid. It took nine months to get back the Kursk region, and the progress in Donbass has been quite limited. Moreover, its economic situation is dependent on the price of energy and the anticipated trend is a price decrease.

[frank83628]

31 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

"It's useless to teach a pig to dance -- it just wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

I think we're done, Frank.

Thank God for that....

 

Showing me wikipedia is like showing me a CNN report, stay in your MSM bubble 

[frank83628]

43 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

"Go away!  This clearly disproves my cherished opinions that had no basis in fact."

 

Frank -- one of the signs of an intelligent person is the ability to admit they're wrong (at least to themselves) and adjust their opinions in the light of new evidence.

Don't preach to me when you follow the MSM for your info. 

[johng]

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

You know anyone can edit wikinpages, that was last edied 2 months ago by  that world renowned political authority  'steel1942'....so must be true🙄🤡

 

Well it is supposed to be true that anyone can edit a Wiki page  but I heard a few people can't edit their own Wiki page !  mostly these are people who are described by Wiki as  "conspiracy theorists"    I also notice a trend of removing or saying removal pending of Russian translations  about events.

The co founder of Wiki is not so happy about what they have become.

Wikipedia should be taken with a large grain of salt.

[johng]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

Russia may be winning, but only by a small margin.

 

It has taken about 20% of Ukraine so far   and that is largely what Putin set out to do  in the first place

...if  peace negotiations  are fruitless he might decide to take the rest of Ukraine as a buffer zone.

 

25 minutes ago, candide said:

its economic situation is dependent on the price of energy and the anticipated trend is a price decrease.

They are self sufficient in energy and other natural resources  the sanctions have already pushed them towards alternative methods of trading with  "the rest of the world" BRICS is continuing to gain members and traction.

Apparently their economy is doomed (and they have no washing machines)

but every year we read on this here forum of the increase in Russian tourists to Thailand.

 

[dinsdale]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

Russia may be winning, but only by a small margin. Russia has been throwing all it can in anticipation of "peace" negotiations, for a rather modest outcome, given the price paid. It took nine months to get back the Kursk region, and the progress in Donbass has been quite limited. Moreover, its economic situation is dependent on the price of energy and the anticipated trend is a price decrease.

More than 20% or whatever it is in 3 years might not seem much but this is a protracted attritional war which by it's very nature is slow moving. There's some definite comparisons to be made with WWI which was also protracted attritional warfare. As for Kursk initially Ukraine sent in it's crack forces but then eventually Russia sent in some of it's crack forces and things started to change. The whole thing collapsed after the gas pipeline move that attacked Ukrainian force from the rear near Sudzha. As for Donbas Russia controls around 80% of that region with Donetsk and Luhanske under full control. Not sure I'd describe that as "quite limited". Once again before certain posters start saying I'm cheering on Putin these are simply the facts on the ground.

[ChicagoExpat]

24 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Don't preach to me when you follow the MSM for your info. 

It really comes down to someone knowledgeable about the subject talking to someone who is not only completely ignorant, but will continue to argue despite knowing nothing and being unwilling to do even the slightest research.  The problem with living with such a delicate mental framework is you're either a buffoon, disrespected by everyone and despised by most, or eventually a little tiny bit of truth and light slips in and the whole rotten edifice crumbles, which can be difficult to handle.

 

But not to worry!  We're all confident you'll remain forever in your current place, the former camp.  Enjoy your fact-free day, Frank.  Keep labeling anything that frightens you "ThE LaMeStReAm MediA!"

[ChicagoExpat]

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

More than 20% or whatever it is in 3 years might not seem much but this is a protracted attritional war which by it's very nature is slow moving. There's some definite comparisons to be made with WWI which was also protracted attritional warfare. As for Kursk initially Ukraine sent in it's crack forces but then eventually Russia sent in some of it's crack forces and things started to change. The whole thing collapsed after the gas pipeline move that attacked Ukrainian force from the rear near Sudzha. As for Donbas Russia controls around 80% of that region with Donetsk and Luhanske under full control. Not sure I'd describe that as "quite limited". Once again before certain posters start saying I'm cheering on Putin these are simply the facts on the ground.

Comparing it to WW1 isn't the worst analogy, but what broke the stalemate was the infusion of fresh troops fighting by different rules altogether (American in that case).  That's not going to happen for either side, though Russia's North Koreans seem to have finally made a difference in Kursk after horrific losses.  Here's the thing -- just like for the Germans in WW1, nearly all their gains happened early on with little progress despite the enormous loss of life and treasure.

 

(Hint:  At any time you can dispel the universally held impression that you are a Putinphile by, you know, denouncing the invasion.  Just a suggestion.)

[candide]

43 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

More than 20% or whatever it is in 3 years might not seem much but this is a protracted attritional war which by it's very nature is slow moving. There's some definite comparisons to be made with WWI which was also protracted attritional warfare. As for Kursk initially Ukraine sent in it's crack forces but then eventually Russia sent in some of it's crack forces and things started to change. The whole thing collapsed after the gas pipeline move that attacked Ukrainian force from the rear near Sudzha. As for Donbas Russia controls around 80% of that region with Donetsk and Luhanske under full control. Not sure I'd describe that as "quite limited". Once again before certain posters start saying I'm cheering on Putin these are simply the facts on the ground.

As you were adressing the issue of attrition war, I was obviously talking about the recent advances since about one year, not the big territory it conquered at the beginning of the war. It has been very costly in terms of material and human resources, for a rather modest outcome.