Is Zelensky suddenly ready for a ceasefire

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: putnam6

All this war is doing is lowering the world population..

I'm sure there are many people in the ex-Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet satellite nations along with those in close proximity to Russia will say there is far, far more to this war than just that.

OK, Freeborn let's talk about that, so after 70 years of NATO are we still fearful of the Russian Bear? So little Estonia is nervous and we have to continue to spend billions on the Ukrainian meat grinder

It's never sound reasoning for a superpower to base its diplomacy solely on the attitudes of a historically oppressed nation(s). Even so first of all

There is no indication Russia has the capabilities to expand MILITARILY beyond Ukraine and America has spent trillions since the 40s to counter just that type of expansion.

and now you are losing faith in the process? Why?

When every indication is if POLAND, GERMANY, FRANCE, and the UK alone were up against Russia they would do even better than Ukraine, theoretically that is deterrent enough, but they won't have to because America is behind them as well.

Could he shoot missiles into those countries sure he could but he can't send troops and occupy territory.

Hell, he can barely hold what he has in Ukraine. NATO article 5

Certainly, Ukraine needs the return of lost territories, and what of Crimea? For there to be real discussions that has to be the baseline starting point. Or are you of the opinion Ukraine needs Crimea as well? its the crown jewel in all of this I don't see Russia leaving it as easily as they can Donesk and Lughansk

Simply Putin might be looking to get his little penis out of the hornet's nest of his SMO, he was able to clean out the Russian prisons and remove military brass and is still standing in front of the Duma. Unless regime change is on the menu (unlikely) what's the point?

a reply to: putnam6 It’s easier than that.

Russia at one time wanted to be part of NATO.

Secretly of course.

But ya know, Hegelian Dialectic and stuff said nah.

See we (the West) need a bad guy because it’s hard to play world police without the villain.

See.

After the Cold War & the nuclear scare, the MIC needed a boogeyman to get that sweet, sweet taxpayer $.

Fast forward. So then we get 9/11. Onto the ME to fight the baddies there, even though they were C EYE A assets at one time. Fighting Russians actually.

Now we have moved on because, “geopolitical reasons” (except for the radicalized ISIS guy gonna shoot up poll workers, gotta stay scared of those Arabs ya know?).

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: putnam6

Good day....it gets to a point...he's not got much good land/country left.

My perception? He's fighting for land that's been destroyed....like..."Please stop the violence. There is no more Ukraine land to level."

Hey Put? THEN....what's either side got?

Parking lots....

Well thats part of the issue I have no doubt Europe and American interests are salivating at rebuilding Ukraine, you do know Frank Biden does that sort of recovery and rebuild worldwide. No different than Cheney and Haliburton rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan 2.0 and Osama Bin Laden's family construction business rebuilding Afghanistan 1.0

these are pretty much accepted facts.

with wars TPTB make money coming and going

a reply to: putnam6

To be fair, this issue has been bipartisan, so all the administrations have seen a threat in some way. Whether that be Russian expansion, or nations under a security umbrella losing confidence and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

I’m not sure if this would be less of a conflict under Trump, considering a month or two after he said we weren’t doing enough and went so far to imply our drones should be running missions.

Of course, he says he’ll wrap up the war as soon as he wins, and before he even takes office. But the eastern front existed for the whole of his term, and he was the first to provide lethal aid to them.

I don’t think him getting office would make things “worse”, but ultimately we don’t know what he would do, and I think Zelensky has that same apprehension.

a reply to: putnam6

Zelensky knows Putin won't go for Ukraines entry into the European Union or a cease fire along current lines without Ukraine formally recognizing a new border.
Putin has banned all publications of any new census data or official population figures. It's gotten so bad Russian front line forces are calling the new conscripts 'meat waves'. Putin doesn't care and now seems happy to keep ploding on regardless.

In a sense, it's a smart move by Zelensky, it will put more pressure on Putin from those in the Kremlin watching their wallets, population and Russian funds slowly shrinking.

a reply to: putnam6

reply

If true and accurate

looking for more sources.

Here's the first one:
Russia has not received any signals about Kyiv's readiness for a ceasefire.

Says Peskov. I would take his words with a grain of salt. But the article mentions Russia's willingness to go by Instanbul's agreements. Zelensky and Putin were ready to make a deal in April 2022 after Putin's failed attempt to capture Kyiv. The agreements were written down and ready to be signed but the US and UK didn't agree to give security guarantees to Ukraine:

Sourc e: Bne Intellinews

The security guarantees would require both the US and the UK to send troops to Ukraine or create a no fly zone over it if it was attacked. Ukraine's partners didn't want to agree to that, it seems.

Besides, after Russia's failed Kyiv invasion both Zelensky and the West grew confident Russia could be defeated if the West continued sending Ukraine weapons. There was also a problem of Russia demanding a right to veto the help for Ukraine in the case of an attack.

And just recently Putin has announced that he won't be negotiating after Kursk invasion.

originally posted by: putnam6

Simply Putin might be looking to get his little penis out of the hornet's nest of his SMO, he was able to clean out the Russian prisons and remove military brass and is still standing in front of the Duma. Unless regime change is on the menu (unlikely) what's the point?

Seems unlikely as Putin has been on an expansionist crusade of invading other countries for the majority of his career and Ukraine is only one of the several current countries he's still trying to take over to gain control of the Black Sea, North/Central Europe and the Baltic Sea - using non-conventional means, staging coups and occupying territories.

Most of his career has focussed on trying to achieve/leave that legacy at all costs with Ukraine only being a minor stepping stone/small part in the geo-political strategy.

Lithuania, Armenia and Moldova fronts have been massively ramping up this last year with the later likely to kick off properly in the next month or so with the 20th Oct elections and constitutional referendum.

Putin has shown no signs of letting up
so maybe Zelensky wants to salvage what he can before Trump shuts off the $$$.

how much longer can Ukraine hold off the bear? they have done magnificently, but like Finland back in the day, they just don't have the resources to fight forever. they have already lost too many of their people.

maybe the game changer is Putin using Nork troops. a whole nother source of manpower.

I hope this thing ends soon.

a reply to: putnam6

Just seen this ...don't have time to read all but will post for others to check out

Ukrainian official dismisses reports claiming Kiev ready to declare ceasefire - LINK

When asked if the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera’s report on the matter was true, Litvin said: "We have a 'peace formula,' which clarifies Ukraine’s view of just peace. This is the basis for the ongoing talks with our partners on strengthening Ukraine’s position. The 'victory plan' that will be presented to Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a few days is a tool to push the situation towards implementing the 'peace formula,'" he added

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Speaking of no investigations and Hill-dawg, what happened to the Uranium 1 debacle with Russia?

.......

To answer your question:

In 2016 (under Obama), the FBI began a confidential investigation into the Uranium 1 affair and found nothing to support allegations of wrongdoing.

Of course, then Trump came into office in 2017, and the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee began an investigation. They found nothing actionable.

Finally, on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, Fox News' chief news anchor Shep Smith had done a deep investigation into the matter and gave his conclusion:

"Smith said Donald Trump’s repeated accusations during the election campaign that Hillary Clinton smoothed a deal while she was secretary of state involving US uranium mining, Russia and the family’s charitable Clinton Foundation was “inaccurate in a number of ways”.
.....
The story was revived ... because the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is under pressure from the president to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the old allegations. Sessions hinted in a congressional hearing on Tuesday that there was no basis to do so.

“[Trump's] statement is inaccurate in a number of ways,” Smith said. He then went on to describe how the deal needed the approval of a committee formed from the heads of nine federal government agencies, and Barack Obama – because of the national security implications of Russia holding any US uranium interests – under rules written during the Ronald Reagan administration. He pointed out that the state department said Clinton did not intervene to approve the deal and, besides, did not have the power to approve or block the deal.

He added that none of the uranium mined in Wyoming by the Canadian company was exported to Russia, and the vast bulk of the donations to the Clinton Foundation were made by a man who had already sold his stake in the uranium company in 2007 – years before the Russian deal went through and about 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state."

www.theguardian.com...

Please feel free to prove Shep wrong.

a reply to: putnam6

Is the chunk of Russia the Ukrainians are occupying included as part of "the existing front line"?
I really can't see Putin agreeing to leave that in Ukranian hands during any ceasefire period.

I also can't see Ukraine being allowed to enter the EU until the war is finished-whatever they may claim,the EU is a business and see Ukraine as too risky at the present time.

This ceasefire idea has zero chance of working out IMO.

a reply to: putnam6

OK, Freeborn let's talk about that, so after 70 years of NATO are we still fearful of the Russian Bear?

Obviously I feel Russia poses no direct threat to the UK militarily but I think its undeniable that they are seeking to interfere and meddle in our internal affairs.....pretty much the same as they are trying to influence and manipulate events in other countries.

So little Estonia is nervous and we have to continue to spend billions on the Ukrainian meat grinder

Yes 'little Estonia' is nervous, as are Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Moldova and plenty of other 'little' European countries.
Have you ever spoken to a Pole or Romanian about how they feel?
A Bulgarian?

I've spoken to plenty, both here in the UK and in quite a few of those countries, and the vast majority have a genuine fear of Russian aggression and expansionism and the reality is most of them would have no chance whatsoever of resisting any Russian invasion without NATO's support.

Bear in mind these countries have experienced first hand Russian control and domination, they don't want to again. They want to remain independent.

Now we, the UK and US, along with France and Russia, were co-signatories of The Budapest Memorandum in which we guaranteed to respect and protect Ukrainian independence and its internationally recognised borders and to never invade.

Personally I think we have a moral responsibility to provide Ukraine support as it fights to retain its independence in light of Russian aggression and expansionism.
Same as I think we should provide support if Putin decides to continue with his desire to regain some imagined past glories and reconstruct some sort of new Greater Russia against the express wishes of the people of those countries.

Sure as night follows day if NATO had not provided support for Ukraine it would only have been a matter of time befor Putin would have invaded somewhere else.

Appeasement does not work.
History has shown us this time and time again.

As for Crimea?
In an ideal world I'd really like to see Crimea return to Ukraine - if indeed that is what the Crimean people want - but for all my talk about moral responsibility and noble ideals the reality is that unless there is a complete breakdown of Putin's administration then its highly unlikely to happen.

Russia has a history of collapsing in on itself and retreating inwards when they get involved in wars on foreign soil that don't go smoothly and according to plan.
How much more will the Oligarchs take bearing in mind Russia's increasing reliance on Iran and North Korea and its pariah like status on the world stage?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: putnam6

This could also be zelinski wanting to end the war because he believes trump will be president in January.
Possibly fear of funding being dried up ?

Still not sure if Putin will just take his toys and go home without something other than dead bodies and a crushed military to show for it.

If The Zel thinks Trump will be Prez in Jan, why not just stall and wait till the election in a couple weeks? No, there's more to this bullsh!t than we think. 😀

a reply to: putnam6

The fat lady has sung and the curtain is coming down on Zelensky.

Washington Post

A meeting of Kyiv’s allies, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, scheduled for this weekend at Ramstein Air Base in Germany was postponed...

Zelensky was hoping to get authorization to use long range missiles deep into Russia and the cancelation of this NATO summit has dashed any hopes of getting this authorization. His army is finished and so is he. He may want a cease fire but Russia isn't going to give it to him. Zelensky either capitulates or Russia is ready to steamroll all the way to Kyiv.

a reply to: charlest2

Russia can't do steamrollering. In case you hadn't noticed.

But dream on and keep supping the Kremlin Kool Ade.

Aren’t the American Democrats committed to fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’ ?

Whats with this big girls blouse Zelinsky chickening out and shutting down the laundry. It’s just not fair to his foreign supporters and those who make bank off of the death and destruction of his country.

At least what’s left of the population can have a (D)emocratic election in the foreseeable future, silver lining on a cloudy day 👍
a reply to: putnam6

a reply to: Dalamax

How can there be an election when the Country is at War with millions of refugees?

"Big girls blouse"?

I guess you'd do a great job as a war time leader.

But, I suspect surrender would be foremost on the agenda.

Don’t forget the clintons building Haiti back better 😂🤣a reply to: putnam6

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Dalamax

How can there be an election when the Country is at War with millions of refugees?

"Big girls blouse"?

I guess you'd do a great job as a war time leader.

But, I suspect surrender would be foremost on the agenda.

The Americans are having an election with those conditions 🤷🏽‍♂️

As to leadership in war I have the privilege of having no opinion on war, having never been to one. Where as those I know who have tell me the purpose of war us to win the war, they have the right to have an opinion on war after having fought in one (or two)

Eta, have you been to war? How do you justify your stance on military conflict?

a reply to: Dalamax

Are you saying that unless someone has had direct first hand experience of something they have no right to an opinion on it?

Are likening the domestic situation in Ukraine to the domestic political situation in the US?