Russian invasion of Ukraine


NOELREPORTS

@NOELreports

Oleksandr Pavlyuk is set to become the new commander of the Ground Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, replacing Oleksandr Syrskyi. Additionally, Anatoliy Barhylevych is expected to be appointed as the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces. Submissions for their appointments are reportedly being prepared for a presidential decree
The new commander of ground forces in Ukraine
 
Yes, a negotiated settlement. Will involve some painful concessions by the Ukrainian side, but compared to losing a generation of young people this would seem preferable to me. However, if the Ukrainian people want to carry on fighting I respect that and wish them well. Just don't think this war is headed for the happy ending most on here would like to see.

There's no happy ending here whatever happens.

Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died, and tends of thousands of civilians.

Significant parts of Ukraine are in rubble.

What you suggest as a negotiated settlement being "painful" is actually a capitulation to Russian aggression, and condemnation to perpetual oppression to the people surrendered.

*If* the Ukrainians believe that will bring peace to the rest of the country and is a price worth paying, fair enough, their choice.

Given the history of multiple invasions and reneging on agreements from the fascist dictatorship of Russia, I doubt that's an appealing prospect.
 
There's no happy ending here whatever happens.

Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died, and tends of thousands of civilians.

Significant parts of Ukraine are in rubble.

What you suggest as a negotiated settlement being "painful" is actually a capitulation to Russian aggression, and condemnation to perpetual oppression to the people surrendered.

*If* the Ukrainians believe that will bring peace to the rest of the country and is a price worth paying, fair enough, their choice.

Given the history of multiple invasions and reneging on agreements from the fascist dictatorship of Russia, I doubt that's an appealing prospect.

They aren't going to get an eternal peace.

Would a peace settlement be worth it if Russia was likely to turn around and invade again in 5 years? No.

Ten years. Probably still no.

15-25?

Probably yes. Gives them enough time to rebuild their homes, their infrastructure, their economy, and their military.

Obviously you can't guarantee it. But you can put obstacles in Russia's way as part of the peace deal.

Ukraine are very unlikely to be able to win the war and Putin has a firm grip on power.
 
There's no happy ending here whatever happens.

Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died, and tends of thousands of civilians.

Significant parts of Ukraine are in rubble.

What you suggest as a negotiated settlement being "painful" is actually a capitulation to Russian aggression, and condemnation to perpetual oppression to the people surrendered.

*If* the Ukrainians believe that will bring peace to the rest of the country and is a price worth paying, fair enough, their choice.

Given the history of multiple invasions and reneging on agreements from the fascist dictatorship of Russia, I doubt that's an appealing prospect.
I just don’t get why anyone would think that negotiating anything with Putin would be worth a wank.

It’s like advocating that the guy who took the money up front to tarmac your drive and who never did the job, build your kitchen extension six months later. Again for money up front.
 
Has T Carson already found the way out of putin's arse?

What a poor farce. Two notorious liars are telling a 2-hour story. WTF?
And MAGA or trump are supposed to listen longer than a tiktok video?

At least now we - and all US voters - know the very truth about peaceful russia being a victim (and never at fault...) and we have learnt that the borders of the year 862 AC are more important than international law...

I also feel bad that we as NATO have started this bloody war.
If I only could live a wonderful life in russia.
 
Yes, a negotiated settlement. Will involve some painful concessions by the Ukrainian side, but compared to losing a generation of young people this would seem preferable to me. However, if the Ukrainian people want to carry on fighting I respect that and wish them well. Just don't think this war is headed for the happy ending most on here would like to see.


And I suppose you just do the same in 5 or so years time when Putins advances on the Baltic States??

A bit of land isn't worth dying for after all is it?? And then Poland.

You are indeed Neville Chamberlain the appeaser!
 
Has T Carson already found the way out of putin's arse?

What a poor farce. Two notorious liars are telling a 2-hour story. WTF?
And MAGA or trump are supposed to listen longer than a tiktok video?

At least now we - and all US voters - know the very truth about peaceful russia being a victim (and never at fault...) and we have learnt that the borders of the year 862 AC are more important than international law...

I also feel bad that we as NATO have started this bloody war.
If I only could live a wonderful life in russia.
I would revoke his passport. Let him enjoy Putin and Russias freedoms for as long as he wants.
 
I just don’t get why anyone would think that negotiating anything with Putin would be worth a wank.

It’s like advocating that the guy who took the money up front to tarmac your drive and who never did the job, build your kitchen extension six months later. Again for money up front.

I think it depends what you mean by "negotiation".

A best case scenario for Ukraine is probably a Russian withdrawal covered by some fig leaves to address Russia's notional concerns (eg protection for Russian languange) which Russia can portray as "denazification achieved".

A ceasefire on current frontline positions and acceding to that in perpetuity is a worst case.

These are very different "negotiations"
 


The thing is that could be true about Johnson.


It was certainly news at the time that "peace talks" broke down after Johnson's trip to Ukraine

That doesn't necessarily mean he sabotaged it though. Of course from Russia's side they're going to say that if they believe on what they want, then to their side it seems like sabotage.


Exactly what the propopsed peace agreement actually entailed is another matter altogether, and I don't imagine anyone in the public or media have any real knowledge of the in depth details of that.

I do believe Putin was being somewhat honest in the basics of that though. It was in our media at the time in 2022 that talks broke down after Johnson visited Ukraine. To suggest they broke down means at least they were talking and making some possible headway up until Boris went there.

As to why they broke down, nobody could honestly give you real answer until they see all the documents of the proposed peace agreement. I doubt it was as simple as Johnson rocking up in Ukraine and telling them to sod it and keep fighting, but that's how Putin essentially described it. The more likely scenario is the proposed agreement was heavily in the favour of Russia.

All Putin said was Johnson advised them it was better to keep fighting Russia. Let's say that's true, then why not go into details of why Johnson said that? Or why he thinks he said that? It was strange that he only gave that simple statement. If he believes that to be the case, he must have theories why that he would like to share to make his case.

He's clearly a knowledgeable man with a very good knowledge of history and was able to speak on many topics with clarity, yet he basically shut up shop on some things. No doubt an intelligent man but equally as calculated. He spoke for two hours without really saying a lot in the end.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.