Vladimir Putin Ready to 'Freeze' War in Ukraine With Ceasefire

a reply to: andy06shake

Russia will be the European pariah for the next 100 years down to Putin's failed wet dream

I'm not so sure. The US ally-ies in the ME are a pretty fickle lot, and as more join BRICS the worldscape is changing. The ones controlling the most resources will be setting the stage in the future, so good leadership is a must.
I don't know how many western countries feel they have that now, but if doesn't seem to be as many as a decade or two ago.

The younger generation is coming into power, not knowing what it was like to live through WWII, its aftermath and the struggle to regain any sense of normalicy.

If the world becomes equally divided there can only be one faction coming out on top; clearly it can't be ruled jointly. Cooperation on the world stage means subjugation for the faction that disagrees.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Russians are like Palestinians, they are sub-human dogs that deserve neither life nor liberty and should all be exterminated because they keep getting in the way of decades old plans laid out by globalists in the various think tanks.

Only I haven't yet heard about Ukrainians exterminating Russians. It's always the other way round.

Civilians did die in the conflicts that erupted in east Ukraine. But that was after Russia took Crimea and started sending folks in the west to try and spark rebellion so Russia could take the eastern land bridge. They didn’t want a separated Crimea, they needed the eastern sliver.

Of course, their narrative is that Ukraine and the west started all of this. But they went into Crimea, they sparked the unrest in the east only to fully invade Ukraine and start annexing land.

The west is merely providing arms to a defense agreement that was made thirty years ago when Ukraine gave up nukes.

Ukraine never owned Nukes, they belonged to Russia and Ukraine couldn't even use those Nukes on their own all the launch capabilities where from Moscow but I'm sure you already know all this already

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Russians are like Palestinians, they are sub-human dogs that deserve neither life nor liberty and should all be exterminated because they keep getting in the way of decades old plans laid out by globalists in the various think tanks.

Only I haven't yet heard about Ukrainians exterminating Russians. It's always the other way round.

You've never heard about Ukraine and Azov killing ethnic Russians in the Donbas and the east? I know you have. I've posted the news story from a well known British news agency many times here, they even interview ethnic Russian citizens in Mariupol that say "our government is killing us" . But please tell us how it was all Russias fault

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Russians are like Palestinians, they are sub-human dogs that deserve neither life nor liberty and should all be exterminated because they keep getting in the way of decades old plans laid out by globalists in the various think tanks.

Only I haven't yet heard about Ukrainians exterminating Russians. It's always the other way round.

Civilians did die in the conflicts that erupted in east Ukraine. But that was after Russia took Crimea and started sending folks in the west to try and spark rebellion so Russia could take the eastern land bridge. They didn’t want a separated Crimea, they needed the eastern sliver.

Of course, their narrative is that Ukraine and the west started all of this. But they went into Crimea, they sparked the unrest in the east only to fully invade Ukraine and start annexing land.

The west is merely providing arms to a defense agreement that was made thirty years ago when Ukraine gave up nukes.

No the US had nothing to do with the coup and picking new leaders in Ukraine that resulted in the Crimean people wanting to join Russia. The Crimean people are still happy they joined Russia but please tell us how it's all Russias fault some more

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

You've never heard about Ukraine and Azov killing ethnic Russians in the Donbas and the east?

If you mean armed militias, then yes I heard about Azov killing them from time to time.

And yes I read and watched the reports from the siege of Mariupol, how the Russians bombed the city killing nearly 25000 civilians. The rest were struggling with cold, hunger and thirst. You want to say that Azov killed all these people and bombed the s**t out of the city? I think you overestimated them a little bit.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Ukraine never owned Nukes, they belonged to Russia and Ukraine couldn't even use those Nukes on their own all the launch capabilities where from Moscow....

Using that logic Russia didn't own any nuclear weapons as well, the Soviet Union - of which Ukraine was a part of - owned them.

As part of the deal in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine independence and vowed to respect its borders and to never invade Ukraine it was agreed that Russia would have all of those weapons.

Only one side has broke that agreement.

You've never heard about Ukraine and Azov killing ethnic Russians in the Donbas and the east?

To a certain extent that is correct.
Its like starting to summarize a book from it half way point.
Kremlin funded militia's moved into the region and started terrorising non-Russian Ukrainians, carrying out terrorist attacks on Ukrainian government installations, attacking non-Orthodox Christians and generally agitating throughout the whole Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Yes, the Ukrainian government hit back, quite brutally at times, but in response to the Moscow funded and aided actions of those Russian Militia's.

No the US had nothing to do with the coup and picking new leaders in Ukraine.....

Would that be the democratically elected government of Yanukovych who was elected on a ticket proposing closer economic ties to the EU and a non-aligned defence policy?
The man whose term in office saw a gradual removal of civilian rights, a crackdown on free press and who as a result of a massive bribe from Moscow chose to do a u-turn on the policies he was elected on and proposed closer ties with Russia instead which would have in reality returned Ukraine to being nothing more than a Russian vassal state.
The man who is now living in extreme comfort enjoying the fruits of his corruption in Russian exile

..... that resulted in the Crimean people wanting to join Russia.

Any independently verified evidence of that?

The Crimean people are still happy they joined Russia....

Source?

But of course you know all that.

Now please tell us how its all America and the UK's fault.

a reply to: Freeborn

Any independently verified evidence of that?

It's a waste of time asking. All the evidence we can get is the Russian propaganda sources. What I find funny is that people absolutely believe that the Revolution of Dignity was sponsored by the US, yet totally dismiss the Russian hand in the Crimea riots. And all of that despite the presence of the so called little green men (the Russian soldiers in disguise) being a fact. The regular Russian army arrived in Crimea, occupied the parliament and removed the government, replacing it with the pro-Russian one. Then they organized a sham referendum. Hell, they even dragged there 1000 of Cuban Cossacks, who posed as pilgrims from Krasnodar Krai.

Sure, there were pro-Russian protests but there were also the demonstrations supporting the new Ukrainian government. It's already been said that Azov was set up by Russian speaking Ukrainians who supported the Ukrainian government. It's another fact that is totally ignored by those screaming "Nazis". Not all Russian speaking Ukrainians wanted to get under the Russian rule but you can as well talk to the brick wall.

Say "Azov" and immediately you can hear "Nazis, Bandera, murderers blah blah blah" repeated ad nauseam by the people who have no clue about the Ukrainian nationalism. Otherwise, they would know that the leader of Swoboda party and Bandera's fanboy, Oleh Tyahnybok, received bribes from Yanukovych. Thanks to him he became popular. He and Yanukovych were comrades till Maidan. And not just him. Yanukovych was corrupted as f*ck. He would bribe the devil himself if it helped him to remain in power.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Eh, people act like there’s no way any of this would have happened without western involvement.

Viktor Yanukovych Ran on bringing Ukraine into the EU.

He was at the moment to sign the papers and reneged after a talk with Putin. I’m sure the people were pisses since that’s what they elected him to do.

Russia interfered just as much if not more.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

They possessed the fissile material. They had scientists and could have taken it out and put it in a new detonating mechanism.

Enrichment is the hard part.

a reply to: Freeborn

Which was evident that the Ukrainian people by and large already wanted to leave the Russian sphere of influence prior to the Maidan.

I think some people just operate under the premise that Ukraine is quasi Russian property, and that any attempt at self determination is the fault of the west.

I mean, look how screwed over Poland got when they left the Russian sphere /s.

a reply to: twistedpuppy

Have you looked into George Soros' Open Society Foundation?
Victoria Nuland or John McCain's activities?
The year Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings?

originally posted by: twistedpuppy
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

You've never heard about Ukraine and Azov killing ethnic Russians in the Donbas and the east?

If you mean armed militias, then yes I heard about Azov killing them from time to time.

And yes I read and watched the reports from the siege of Mariupol, how the Russians bombed the city killing nearly 25000 civilians. The rest were struggling with cold, hunger and thirst. You want to say that Azov killed all these people and bombed the s**t out of the city? I think you overestimated them a little bit.

I'm talking about 2014 in Mariupol when Ukraine forces came in terrorized tbe residents and burned the police to the ground and then left

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel


... that resulted in the Crimean people wanting to join Russia.

Any independently verified evidence of that?

The Crimean people are still happy they joined Russia....

Source?

But of course you know all that.

Now please tell us how its all America and the UK's fault.

Source? As you wish and it's a nice liberal source for ya too 😁

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump told George Stephanopoulos of ABC that “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” Trump’s critics charged him with using Vladimir Putin’s talking points. Yet Trump, in this instance, was broadly correct.

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

That was from several years ago and is way out of date...
Here's a more recent article talking about Crimea Published in March, 2024.

theconversation.com... ion-226270

In one area, however, the Russians have enjoyed success. The Russification of the peninsula is continuing apace.

Russification of Crimea is not an ad hoc policy imposed after the occupation. It is rooted in the ideology of Russkii MIr (“Russian World”). This concept, which is espoused by Putin, is itself part of a long historical tradition going back to the annexation of the Crimea by Catherine the Great in 1783.

The Russian World ideology insists that Russia is a supra-national civilisation that extends far beyond the present borders of the Russian Federation to include Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other parts of the former Soviet Union. At the same time, the ideology is intolerant of any other expression of identity within its sphere and justifies the elimination of that identity, as is taking place in Crimea.

Putin swore to safeguard the different national traditions that existed in Crimea when he launched the annexation. These promises were broken immediately and have continued to be broken ever since.

Ukrainian and Tatar languages have been suppressed, political activists arrested and any expression of cultural identity other than Russian is forbidden. The national body of the Crimean Tatars, the Mejlis, has been suppressed and all other representative institutions are a sham, as those in Russia itself.

And this from Le Monde in May, 2024.
www.lemonde.fr...

The voices of the people of Crimea are few and far between. Most refuse to speak out for fear of retaliation. However, Le Monde was able to gather testimonies from several people, via secure messaging or video calls. Some are still there, while others, like Bohdan, have fled in recent months. All participants requested anonymity to ensure their safety or that of their loved ones still on the peninsula. "Otherwise, tomorrow the FSB [Russian security services] will come knocking at my father's door," one of them said.

They spoke about how the war has changed their environment, their daily lives and their aspirations, even if the situation is much calmer than in the rest of Ukraine, which has been under Russian bombardment for the past two years. "Between February and September 2022, when I fled Crimea, it was horrifying, society was transformed," said Bohdan. In the streets and cinemas, posters bearing the symbol "Z" and others calling for people to join the Russian army appeared. The presence of the population, particularly men, in public spaces had notably diminished. "Everyone acted as if nothing was happening, whereas in town, every sign was a call to enlist and a reminder of the war."

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

From his campaign when he had no more access to the information than the public, Trump says “from what I’ve heard”.

Since the beginning of the war I've heard that Russia is never serious about ceasefires, that they can't be trusted and will just use the ceasefire to re-arm or will just keep attacking during the ceasefire. (Not saying this isn't accurate, Russia does have a history of doing this.)

So basically a ceasefire is off the table. I know, I know, "We can have a ceasefire if Russia gets out of Ukraine," but back in the real world that's not happening, so a ceasefire is effectively off the table.

And the only way Ukraine is going to be able to force Russia out of all their territory, including Crimea, is with NATO help.

So in the West, our choices are:

1. forever war funded by the West
2. NATO gets directly involved, which may escalate to WW3

Option 1 is gonna lead to option 3, which is probably how this ends: enough voters in the West get sick of this and put enough pressure on our leaders to stop the funding and a ceasefire happens with Russia keeping some of Ukraine, despite us being told that can't happen.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So basically a ceasefire is off the table. I know, I know, "We can have a ceasefire if Russia gets out of Ukraine," but back in the real world that's not happening, so a ceasefire is effectively off the table.

Why not? The conflict is costing Russia far more than the west.

The US withdrew from Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union withdrew from Afhganistan.

Putin has stayed in power on the back of improving living standards and military successes. With the suppression of reporting in Russia we really don't know what the internal impact of failure in Ukraine (and it absolutely is a faliure) will be.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So basically a ceasefire is off the table. I know, I know, "We can have a ceasefire if Russia gets out of Ukraine," but back in the real world that's not happening, so a ceasefire is effectively off the table.

Why not? The conflict is costing Russia far more than the west.

The US withdrew from Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union withdrew from Afhganistan.

Putin has stayed in power on the back of improving living standards and military successes. With the suppression of reporting in Russia we really don't know what the internal impact of failure in Ukraine (and it absolutely is a faliure) will be.

This has been going on for more than 2 years by now. If this failure was going to result in Putin's downfall, it would have already. In 2022, when this started, there were people predicting he'd be gone by the end of the year.

Whether you think Putin should pull out of Ukraine is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is whether he will or not. And he hasn't shown any indication that he's gonna. And that's the only way the West has signaled they'd accept a ceasefire. So a ceasefire is effectively off the table until the West's calculus changes, which as I said will only happen when voters get tired enough of this.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So basically a ceasefire is off the table. I know, I know, "We can have a ceasefire if Russia gets out of Ukraine," but back in the real world that's not happening, so a ceasefire is effectively off the table.

Why not? The conflict is costing Russia far more than the west.

The US withdrew from Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union withdrew from Afhganistan.

Putin has stayed in power on the back of improving living standards and military successes. With the suppression of reporting in Russia we really don't know what the internal impact of failure in Ukraine (and it absolutely is a faliure) will be.

This has been going on for more than 2 years by now. If this failure was going to result in Putin's downfall, it would have already. In 2022, when this started, there were people predicting he'd be gone by the end of the year.

Whether you think Putin should pull out of Ukraine is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is whether he will or not. And he hasn't shown any indication that he's gonna. And that's the only way the West has signaled they'd accept a ceasefire. So a ceasefire is effectively off the table until the West's calculus changes, which as I said will only happen when voters get tired enough of this.

How long was Russia in Afghanistan? The US in vietnam? There is no reason that because its over two years it now won't happen.

I didn't say anything about should do (the answer to that is obvious) he may not have any choice. As I said above the war is costing Russia far more than the west both in blood and treasure and Ukraine doesn't seem particularly keen to surrender.

Even the more conservative estimates of Rusdian casualties are horrific and its having to spend ever increasing amount of its GDP to maintain the war effort which means declining living standards.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So basically a ceasefire is off the table. I know, I know, "We can have a ceasefire if Russia gets out of Ukraine," but back in the real world that's not happening, so a ceasefire is effectively off the table.

Why not? The conflict is costing Russia far more than the west.

The US withdrew from Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union withdrew from Afhganistan.

Putin has stayed in power on the back of improving living standards and military successes. With the suppression of reporting in Russia we really don't know what the internal impact of failure in Ukraine (and it absolutely is a faliure) will be.

This has been going on for more than 2 years by now. If this failure was going to result in Putin's downfall, it would have already. In 2022, when this started, there were people predicting he'd be gone by the end of the year.

Whether you think Putin should pull out of Ukraine is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is whether he will or not. And he hasn't shown any indication that he's gonna. And that's the only way the West has signaled they'd accept a ceasefire. So a ceasefire is effectively off the table until the West's calculus changes, which as I said will only happen when voters get tired enough of this.

How long war Russia in Afghanistan? The US in vietnam?

Yeah, what about those? Russia was in a quagmire in Afghanistan for 10 years. Were any of their leaders in that time deposed because of their failure there? No.

The US in Vietnam is rather meaningless because we're a democracy. Voters could drive a President out of power by simply voting. We're talking about whether Putin will be forcibly removed from power. I think if it was going to happen, it would've happened by now. The largest bullet in that gun was Prigozhin, and his attempt was barely a whimper.

There's also the matter of whether this is even seen as a failure in Russia. In the West, we see it as a failure because we've been told Putin intended to invade and conquer the whole of Ukraine in a matter of days or weeks at most. But how much of that Western narrative is making it into Russia? I have no idea. Putin didn't tell his people this would be over in a few days or weeks though. To my knowledge, he has given no timeline on it. Nor has he declared to his people that he intends to conquer Ukraine.

Getting reliable information about the sentiments of the Russian people is very difficult. I've seen that they're fed up with the invasion and with Western sanctions. I've also seen that they are rallying together against what they see as Western oppression. Which of those is most accurate? Which narrative represents the majority of Russian citizens? Again, I have no idea. But a majority of negative public sentiment isn't necessarily what you need to depose a dictator.