"Putin wants Ukraine ceasefire on current frontlines" Topic

Subject: Putin wants Ukraine ceasefire on current frontlines, sources say


link

Sure he does. But only for his troops to rest and reorganize.

His goal is to reconquer Ukraine and genocide the Ukrainian people.

If he wants a ceasefire all he need do is pack up and go home. Then reparations for all the destruction caused by the Russians can be discussed by the parties involved. My preference is that the Russians pay for every damn dime of damage that the did to Ukraine.

+1 bjporter!

Yes, Putler wants a "ceasefire."

And I want Angelina Jolie's private number, Sophia Loren at age 21, Cary Grant's body, and infinite donuts that have no calories or carbs.

Everybody wants something they have no business having.

TVAG

Hitler got an armistice with France, before continuing WWII after a rest and refit period. So Putin has learned from history.

Bunkermeister

Now's the time to pour it on!

We should be doing what Putin is always accusing us of. Actively agitating opposition elements in Belarus. Having one of his satellites slip beyond his control is just the straw that might snap that fugly camel's back.

Pupu's security forces can't be everywhere.

There was also the 1813 Armistice by Napoleon. I don't think that anyone really expected hostilities not to resume after that one, it was just for rearming.

Putin … former KGB … can't be trusted … ever …

Of course, Putin is ready to negotiate. But on their own terms))) They were voiced even before the start of the CBO.
And not with Zelensky, who has lost legitimacy.

I think every day that Zelensky resists the invasion of his country, is a day that he reinforces his legitimacy. No president has more legitimacy, than one defending his country.

Damon.

Ah, but Bush looked into his soul!

How long ago was that ? Too long, IMO … Regardless, again you can't trust Putin …

Garand +1

Apparently he also wants to swap out Zelensky for the guy who was ousted by the NATO-Nazi invasion or some-such and is tote's not a puppet. That sounds like a deliberate deal breaker or does Putin really think he can persuade someone in the West to do the dirty on Ukraine? Because anyone think that setting the precedent of allowing Putin to insert a new head of state of his choice where he fancies is a remotely good idea?

Personally I also find the timing of all these whispers about negotiations emanating from Russia suspicious with election season approaching in the US.

And I want Anya Taylor-Joy, and to finish all my unpainted figures. I don't know which is more unlikely.

Based on my lifetime of experience with wargamers, first may be just nudges it odds-wise!

"And not with Zelensky, who has lost legitimacy."

Only in the eyes of the rouge nations, their lackeys, and those who parrot their lies.

Don't accept it at face value, roll Russia back to the pre-War 2022 line-up and then help Ukraine become a Hedgehog. Maybe find out what happened to the $$ and resources that were supposed to create layered defenses of Kyiv and actually build those layered defenses. Make attacking more and more bloody for the Russians until they'll settle for an actual peace.

Zelensky is not waging a war with Russia – NATO is waging it. Without NATO weapons, without NATO satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, without NATO instructors and mercenaries, the war would have already ended. Moreover, the losses of Ukrainians, human and territorial, would be less than they will be now. Accordingly, Zelensky is just a puppet. Conversations with him are pointless if others make decisions for him (as, for example, it was during the Istanbul negotiations). And now he has even lost the right to sign the document. Any subsequent leader of Ukraine will easily refuse any agreement signed by Zelensky. What idiot would now agree to make a deal with Zelensky

Yes, carry on. The higher Russia pays the price, the more it will want to take in return.

There would be no war if putin kept his snout out and did not invade a sovereign country or try to install one of his own creatures, as now in Georgia or Belarus.

It is up to the Ukraine how it gets it's help to defend itself against an aggressor, in the same way as Russia relies on N Korea, China, Iran for weapons and ammunition and various African states, Nepal, India and Cuba for mercenaries.

No western country was ever out to invade or subjugate Russia,

It has nothing of use that could not be purchased,

Tally Ho!

Nonsense.

NATO is a military bloc created specifically against the USSR, and now Russia. It has existed for more than 50 years and strives to get very close to the borders of Russia (which has already happened). It is not Russia that has approached the borders of the NATO bloc. In order for NATO missiles to reach Russian military nuclear facilities, it now takes from five to twenty minutes of flight, for Russian missiles to reach such facilities on US territory it takes from half an hour or more. Who is in more danger when the other side hits the first blow?

Yes, and Russia did not receive any foreign military assistance from other countries until Western countries intervened in this war. You have decided to involve other countries in this war – but this is a game that can be played together…

Russia and Belarus have been union states since 1997 with the stated goal of creating a unified state. Russia will defend Belarus, Belarus will defend Russia. This alliance was concluded even before Putin came to power.
link

The current Georgian authorities are not allies of Russia, but a neutral country. The authorities of Georgia were elected in recognized legitimate elections. There are no Russian troops, military bases, advisers, etc. in Georgia. There is no extensive Russian diaspora, no enclaves of foreign nationalities. But the West does not allow anyone to remain neutral. You are preparing the same coup in Georgia that you carried out in Ukraine. I would not be surprised if the Georgian government turns to Russia for help in the event of such a coup.
And then we will definitely come to the call of the legitimate government…

A couple of points Cuprum:

"In order for NATO missiles to reach Russian military nuclear facilities, it now takes from five to twenty minutes of flight, for Russian missiles to reach such facilities on US territory it takes from half an hour or more."

Russia has always been in reach of Western missiles, with a short flight time, from the surrounding seas, as are US targets from Russian submarine launched weapons. Russia was working hard at reducing that warning time before their full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
link

"There are no Russian troops, military bases, advisers, etc. in Georgia."

- That depends on you not counting the parts of Georgia where there are Russian troops and bases, ie. Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The rest of the world still recognises these as Georgian, just like it still recognises the occupied areas of Ukraine as Ukrainian, despite Russian pronouncements to the contrary.

Yes. But then we are talking about the quantitative capabilities of such a missile attack. It's stupid to deny this problem. It has remained unchanged since the Cuban missile crisis. Would the United States be happy to see Russian missiles in Cuba or even Venezuela? Hardly… Why do you think that this should not cause concern for Russia?

The presence of Russian bases in Abkhazia and Ossetia does not in any way affect the situation in Georgia, since the territories and population of these enclaves have not actually been integrated into Georgia since the collapse of the USSR.
Look at the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There was no active participation of Russia (the Azerbaijanis were smart enough not to attack Russian peacekeepers and Russia did not interfere in this conflict, although there was still a precedent with a Russian helicopter being shot down by accident).

"until Western countries intervened in this war."

Which would never have happened were it not for Russia's land grab.

As if Belarus would do anything with Russia's direction, are all Russians deluded about their leader?

Tally Ho!

There would have been no war if the West had not supported the coup in Ukraine. A nationalist coup directed against one of the country's population groups. Before that – quite loyal to Ukraine.

"A nationalist coup directed against one of the country's population groups" As opposed to submitting to a President put in place by a foreign country in order to bring the Ukraine back under Russia.

Tally Ho!

I'm sure Putin would like to keep all the territory the Russians have occupied, just like during WWII. Putin needs to show some sort of "win" as Russia's losses are huge, with little gains.

nickinsomerset, and what kind of president did Putin appoint? Yanukovych? It seems your head is filled with propaganda garbage…

The elections were more than legitimate:

link

Legion 4, these territories are paid in blood. No one will give them back. Come and take it with your sword…

Cuprum,

I am sure nickinsomerset is referring to the future president that would be placed in charge following the Russian victory over Ukraine.

That president would have been put in place by a foreign country.

So his comparison was to Putin's (presumed) desired outcome of this invasion of Ukraine.

Why link to wikipedia for the 2010 elections?
Surely you would not feel wikipedia has any liegitimacy, as it also has articles for 2014 and 2019 elections.

link
link

Yanukovych was properly elected president in 2010, on February 22, 2014 he was impeached and fled to Russia, thus was no longer president of Ukraine.

Can you tell us how a more legitimate president of Ukraine would be chosen at this time than the current president?

If Putin was forcibly removed by a foreign power, and that foreign power oversaw elections in Russia, would you feel the outcome of the elections are legitimate?

Have you heard about the Minsk agreements? It spelled out procedures for the integration of the "mutineers" regions (Donetsk and Lugansk) into Ukraine on the terms of their autonomy, under the guarantees of Germany, France and Russia. But the new Ukrainian authorities simply refused to communicate with the authorities elected by these regions, calling them "terrorists" and conducting military operations against them. Note that if Russia wanted to occupy these territories, it could have done it ten years ago, and even by presenting the legitimate president of Ukraine, Yanukovych (impeaching him would not stand up to any legal scrutiny, since it simply contradicts the Ukrainian constitution at that time). In addition, in the "mutineers" regions, referendums on the desire to join Russia had already taken place at that time, in which the majority of residents agreed with this decision (and they are still offended by Russia for not being immediately accepted into Russia, as Crimea, which doomed them to ten years of suffering from nationalist aggressors). Look at the map of the 2010 elections – and you will see the real line of division of Ukraine in terms of worldview. And this line has not gone away and will not go away. She is several hundred years old. Mutineers is the power that is now in Kyiv. It was they who split Ukraine into irreconcilable factions. The real Ukraine is the one that refused to accept the results of the military coup.

Bottom line, and one Cuprum ignores, is that Russia invaded a sovereign nation.

Hmm… Is direct support for rebels in a sovereign country acceptable? Democratic country!
Imagine: there are BLM protests in the USA, and then official representatives of another state appear and guarantee the rebels their full support… Isn't this an act of war?
You did it on the Maidan.
And I fear you will do this in Georgia… You are aggressors, destroying neutral countries that do not want to come under your control. You are now forcibly exporting your way of life and your views on the world.

I don't remember any US forces being in Ukraine just before the 2014 war ? Perhaps you could enlighten us, Cuprum ?

Soldiers are not always needed. As the ancients said: "There is no fortress that a donkey loaded with gold cannot take." The United States invested 5 billion dollars to tear Ukraine away from Russia in order to impose its own vision on it and subordinate it to its own interests. And when this did not work, you simply organized a rebellion, not allowing the legitimate authorities to stop the unrest.
Why didn't you support the protests in Europe, of which there have been many over the past ten years? Starting with the "yellow vests"… and ending with the recent protests in New Caledonia (France again, by the way)? Perhaps this simply does not suit your interests? What is the difference? In a primitive, selfish interest – that's all.

link

Yes, Russia's interests are "primitive and selfish."

Legion 4, these territories are paid in blood. No one will give them back. Come and take it with your sword…

Yes, they were and that goes both ways … Did those occupied by the USSR after WWII want that ? No … note many of the former Eastern Bloc/WP nations joined NATO now. Regardless, I was referring to Donbas, Crimea, etc. taken during this current war.

Also my "swords" are Not going anywhere … I'm far to
large, old and crippled. But thank you for your invitation.

Bottom line, and one Cuprum ignores, is that Russia invaded a sovereign nation.

Bingo !!!!

"The real Ukraine is the one that refused to accept the results of the military coup" You mean the one with mainly Russian speakers,

Tally Ho!

I read an article on my cell today. I forgot who the author was, etc. But he said we allowed another nation start a war, and putting the world closer to WWIII. Good question … how'd that happen … again?

Putin signals he's open to peace talks, but Ukraine is right to be wary

link

Said by a diplomatic friend… "When a Russian says "Good morning" to you… immediately unfold your umbrella…

Armand

I rarely quote Kennedy.. but in this case he is correct

"You cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."—John F. Kennedy

Hmmm … former Russian GEN talks about invade some NATO members, etc. [!?!?!] Wishful thinking or ?

link

Are all Russians delusional??

First, listen for yourself what the current NATO generals say and who is delusional)))

link

Now wait … that article says what one Estonian GEN believes. Estonia is not going to invade Russia on their own … Or anyone else for that matter … there is nothing in Russia that anyone wants or can't get somewhere else !

Western countries do not need a sovereign and independent Russia, the main task of the United States and its allies is to defeat Russia and divide it into many small states that can be easily controlled and robbed, of course.

That is in the article. Talk about delusional ! The USA and NATO don't want or have any plans of dividing Russia. And the main task of the USA has 0 to do with Russia. Someone thinks Russia is much more important to the rest of the world than they really are.

easily controlled and robbed

What delusional individual(s) thought that up ? Again, there is nothing Russia has that can't be had somewhere else. They only reason the West has any interest in Russia is because they have nukes and are lead by a former KGB member who dreams on the good old days of the Russian Empire. Someone show him a calendar and have him seek professional help.

You are discussing the words of a retired Russian general (representing no one but himself) – and drawing some aggressive conclusions from them. But at the same time, the words of a serving NATO general, current members of the European Parliament (and in fact, many, many others) are just their personal opinion, not worth attention…
Don't you think this is hypocrisy?

I do not pay attention to the words of journalists – I myself am able to analyze and draw conclusions from what officials say. I hear what the NATO general says publicly. I see that no one is stopping him. This is enough to draw conclusions. Everything else in the article is propaganda not worth attention.

One Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust said:
"Remember forever that if someone, somewhere promises to kill you, believe them. Don't argue, as we did then, before the Holocaust, that this is their policy, and they themselves are good and nice people, that they just say it that way. When they move from words to action, it will be too late. Believe those who promise to kill you."

By the way, pay attention to when he says this… It was a year ago. Ukraine is preparing to attack….

"It was a year ago. Ukraine is preparing to attack" in order to push the fascist scum out of it's sovereign territory back into Russia,

There changed it for you,

Tally Ho!

Are Russians Nazis? A mixture of more than a hundred nationalities and all major world religions? Funny)))

You are discussing the words of a retired Russian general (representing no one but himself) – and drawing some aggressive conclusions from them. But at the same time, the words of a serving NATO general, current members of the European Parliament (and in fact, many, many others) are just their personal opinion, not worth attention…
Don't you think this is hypocrisy?

More like just being sloppy to make some headlines … Or even disinformation may be part of a bigger planned operation ? We may never know ?

Ukraine is preparing to attack….

Yes currently to push the Russians off their occupied territory.

Nazis

"I hate those guys!", Dr I. Jones …

"A mixture of more than a hundred nationalities and all major world religions" Led by a dictator who persecutes anyone who stands up to or argues with him,

Tally Ho!

Nick +1

Are you talking about Zelensky? ;-)