13 ms·

Russia will stop 'in a moment' if Ukraine meets terms – Kremlin

jacquesm 5y ago
Russia will end before Ukraine will agree to terms like these. But these terms are not intended for Ukraine, they are intended for Russian consumption and are simply part of the propaganda.
purjolok 5y ago
https://archive.ph/7OlJU https://archive.ph/7OlJU
jnsaff2 5y ago
Anything coming from Kremlin is just noise, distraction and lies. Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon. Case in point, there was a humanitarian corridor and ceasefire agreed on two days. Not only was it not held, the road was mined and road was also bombed during by the russians.
- sorokod 5y ago
  Ukraine (and the world) can only make the price of the war unacceptable to Russia. There will be a treaty in the end. Hopefully sooner rather than latter.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Ukraine needs to do this mostly on their own [1]. If the west helps too much then in 50yr the next Russian despot will take another crack at it when they think the west won't help. [1] Barring the plausibly deniable arms shipments and clandestine training that the underdog in any sort of conflict like this gets. Nobody ever starts a war without their enemies sending aid to whoever they started it with. Anyone who's read their history already knows this.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      Setting a precedent is bad because in a long time that precedent might not hold? That makes no sense.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The idea of a "precedent" doesn't make any sense. Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. They do "what is good for me here and now and maybe on a future timeline I happen to care about". For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Sending in green beret advisors or the FFL isn't a "precedent". And everybody knows it. It's a one off based on the political realities of the minute. The kind of political realities that lead to those sort of interventions are short lived decades long things at best. In contrast, "our country, fuck off" is a solution that will likely live as long as Ukraine maintains some sort of national identity. Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice.
        modo_mario 5y ago
        > Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice. There's about 3 anglo-afghan wars and the more recent invasion and occupation involving Britain. There's earlier examples but I'm not sure if the place even fully existed as a concept back then.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The Anglo-<pick a random group in that general area> wars are just the baggage that went with their colonization of the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan) The idea of nation state borders didn't really work well in that part of the word in that century. In any case they sure aren't interested in wasting returning to the region. Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude toward meddling portions of their sphere or influence that they left because the locals made staying too expensive. Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. Contrast with Russia which is constantly poking and occasionally invading its former sphere of influence.
  - drran 5y ago
    Russian Empire is known as «Prison of peoples» [0]. It's time to free peoples from the jail. RF is too big to form a proper liberal democracy. It's better to allow every nation inside RF to establish their own democracy instead, and join a union after that, when they will be ready. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples
    - sorokod 5y ago
      A small correction, was known. The quote is from an essay [1] by the future leader of Communist Russia - Lenin, describing the Czarist Russian empire on April, 1914. [1] Original in Russian: http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm [2] Google translated: https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=h...
      - drran 5y ago
        Russian Federation is not created on free will, but on force. Nobody asked peoples is they want to become members of RF. IMHO, if an exit referendum will be allowed in RF (they are forbidden), then most nations will take opportunity and escape. Currently, escape is not possible. For example, Chechnya tried to escape the prison, so Russian used thousands of tons of explosives, FAE's (which is comparable to low yield nuclear weapons) to destroy independent Chechnya state, which was able to escape after first war. Russian FSB bombed their own citizens to provoke war with Chechnya.
        sorokod 5y ago
        Chechen wars (both of them), deserve to be known more widely in the west. My comment was specific to your quote.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        I think it's worth noting that the USSR (intentionally) did a heck of a lot to negate that and build a (more or less Russian less christian influence) national identity by re-settling minority groups that didn't like them. This kind of worked, somewhat, and not for reasons they were anticipating. Turns out that forcibly resettling people doesn't make them like you but it does make them tolerate each other a little bit better because they all now have one thing in common: shared adversity under the USSR. However, in the places where it didn't work it created bigger problems. Places (Chechnya) that could have been clean breakaway republics didn't do so because they had a ethnic Russian minority holding them in and in cases where those nations did break you have the Russian group trying to lean politically into Russia and the non-Russian group leaning away and that causes its own problems (Georgia, Ukrainian breakaway provinces, etc) Russia is far more unified across ethnic lines than people give it credit for. It's not going to pull a Yugoslavia and erupt into genocide as soon as Putin croaks. That said, it's nowhere near as unified as the US (where you can basically count on any immigrant group becoming functionally "American" in 2 generations).
- jansen555 5y ago
- yks 5y ago
  Yep, Ukraine has already been neutral before and then Russians took Crimea. And now they don’t mind committing war crimes and terrorizing civilians to achieve the annexation of Ukraine so why would they care about any new agreements. They would just wait until pro-Russian figures take over the Western governments and attack again.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I am by no means justifying the armed Russian aggression, but Ukraine was not neutral. There was a forceful overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity and Ukraine has been forming deep military ties to the NATO states since then. This move to alignment with the West is popularly supported in Ukraine mind you, but the reaction it would elicit has been anticipated and warned about for years.
    - ianhawes 5y ago
      Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing. I think Russia has a point to be worried and concerned about a Ukraine in NATO or the EU, however they went about it in a terrible fashion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Not to mention, they moved to annex Crimea and supported civil war in other parts of the country. What did Russia expect?
      - logifail 5y ago
        > Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?[0][1][2] [0] It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-... [2] How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-willliam-hague_b_4933177.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-will...
- tootie 5y ago
  This press release might be true because their terms are effectively that they won't kill Zelensky if he unconditionally surrenders his country
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  You have to be aware that a war is going on, and there is propaganda from all sides. Hiding a few soldiers in an evacuation group, attacking russians from a group of civilians, and then blaming russians for shooting at those civilians is just one of many nasty war tactics. What really happened, we will probably never know.
  - mickotron 5y ago
    Where's your evidence they his soldiers in evacuation groups? You can't drop that in there without backing it up.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      Where's your evidence the russians were firing on the civilians? We both have just mainstream media reporting what they want us to believe, which might or might not be true. Soldiers hiding in refugee groups is a thing that has happened before, and whatever they do, it makes the other side look bad, when they shoot back.
      - _djo_ 5y ago
        There are videos from multiple different media outlets showing ordinary civilian refugees being shelled. None are armed. Your claim makes no sense. Why would Ukraine want to hide soldiers in refugees leaving the country? Even if they did, then being unarmed and leaving means they’re not legitimate targets.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- logifail 5y ago
  > Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon We shouldn't forget that there are a lot of places across the world where people could say exactly that about the west. Heck, there are a growing number of people[0] in the west who say that about their own leaders/governments. [0] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust...
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Here's the key difference between the West and Russia - when people in the West peacefully protest the actions of their government they're not typically jailed. No one is arguing the West is perfect, however the West adopted something akin to the scientific method so that things can get better. Case in point - we're talking about this. Many in the West are looking at this situation and asking what would we do if the roles were reversed or what are we doing that may appear to be similar to what Russia is doing. Free countries have the freedom to improve.
    - sdfgdf 5y ago
    - _nalply 5y ago
      > Case in point - we're talking about this. Are you really sure? There are things people in the West don't talk about.
- iisaev 5y ago
  Why, do you think, russians may want to block these corridors? Because they're just evil (as all the western media told you)? If there were no peaceful people in Mariupol, we'll just turn it into ashes with all the Azov nazis. Don't you think it is kinda logical for Azov to just not let peaceful citizens go, because now they're like a shield for them?
efrafa 5y ago
- pixl97 5y ago
  Yes, just give up and let Putin move in his secret police to kill you one at a time, in wholesale.
- ajuc 5y ago
  If they accept in a few years Putin repeats this for the next slice. They already accepted 2 "cease fire agreements" in Minsk after 2014. Putin used them to plan this invasion.
  - Demiurge 5y ago
    Ukraine never implemented the Minsk agreements. Zelenskiy won the election as a peace candidate who was supposed to implement them, yet even he didn’t. If the Ukrainian parliamentary process was not a race to “who hates Putin the most”, those regions would have gotten their federalist autonomy and there would be much less pretext for Russia to invade now, and less justification to the rest of Russians. Minks agreements had the opposite effect of what you’re claiming, creating a cease fire for 8 years, and we’re a viable compromise with the separatist regions.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  That is what is insidious about the terms. The suffering--caused by Russia--is so great, that to many Ukranians the terms may seem a reasonable trade-off for a return to normal life. But I doubt Putin would be content with leaving the current government in power in Ukraine, even if the terms were agreed to. Update: It appears that the demands may have also included a Russian choice of Prime Minister: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712?cxt=HHwWgICyuf3L-tMpAAAA https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712...
- bigodbiel 5y ago
  Finland like solution would have been the best option (demilitarization? have your army renamed self defense force! denazification? heck, outlaw Nazi symbolic doing humanity a favor) I mean implementing the damn Minsk deal now seems like fantasy, but no sane person needs this hell to continue!
benlumen 5y ago
Russia's word is worth less than nothing. It feels like they'll stop when we stop them, at this point.
- toyg 5y ago
  Who's "we", you and your nuclear arsenal...? Just sayin', let us know in advance so we can try to reach a place slightly less affected by the nuclear winter (sub-Saharan Africa? Patagonia? Who knows).
  - adventured 5y ago
    Which nuclear winter? Most posts on HN about nuclear war are so comically exaggerated as to merit no serious treatment what-so-ever. During the post WW2 era a persistent effort has been made to intentionally artificially increase the scare factor of nuclear weapons in hopes that they'll never be used, by exaggerating the end of the world potential. You could hit Texas with all of Russia's nukes simultaneously and you'd still fail to kill everyone in that state. If you perfectly deployed all of Russia's nukes against population centers in the US, you'd struggle to kill half the population in that one country. The US and Russia set off ~1750 nuclear weapons in less than 50 years and the world barely blinked. If there were an exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons between the US and Russia (highly unlikely even in a nuclear war), the world would keep marching on, despite the vast destruction in several nations. There would be no nuclear winter at all, not even remotely close. I don't disagree with the use of exaggeration tactics to keep nations from utilizing nuclear weapons. Maybe it's an effective tool. There's no sense in being scientifically ignorant on a forum like this one however, nobody here is deciding nuclear policy for Russia and the US, this forum isn't going to shape world opinion on nuclear weapons. There is zero potential for global nuclear winter from the world's present number of nuclear weapons.
    - taylodl 5y ago
      Also, the nuclear winter scenario derives from weapons detonated at ground-level which has the effect of blasting tons of dirt into the atmosphere and blocking sunlight. Most of the weapons in the world's nuclear arsenal are aerial burst. Such weapons maximize the physical damage via heat and wind while minimizing the amount of dirt kicked into the atmosphere. If you live in a tornado-prone area then you already know how to prepare for an aerial burst deployment. Go to where you would go for a tornado and shelter in place for 48 hours after the burst. If you survived the burst (note that folks who properly prepare for tornadoes die too) and you've sheltered in place for a couple of days afterward then you're likely to be fine. Sure, there's a greater chance you'll be dying at a younger age than you otherwise would have due to cancer, but those are probabilities. If you survive the burst then you'll likely be fine.
DrinkWater 5y ago
Sure they will stop everything. Russia has never lied in the past and always kept its promises. This is beyond laughable if it wasn't such a grim matter.
izhak 5y ago
...or not.
fabian2k 5y ago
Those conditions include neutrality and a prohibition on joining the EU or NATO. The initial ones also included demilitarization, not sure if that is still a part. Nothing would prevent Russia here from finishing the invasion at a later point, it is quite obvious that you cannot trust any security guarantee by Russia. These conditions also include Ukraine recognizing large parts of their territory as Russian.
- AlisoPaletto 5y ago
  Well, in reality nobody can trust any security guarantee from any one else. Russia was promised no NATO expansion when the Warsaw Pact was terminated.
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    Russia doesn't have the right to veto what sovereign states do. Russia invaded a sovereign country here, that is not in any way comparable to sovereign states joining NATO.
    - mikem170 5y ago
      > Russia doesn't have the right to veto what sovereign states do. I'm curious what you mean by your use of the word "right" in the above context. Whose job is it to enforce that right? Is that right enforced for all countries? Or only if mightier countries take an interest? It seems that more powerful countries are constantly interfering with the internal politics of smaller countries by doing things like supporting dictators, interfering in elections, etc.
    - yucky 5y ago
      "Might Makes Right", as they say. Sovereignty, when you boil it down, just means who is strong enough to back up words with action.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    As far as I know, that “promise” was a preliminary conversation, not a legal matter.[1][2] Gorbachev did feel like the expansion was “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances,” though.[1] [1] Gorbachev: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all” https://web.archive.org/web/20150331084405/http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150331084405/http://rbth.com/i... [2] “The U.S.S.R. was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990” https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/312636...
adventured 5y ago
These actions are just meant to suck the morale for continuing the fight out of the Ukrainian people. More propaganda war out of Russia. They have come too far to turn back now. You don't invade the nation, blow up its cities, burn tens of billions of dollars, kill 10,000 of your own soldiers, bury your country in the worst global sanctions any nation has ever suffered, to then immediately walk it back. Any terms will involve Ukraine de facto coming under Russia's boot. The correct response to this is for NATO to designate Ukraine a special development partner (double time). Once Russia is defeated, after the occupation and insurgency ends and Russia is forced to withdrawal its military - then NATO and the EU should proceed with fully implementing that special development partnership until it can meet all the qualifications for full membership. In the meantime give the nation a lot more extra attention (to its defense needs and economy) to speed up their recovery and development. NATO and the EU can telegraph that move right now to let the people of Ukraine know their intentions going forward as partners, so everything is clear (the people of Ukraine deserve transparency so they can shape their expectations, makes decisions about where they want to go as a nation). Ukraine will have to go through a lot of rebuilding, which the EU can help with, and NATO can keep them armed in a way that will dissuade Russia from trying again. That should include getting their air force F16s and getting them more advanced proper air defenses. One of NATO's primary tank builders (Germany or UK) should also get them a large batch of modern tanks (the US won't sell the Abrams to Ukraine yet). Part of the point of the new designation would be to let Russia know that in fact NATO will be doubling down and has no intention of abandoning Ukraine. In terms of cost and supplies, NATO can stay in the conflict (as things presently are) a lot longer than Russia can. When Russia is forced back out of Ukraine, Ukraine should invite a rotation of ~25,000 NATO soldiers (each NATO member would contribute) to take up a permanent position in the country for defensive purposes until Ukraine is rebuilt.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zxspectrum1982 5y ago
What's the credibility of Russia at this point? Absolutely none.
jug 5y ago
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712 https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712 Russia apparently proposed 1. Zelensky remains pro forma president but Russia appoints Boiko as PM 2. Ukraine recognizes L/DNR and Crimea 3. No NATO, Ukraine writing into its constitution to be a neutral state Zelensky told them emphatically no. Russia just don't understand that even point 2 alone would be a very tough call for Ukraine, not to mention the rest.
- pavlov 5y ago
  Not much of a neutral state if its constitution is dictated by another country which also appoints the PM. This proposal must be only for internal Russian propaganda.
  - publicola1990 5y ago
    Allies literally force wrote the neutrality clause on to the Austrian constitution after the second world war. Till date Austria is prevented from being a NATO member due to that clause.
    - gvb 5y ago
      Ahh, but the Allies won first. Russia is not in that position.
    - ant6n 5y ago
      Austria can decide to stay neutral or not. In fact just today they decided to stay neutral.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      Nobody at the time denied that Austria was an occupied state. Which was perfectly reasonable given its position as having started WWII as part of Germany. Same reason Germany and Japan were both under allied control and occupation for a while after the war. The situations are not comparable.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
praptak 5y ago
Agree not to join NATO or EU, load up on weaponry, train the whole population as soldiers, then join both NATO & EU. I am not saying this is what Ukraine should do, just that Putin knows this is what they can do.
- jonathanstrange 5y ago
  Yes but you have to understand that this part of Putin's calculus. It would give him time to re-assess the military options, clean up a military mess that resulted from unrealistic expectations, prepare the next aggression more carefully, kill key figures of the Ukrainian government (he prefers poison), divide the West, and give him a better international position when he attacks next ("they broke our agreement"). Putin would likely calculate that by constantly threatening the West with nuclear war he could prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and later replace the Ukrainian government by a puppet regime as originally planned. It would be an extremely bad deal for Ukraine.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>It would be an extremely bad deal for Ukraine. Putin might very well level Ukraine before he let's it just slide into EU/NATO without a fight. He could then fall back to Crimea/LNR/DNR, state that they are Russian territory, and that any violations of Russian territory may result in a nuclear response (in accordance with Russia's existing policy regarding "First Use"). That might be enough for him to save face at home with his "Special Military Operation achieving sufficient objectives". Will NATO do a mini-Marshall Plan to get Ukraine back on its feet, or will the Ukrainians end up forgotten, like the ~20 million food-insecure Afghanis who are invisible less than 6 months after we retreated?
    - jonathanstrange 5y ago
      I really don't think Putin can level Ukraine, his military so far has barely been able to advance on flat roads. They can occupy more cities, though, in a bloody war of attrition in which the odds are stacked in favor of the defenders. Unfortunately, this war does not seem to end anytime soon. As for a Marshall plan for Ukraine. If they are able to force Russia to retreat, they'd be in NATO and EU in no time given the current circumstances and there surely would be something like a Marshall plan to build up the country. Personally, I don't think there will be such a win, though. This war is a classical lose-lose scenario and sadly the end result will likely be some kind of eternal cease fire agreement under a never-ending occupation, similar to what was in place since 2014. I think we agree on that. My hope is that there will be change in Russia, though, maybe in a way that allows Putin to exit in a (from his perspective) reasonable way. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Putin has planned to and has to stay in complete power of everything until his death.
taylodl 5y ago
Extortion is still a violation of sovereignty. No, I think the world is correct in deciding to vote Russia off the island.
anon_mexican1 5y ago
May be it is a reasonable option for Ukraine to accept terms to stop the immediate carnage. Especially since support from west has been indirect and at a distance. West seems not to want "skin in the game" in Ukraine. Perhaps if terms are accepted it will make Ukraine another Belarus. That might be better than becoming like Syria or Afghanistan.
giords 5y ago
We should definitely trust the word of people who installed mines in the evacuation route out of Mariupol.
- 331c8c71 5y ago
  How do you know that exactly?
disambiguation 5y ago
ITT "Russia cannot be trusted" yet putin has been a man of his word from the start .. he warned of consequences for eastward nato expansion. We knew locking ukraine out of nato was always the goal. No reason to think this isn't genuine. War is expensive and messy, we know it's not going well for Russia. They want to achieve their goals fast and get out. I'm sure Ukraine will reject at first, and Russia will respond with more destruction. "We'll keep wrecking you until you submit". We may see the 40 mile long convoy start moving again. Honestly I'm not sure what's the best option here. Should Ukrainians keep resisting and dying in hopes they can outlast putin? Or should they submit, saving lives in the short term but validating the invasion? Edit: I think the west is going to pressure Ukraine into zero tolerance resistance. It's very bad for "world order" if putin gets away with this, lest other nations start getting funny ideas.. In which case Ukraine may become perpetually war torn. Russia sits and holds eastern regions and just keeps bombarding the rest of Ukraine in a game of chicken with western intervention.
- simonsarris 5y ago
  > yet putin has been a man of his word from the start No he has not. From Wikipedia: > On 12 November 2021, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that "Russia doesn't threaten anyone", and on 12 December, he said that attempts were being made to "demonise Russia and cast it as a potential aggressor". On 19 January 2022, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia does "not want and will not take any action of aggressive character. We will not attack, strike, invade, quote unquote, whatever Ukraine." On 12 February, Kremlin foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov described warnings of an invasion as "hysteria". On 20 February, Russia's ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said that Russian forces "don't threaten anyone. ... There is no invasion. There is [sic] no such plans." Putin himself also said "Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood", and that it was a mistake for the soviet union to spin it out as its own country. Those have nothing to do with NATO.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    This pure willful ignorance. In what world would any nation forecast a near term military invasion in advance? Further, many experts believe that few within Putin's inner circle knew about the invasion prior, so its quite possible they were being honest. W.R.T. NATO and Ukraine, Putin has been broadcasting his geopolitical goals for a long time now. > I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? 2007 https://aldeilis.net/english/putins-historical-speech-munich-conference-security-policy-2007/ https://aldeilis.net/english/putins-historical-speech-munich... > The president said he would be forced to target Russian rockets at Ukraine in response to a possible deployment of a US missile shield in the eastern European country. 2008 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine > Putin's words are seen as the latest in an ongoing volley of pointed warnings to the West not to meddle in Ukraine, which has such close historical and cultural ties to Russia that the Kremlin considers the country firmly within its sphere of interests. > "The Russian leadership is very apprehensive about what it sees as Western moves designed to tear Ukraine away from Russia," says Dmitry Trenin 2009 http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00.html http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00... > Russia is making a last-minute push to derail the integration agreement, which is due to be signed in late November. Instead, Moscow wants to lure its neighbour into its own alliance, a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan that critics have referred to as a reincarnation of the Soviet Union. Russia has made it clear that Ukraine has to choose between the two options and cannot sign both agreements. 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-europe... > President Viktor Yanukovych's flight from Ukraine in the face of the Maidan uprising, which took place on the eve of the closing day of those Winter Games, astonished and enraged Putin. In his pique, as Putin proudly recalled in a March 2015 Russian government television film, he responded by ordering the takeover of Crimea after an all-night meeting. 2015 https://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-afraid-ukraine-332276 https://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-afraid-ukraine-332276 > The Russian president accused Kiev of playing a dangerous game and said he saw no point in holding a new round of talks about the troubled peace process in eastern Ukraine on the sidelines of a G20 summit in China next month. > Putin’s comments stirred fears that Russia, which has been steadily reinforcing Crimea militarily, may be considering new military action. 2016 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-attack-idUSKCN10L1EE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-att... > Russian President Vladimir Putin says he believes Russians and Ukrainians constitute one nation and that the countries should find a way to integrate. 2019 https://news.yahoo.com/putin-russians-ukrainians-one-people-115743604.html https://news.yahoo.com/putin-russians-ukrainians-one-people-... > Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comments about the legitimacy of Russia’s borders in a documentary broadcast on Russian television have rattled some U.S. allies, fearful that he might be laying the groundwork for a further military incursion into Ukraine. 2020 https://time.com/5858231/putin-ukraine/ https://time.com/5858231/putin-ukraine/ You're kidding yourself if you think this doesn't have anything to do with NATO.
Day1 5y ago
- decebalus1 5y ago
  You're repeatedly posting such cheap Russian propaganda it crosses the threshold of offensiveness to actually become hilarious.
  - Day1 5y ago
    Almost as hilarious as your support for the deaths of thousands. I’ve been anti-Russia from Day 1. But I’m going to continue to call out bullsht when I see it. Ukraine is fighting a war they can’t win. Not saying Russia is justified but I mean come on. If China rolls up onto US mainland with auto-aim drones, I’m hiding, and if surrendering is on the table then I’m definitely surrendering.
    - decebalus1 5y ago
      > your support for the deaths of thousands I don't. The Russian aggressors do. > I’ve been anti-Russia from Day 1 Judging by your post history, that's extremely debatable > Ukraine is fighting a war they can’t win Again, debatable. Russia can't 'win' in Ukraine. Whichever way to take it, even if they manage to take the large cities, it is impossible for them to 'conquer' a country, 1800's style. That's just not how things work anymore. You can't stifle dissent at this scale unless you go full nuclear and if that's the case, we're all fucked anyway (including Russia). The more time passes, the more strangled Russians are going to be economically, so there is a non-zero chance of Russia collapsing or Putin getting ousted before Ukraine falls. > If China rolls up onto US mainland with auto-aim drones, I’m hiding, and if surrendering is on the table then I’m definitely surrendering. Then I'm glad you're not in charge of US defenses. We really don't need cowards around here.
      - Day1 5y ago
        > We really don't need cowards around here. Same sht they’re feeding the kids sent to the front line smh.

Russia will end before Ukraine will agree to terms like these. But these terms are not intended for Ukraine, they are intended for Russian consumption and are simply part of the propaganda.

purjolok 5y ago

https://archive.ph/7OlJU https://archive.ph/7OlJU

jnsaff2 5y ago

Anything coming from Kremlin is just noise, distraction and lies. Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon. Case in point, there was a humanitarian corridor and ceasefire agreed on two days. Not only was it not held, the road was mined and road was also bombed during by the russians.

sorokod 5y ago
Ukraine (and the world) can only make the price of the war unacceptable to Russia. There will be a treaty in the end. Hopefully sooner rather than latter.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Ukraine needs to do this mostly on their own [1]. If the west helps too much then in 50yr the next Russian despot will take another crack at it when they think the west won't help. [1] Barring the plausibly deniable arms shipments and clandestine training that the underdog in any sort of conflict like this gets. Nobody ever starts a war without their enemies sending aid to whoever they started it with. Anyone who's read their history already knows this.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Setting a precedent is bad because in a long time that precedent might not hold? That makes no sense.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The idea of a "precedent" doesn't make any sense. Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. They do "what is good for me here and now and maybe on a future timeline I happen to care about". For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Sending in green beret advisors or the FFL isn't a "precedent". And everybody knows it. It's a one off based on the political realities of the minute. The kind of political realities that lead to those sort of interventions are short lived decades long things at best. In contrast, "our country, fuck off" is a solution that will likely live as long as Ukraine maintains some sort of national identity. Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice.
      - modo_mario 5y ago
        > Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice. There's about 3 anglo-afghan wars and the more recent invasion and occupation involving Britain. There's earlier examples but I'm not sure if the place even fully existed as a concept back then.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The Anglo-<pick a random group in that general area> wars are just the baggage that went with their colonization of the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan) The idea of nation state borders didn't really work well in that part of the word in that century. In any case they sure aren't interested in wasting returning to the region. Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude toward meddling portions of their sphere or influence that they left because the locals made staying too expensive. Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. Contrast with Russia which is constantly poking and occasionally invading its former sphere of influence.
- drran 5y ago
  Russian Empire is known as «Prison of peoples» [0]. It's time to free peoples from the jail. RF is too big to form a proper liberal democracy. It's better to allow every nation inside RF to establish their own democracy instead, and join a union after that, when they will be ready. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples
  - sorokod 5y ago
    A small correction, was known. The quote is from an essay [1] by the future leader of Communist Russia - Lenin, describing the Czarist Russian empire on April, 1914. [1] Original in Russian: http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm [2] Google translated: https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=h...
    - drran 5y ago
      Russian Federation is not created on free will, but on force. Nobody asked peoples is they want to become members of RF. IMHO, if an exit referendum will be allowed in RF (they are forbidden), then most nations will take opportunity and escape. Currently, escape is not possible. For example, Chechnya tried to escape the prison, so Russian used thousands of tons of explosives, FAE's (which is comparable to low yield nuclear weapons) to destroy independent Chechnya state, which was able to escape after first war. Russian FSB bombed their own citizens to provoke war with Chechnya.
      - sorokod 5y ago
        Chechen wars (both of them), deserve to be known more widely in the west. My comment was specific to your quote.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      I think it's worth noting that the USSR (intentionally) did a heck of a lot to negate that and build a (more or less Russian less christian influence) national identity by re-settling minority groups that didn't like them. This kind of worked, somewhat, and not for reasons they were anticipating. Turns out that forcibly resettling people doesn't make them like you but it does make them tolerate each other a little bit better because they all now have one thing in common: shared adversity under the USSR. However, in the places where it didn't work it created bigger problems. Places (Chechnya) that could have been clean breakaway republics didn't do so because they had a ethnic Russian minority holding them in and in cases where those nations did break you have the Russian group trying to lean politically into Russia and the non-Russian group leaning away and that causes its own problems (Georgia, Ukrainian breakaway provinces, etc) Russia is far more unified across ethnic lines than people give it credit for. It's not going to pull a Yugoslavia and erupt into genocide as soon as Putin croaks. That said, it's nowhere near as unified as the US (where you can basically count on any immigrant group becoming functionally "American" in 2 generations).
jansen555 5y ago
yks 5y ago
Yep, Ukraine has already been neutral before and then Russians took Crimea. And now they don’t mind committing war crimes and terrorizing civilians to achieve the annexation of Ukraine so why would they care about any new agreements. They would just wait until pro-Russian figures take over the Western governments and attack again.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I am by no means justifying the armed Russian aggression, but Ukraine was not neutral. There was a forceful overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity and Ukraine has been forming deep military ties to the NATO states since then. This move to alignment with the West is popularly supported in Ukraine mind you, but the reaction it would elicit has been anticipated and warned about for years.
  - ianhawes 5y ago
    Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing. I think Russia has a point to be worried and concerned about a Ukraine in NATO or the EU, however they went about it in a terrible fashion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Not to mention, they moved to annex Crimea and supported civil war in other parts of the country. What did Russia expect?
    - logifail 5y ago
      > Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?[0][1][2] [0] It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-... [2] How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-willliam-hague_b_4933177.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-will...
tootie 5y ago
This press release might be true because their terms are effectively that they won't kill Zelensky if he unconditionally surrenders his country
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
You have to be aware that a war is going on, and there is propaganda from all sides. Hiding a few soldiers in an evacuation group, attacking russians from a group of civilians, and then blaming russians for shooting at those civilians is just one of many nasty war tactics. What really happened, we will probably never know.
- mickotron 5y ago
  Where's your evidence they his soldiers in evacuation groups? You can't drop that in there without backing it up.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Where's your evidence the russians were firing on the civilians? We both have just mainstream media reporting what they want us to believe, which might or might not be true. Soldiers hiding in refugee groups is a thing that has happened before, and whatever they do, it makes the other side look bad, when they shoot back.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      There are videos from multiple different media outlets showing ordinary civilian refugees being shelled. None are armed. Your claim makes no sense. Why would Ukraine want to hide soldiers in refugees leaving the country? Even if they did, then being unarmed and leaving means they’re not legitimate targets.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
logifail 5y ago
> Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon We shouldn't forget that there are a lot of places across the world where people could say exactly that about the west. Heck, there are a growing number of people[0] in the west who say that about their own leaders/governments. [0] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust...
- taylodl 5y ago
  Here's the key difference between the West and Russia - when people in the West peacefully protest the actions of their government they're not typically jailed. No one is arguing the West is perfect, however the West adopted something akin to the scientific method so that things can get better. Case in point - we're talking about this. Many in the West are looking at this situation and asking what would we do if the roles were reversed or what are we doing that may appear to be similar to what Russia is doing. Free countries have the freedom to improve.
  - sdfgdf 5y ago
  - _nalply 5y ago
    > Case in point - we're talking about this. Are you really sure? There are things people in the West don't talk about.
iisaev 5y ago
Why, do you think, russians may want to block these corridors? Because they're just evil (as all the western media told you)? If there were no peaceful people in Mariupol, we'll just turn it into ashes with all the Azov nazis. Don't you think it is kinda logical for Azov to just not let peaceful citizens go, because now they're like a shield for them?

efrafa 5y ago

pixl97 5y ago
Yes, just give up and let Putin move in his secret police to kill you one at a time, in wholesale.
ajuc 5y ago
If they accept in a few years Putin repeats this for the next slice. They already accepted 2 "cease fire agreements" in Minsk after 2014. Putin used them to plan this invasion.
- Demiurge 5y ago
  Ukraine never implemented the Minsk agreements. Zelenskiy won the election as a peace candidate who was supposed to implement them, yet even he didn’t. If the Ukrainian parliamentary process was not a race to “who hates Putin the most”, those regions would have gotten their federalist autonomy and there would be much less pretext for Russia to invade now, and less justification to the rest of Russians. Minks agreements had the opposite effect of what you’re claiming, creating a cease fire for 8 years, and we’re a viable compromise with the separatist regions.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
That is what is insidious about the terms. The suffering--caused by Russia--is so great, that to many Ukranians the terms may seem a reasonable trade-off for a return to normal life. But I doubt Putin would be content with leaving the current government in power in Ukraine, even if the terms were agreed to. Update: It appears that the demands may have also included a Russian choice of Prime Minister: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712?cxt=HHwWgICyuf3L-tMpAAAA https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712...
bigodbiel 5y ago
Finland like solution would have been the best option (demilitarization? have your army renamed self defense force! denazification? heck, outlaw Nazi symbolic doing humanity a favor) I mean implementing the damn Minsk deal now seems like fantasy, but no sane person needs this hell to continue!

benlumen 5y ago

Russia's word is worth less than nothing. It feels like they'll stop when we stop them, at this point.

toyg 5y ago
Who's "we", you and your nuclear arsenal...? Just sayin', let us know in advance so we can try to reach a place slightly less affected by the nuclear winter (sub-Saharan Africa? Patagonia? Who knows).
- adventured 5y ago
  Which nuclear winter? Most posts on HN about nuclear war are so comically exaggerated as to merit no serious treatment what-so-ever. During the post WW2 era a persistent effort has been made to intentionally artificially increase the scare factor of nuclear weapons in hopes that they'll never be used, by exaggerating the end of the world potential. You could hit Texas with all of Russia's nukes simultaneously and you'd still fail to kill everyone in that state. If you perfectly deployed all of Russia's nukes against population centers in the US, you'd struggle to kill half the population in that one country. The US and Russia set off ~1750 nuclear weapons in less than 50 years and the world barely blinked. If there were an exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons between the US and Russia (highly unlikely even in a nuclear war), the world would keep marching on, despite the vast destruction in several nations. There would be no nuclear winter at all, not even remotely close. I don't disagree with the use of exaggeration tactics to keep nations from utilizing nuclear weapons. Maybe it's an effective tool. There's no sense in being scientifically ignorant on a forum like this one however, nobody here is deciding nuclear policy for Russia and the US, this forum isn't going to shape world opinion on nuclear weapons. There is zero potential for global nuclear winter from the world's present number of nuclear weapons.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Also, the nuclear winter scenario derives from weapons detonated at ground-level which has the effect of blasting tons of dirt into the atmosphere and blocking sunlight. Most of the weapons in the world's nuclear arsenal are aerial burst. Such weapons maximize the physical damage via heat and wind while minimizing the amount of dirt kicked into the atmosphere. If you live in a tornado-prone area then you already know how to prepare for an aerial burst deployment. Go to where you would go for a tornado and shelter in place for 48 hours after the burst. If you survived the burst (note that folks who properly prepare for tornadoes die too) and you've sheltered in place for a couple of days afterward then you're likely to be fine. Sure, there's a greater chance you'll be dying at a younger age than you otherwise would have due to cancer, but those are probabilities. If you survive the burst then you'll likely be fine.

DrinkWater 5y ago

Sure they will stop everything. Russia has never lied in the past and always kept its promises. This is beyond laughable if it wasn't such a grim matter.

izhak 5y ago

...or not.

fabian2k 5y ago

Those conditions include neutrality and a prohibition on joining the EU or NATO. The initial ones also included demilitarization, not sure if that is still a part. Nothing would prevent Russia here from finishing the invasion at a later point, it is quite obvious that you cannot trust any security guarantee by Russia. These conditions also include Ukraine recognizing large parts of their territory as Russian.

AlisoPaletto 5y ago
Well, in reality nobody can trust any security guarantee from any one else. Russia was promised no NATO expansion when the Warsaw Pact was terminated.
- fabian2k 5y ago
  Russia doesn't have the right to veto what sovereign states do. Russia invaded a sovereign country here, that is not in any way comparable to sovereign states joining NATO.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > Russia doesn't have the right to veto what sovereign states do. I'm curious what you mean by your use of the word "right" in the above context. Whose job is it to enforce that right? Is that right enforced for all countries? Or only if mightier countries take an interest? It seems that more powerful countries are constantly interfering with the internal politics of smaller countries by doing things like supporting dictators, interfering in elections, etc.
  - yucky 5y ago
    "Might Makes Right", as they say. Sovereignty, when you boil it down, just means who is strong enough to back up words with action.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  As far as I know, that “promise” was a preliminary conversation, not a legal matter.[1][2] Gorbachev did feel like the expansion was “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances,” though.[1] [1] Gorbachev: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all” https://web.archive.org/web/20150331084405/http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150331084405/http://rbth.com/i... [2] “The U.S.S.R. was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990” https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/312636...

adventured 5y ago

These actions are just meant to suck the morale for continuing the fight out of the Ukrainian people. More propaganda war out of Russia. They have come too far to turn back now. You don't invade the nation, blow up its cities, burn tens of billions of dollars, kill 10,000 of your own soldiers, bury your country in the worst global sanctions any nation has ever suffered, to then immediately walk it back. Any terms will involve Ukraine de facto coming under Russia's boot. The correct response to this is for NATO to designate Ukraine a special development partner (double time). Once Russia is defeated, after the occupation and insurgency ends and Russia is forced to withdrawal its military - then NATO and the EU should proceed with fully implementing that special development partnership until it can meet all the qualifications for full membership. In the meantime give the nation a lot more extra attention (to its defense needs and economy) to speed up their recovery and development. NATO and the EU can telegraph that move right now to let the people of Ukraine know their intentions going forward as partners, so everything is clear (the people of Ukraine deserve transparency so they can shape their expectations, makes decisions about where they want to go as a nation). Ukraine will have to go through a lot of rebuilding, which the EU can help with, and NATO can keep them armed in a way that will dissuade Russia from trying again. That should include getting their air force F16s and getting them more advanced proper air defenses. One of NATO's primary tank builders (Germany or UK) should also get them a large batch of modern tanks (the US won't sell the Abrams to Ukraine yet). Part of the point of the new designation would be to let Russia know that in fact NATO will be doubling down and has no intention of abandoning Ukraine. In terms of cost and supplies, NATO can stay in the conflict (as things presently are) a lot longer than Russia can. When Russia is forced back out of Ukraine, Ukraine should invite a rotation of ~25,000 NATO soldiers (each NATO member would contribute) to take up a permanent position in the country for defensive purposes until Ukraine is rebuilt.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zxspectrum1982 5y ago

What's the credibility of Russia at this point? Absolutely none.

jug 5y ago

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712 https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500812687009267712 Russia apparently proposed 1. Zelensky remains pro forma president but Russia appoints Boiko as PM 2. Ukraine recognizes L/DNR and Crimea 3. No NATO, Ukraine writing into its constitution to be a neutral state Zelensky told them emphatically no. Russia just don't understand that even point 2 alone would be a very tough call for Ukraine, not to mention the rest.

pavlov 5y ago
Not much of a neutral state if its constitution is dictated by another country which also appoints the PM. This proposal must be only for internal Russian propaganda.
- publicola1990 5y ago
  Allies literally force wrote the neutrality clause on to the Austrian constitution after the second world war. Till date Austria is prevented from being a NATO member due to that clause.
  - gvb 5y ago
    Ahh, but the Allies won first. Russia is not in that position.
  - ant6n 5y ago
    Austria can decide to stay neutral or not. In fact just today they decided to stay neutral.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    Nobody at the time denied that Austria was an occupied state. Which was perfectly reasonable given its position as having started WWII as part of Germany. Same reason Germany and Japan were both under allied control and occupation for a while after the war. The situations are not comparable.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago

praptak 5y ago

Agree not to join NATO or EU, load up on weaponry, train the whole population as soldiers, then join both NATO & EU. I am not saying this is what Ukraine should do, just that Putin knows this is what they can do.

jonathanstrange 5y ago
Yes but you have to understand that this part of Putin's calculus. It would give him time to re-assess the military options, clean up a military mess that resulted from unrealistic expectations, prepare the next aggression more carefully, kill key figures of the Ukrainian government (he prefers poison), divide the West, and give him a better international position when he attacks next ("they broke our agreement"). Putin would likely calculate that by constantly threatening the West with nuclear war he could prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and later replace the Ukrainian government by a puppet regime as originally planned. It would be an extremely bad deal for Ukraine.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>It would be an extremely bad deal for Ukraine. Putin might very well level Ukraine before he let's it just slide into EU/NATO without a fight. He could then fall back to Crimea/LNR/DNR, state that they are Russian territory, and that any violations of Russian territory may result in a nuclear response (in accordance with Russia's existing policy regarding "First Use"). That might be enough for him to save face at home with his "Special Military Operation achieving sufficient objectives". Will NATO do a mini-Marshall Plan to get Ukraine back on its feet, or will the Ukrainians end up forgotten, like the ~20 million food-insecure Afghanis who are invisible less than 6 months after we retreated?
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    I really don't think Putin can level Ukraine, his military so far has barely been able to advance on flat roads. They can occupy more cities, though, in a bloody war of attrition in which the odds are stacked in favor of the defenders. Unfortunately, this war does not seem to end anytime soon. As for a Marshall plan for Ukraine. If they are able to force Russia to retreat, they'd be in NATO and EU in no time given the current circumstances and there surely would be something like a Marshall plan to build up the country. Personally, I don't think there will be such a win, though. This war is a classical lose-lose scenario and sadly the end result will likely be some kind of eternal cease fire agreement under a never-ending occupation, similar to what was in place since 2014. I think we agree on that. My hope is that there will be change in Russia, though, maybe in a way that allows Putin to exit in a (from his perspective) reasonable way. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Putin has planned to and has to stay in complete power of everything until his death.

taylodl 5y ago

Extortion is still a violation of sovereignty. No, I think the world is correct in deciding to vote Russia off the island.

anon_mexican1 5y ago

May be it is a reasonable option for Ukraine to accept terms to stop the immediate carnage. Especially since support from west has been indirect and at a distance. West seems not to want "skin in the game" in Ukraine. Perhaps if terms are accepted it will make Ukraine another Belarus. That might be better than becoming like Syria or Afghanistan.

giords 5y ago

We should definitely trust the word of people who installed mines in the evacuation route out of Mariupol.

331c8c71 5y ago
How do you know that exactly?

disambiguation 5y ago

ITT "Russia cannot be trusted" yet putin has been a man of his word from the start .. he warned of consequences for eastward nato expansion. We knew locking ukraine out of nato was always the goal. No reason to think this isn't genuine. War is expensive and messy, we know it's not going well for Russia. They want to achieve their goals fast and get out. I'm sure Ukraine will reject at first, and Russia will respond with more destruction. "We'll keep wrecking you until you submit". We may see the 40 mile long convoy start moving again. Honestly I'm not sure what's the best option here. Should Ukrainians keep resisting and dying in hopes they can outlast putin? Or should they submit, saving lives in the short term but validating the invasion? Edit: I think the west is going to pressure Ukraine into zero tolerance resistance. It's very bad for "world order" if putin gets away with this, lest other nations start getting funny ideas.. In which case Ukraine may become perpetually war torn. Russia sits and holds eastern regions and just keeps bombarding the rest of Ukraine in a game of chicken with western intervention.

simonsarris 5y ago
> yet putin has been a man of his word from the start No he has not. From Wikipedia: > On 12 November 2021, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that "Russia doesn't threaten anyone", and on 12 December, he said that attempts were being made to "demonise Russia and cast it as a potential aggressor". On 19 January 2022, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia does "not want and will not take any action of aggressive character. We will not attack, strike, invade, quote unquote, whatever Ukraine." On 12 February, Kremlin foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov described warnings of an invasion as "hysteria". On 20 February, Russia's ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said that Russian forces "don't threaten anyone. ... There is no invasion. There is [sic] no such plans." Putin himself also said "Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood", and that it was a mistake for the soviet union to spin it out as its own country. Those have nothing to do with NATO.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  This pure willful ignorance. In what world would any nation forecast a near term military invasion in advance? Further, many experts believe that few within Putin's inner circle knew about the invasion prior, so its quite possible they were being honest. W.R.T. NATO and Ukraine, Putin has been broadcasting his geopolitical goals for a long time now. > I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? 2007 https://aldeilis.net/english/putins-historical-speech-munich-conference-security-policy-2007/ https://aldeilis.net/english/putins-historical-speech-munich... > The president said he would be forced to target Russian rockets at Ukraine in response to a possible deployment of a US missile shield in the eastern European country. 2008 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine > Putin's words are seen as the latest in an ongoing volley of pointed warnings to the West not to meddle in Ukraine, which has such close historical and cultural ties to Russia that the Kremlin considers the country firmly within its sphere of interests. > "The Russian leadership is very apprehensive about what it sees as Western moves designed to tear Ukraine away from Russia," says Dmitry Trenin 2009 http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00.html http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900838,00... > Russia is making a last-minute push to derail the integration agreement, which is due to be signed in late November. Instead, Moscow wants to lure its neighbour into its own alliance, a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan that critics have referred to as a reincarnation of the Soviet Union. Russia has made it clear that Ukraine has to choose between the two options and cannot sign both agreements. 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-europe... > President Viktor Yanukovych's flight from Ukraine in the face of the Maidan uprising, which took place on the eve of the closing day of those Winter Games, astonished and enraged Putin. In his pique, as Putin proudly recalled in a March 2015 Russian government television film, he responded by ordering the takeover of Crimea after an all-night meeting. 2015 https://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-afraid-ukraine-332276 https://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-afraid-ukraine-332276 > The Russian president accused Kiev of playing a dangerous game and said he saw no point in holding a new round of talks about the troubled peace process in eastern Ukraine on the sidelines of a G20 summit in China next month. > Putin’s comments stirred fears that Russia, which has been steadily reinforcing Crimea militarily, may be considering new military action. 2016 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-attack-idUSKCN10L1EE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-att... > Russian President Vladimir Putin says he believes Russians and Ukrainians constitute one nation and that the countries should find a way to integrate. 2019 https://news.yahoo.com/putin-russians-ukrainians-one-people-115743604.html https://news.yahoo.com/putin-russians-ukrainians-one-people-... > Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comments about the legitimacy of Russia’s borders in a documentary broadcast on Russian television have rattled some U.S. allies, fearful that he might be laying the groundwork for a further military incursion into Ukraine. 2020 https://time.com/5858231/putin-ukraine/ https://time.com/5858231/putin-ukraine/ You're kidding yourself if you think this doesn't have anything to do with NATO.

Day1 5y ago

decebalus1 5y ago
You're repeatedly posting such cheap Russian propaganda it crosses the threshold of offensiveness to actually become hilarious.
- Day1 5y ago
  Almost as hilarious as your support for the deaths of thousands. I’ve been anti-Russia from Day 1. But I’m going to continue to call out bullsht when I see it. Ukraine is fighting a war they can’t win. Not saying Russia is justified but I mean come on. If China rolls up onto US mainland with auto-aim drones, I’m hiding, and if surrendering is on the table then I’m definitely surrendering.
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    > your support for the deaths of thousands I don't. The Russian aggressors do. > I’ve been anti-Russia from Day 1 Judging by your post history, that's extremely debatable > Ukraine is fighting a war they can’t win Again, debatable. Russia can't 'win' in Ukraine. Whichever way to take it, even if they manage to take the large cities, it is impossible for them to 'conquer' a country, 1800's style. That's just not how things work anymore. You can't stifle dissent at this scale unless you go full nuclear and if that's the case, we're all fucked anyway (including Russia). The more time passes, the more strangled Russians are going to be economically, so there is a non-zero chance of Russia collapsing or Putin getting ousted before Ukraine falls. > If China rolls up onto US mainland with auto-aim drones, I’m hiding, and if surrendering is on the table then I’m definitely surrendering. Then I'm glad you're not in charge of US defenses. We really don't need cowards around here.
    - Day1 5y ago
      > We really don't need cowards around here. Same sht they’re feeding the kids sent to the front line smh.