So are we allowed to link to the front page of the New York Times? They are leading with a bleak photo of the attacks in Irpen yesterday, a montage of news footage of which was deleted yesterday.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Actually just before the invasion Le Drian said that Putin and Lavrov were saying everything and its opposite. So it's pretty clear that they didn't believe everything told.
What you are doing here is mixing diplomacy and what someone actually thinks. If in a discussion between Putin and Macron, Putin says or agrees on something that's what you report especially when a large part of it was done with Ukraine and at their request. It also doesn't prevent you from taking the actions you want to take which is what France has done within the EU and on their own, while Macron has kept a diplomatic channel with Putin, France was also working with neighboring countries.
I know somebody from that city. She drove back to collect her children a few days ago, they had to run to their car and drive with just the clothes on their backs at 5am when the bombing and shelling started. My wife works for a clothing company so we sorted them out with a new wardrobe when they arrived here because the kids had literally nothing.
Great stuff!
I'd take that deal tbh
Before the bombing of civilians, maybe
If this is true, then it also means that Ukraine's evaluation of the military situation is that it is at least stable for them, if not favorable. Those are terms you might accept if you were really backed into a corner (of course the terms offered would be worse in that case).
Re-read #1 and, with any understanding of Ukrainian politics, you wouldn't be able to even get past that.
You don't make deals with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.
The part about Crimea may be worth considering at least, as it will be a constant nightmare region for Ukraine if they insist on it. As for the rest of the points, Russia can f off.
Just to add a bit more to this.
Russia wants Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and wants a PM appointed from an opposition party that has fewer than 10% of the 450 seats as it stands anyway. Were Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea to formally cede from Ukraine, Boyko's party would only have a number of seats in single figures most likely. That is on the basis of people voting how they did in 2019, and not after this invasion from Russia! It is entirely likely a Boyko-lead party would get zero seats if there were elections tomorrow without any voters from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk.
How do they think a parliament works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election
Then you'd be nuts. You'd end up with a pro-Russian government, a smaller state after ceiding territory and no protection from anyone in case Putin decides to ignore the pledges... you know, like the Minsk accords. Basically no sovereignty whatsoever. Total capitulation.
And from a personal perspective for Zelensky, just by signing away Crimea, Lugansk and Donetsk his position would be so compromised that he'd either be voted out or become Putin's pet.
Sorry I'm not that well versed on Ukrainian politics but after quick scroll through Wikipedia page for Boyko and googling what Pro forma means I see your point. I'd be okay with just giving up L/DNR and Crimea and agreeing to not joining NATO as I really don't see Russia backing out without that.
Plus the Ukranians also need to consider that such a deal would make any future efforts towards greater political independence from Russia even harder. Even if they think that they could have another Euromaidan some years from now, the intervening years would give Russia time to rebuild its forces and improve on their plans to fight Ukraine. If they're chipping away at the Russian ability to fight right now, that's something they also need to factor in as they consider the multi-year implications of any peace deal now.
LNR and DNR claim the whole of the oblasts, but only control a minority of the area currently. You are signing over whole villages, towns, cities and citizens to a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship. How can any president of any country do that to his citizens? It's too easy just to see this as land.
It's always a good idea to try to figure out what a deal means before deciding to agree or not.
Then the war will have to continue until its resolved one way or another (if Ukraine wants independence) won't it? Why would you trust Putin's Russia to not invade you again? He's only done it twice in 8 years, in both cases tearing up Russian agreements to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Putin has zero credibility left in the eyes of Ukrainians and the rest of the world. So the only future safety guarantee for Ukrainians is EU/NATO participation. Not a paper from Putin saying "we won't do that again".
Last edited:
No NATO term seems bogus too, they need a guarantee of some sort of protection. Accepting those terms is like signing another Budapest treaty, only replace ukrainian nuclear bombs with LNR/DNR independence and Crimea, and russians have already ripped that up as it was nothing. Only understandable, that Ukraine is not going to accept anything, that will guarantee their safety on russian promise.
Agree to not join NATO, then join NATO. Deals are meaningless to Putin, might as well treat them the same.
Didn’t realize it had any blood left.
This is the worst possible deal for Ukraine. They would give away some of their territory and basically become Belarus. There will be no deal that includes the 1st and 3rd points and rightly so. Ukraine is a sovereign country and they should be able to choose their allies themselves. It's none of Putin's business if they want to join EU or NATO. Ukraine just need to hold on for a little longer and Russia regime will start cracking.
But Crimeans and those in the separatist regions don't want to live under Ukrainian rule, if I'm not mistaken? It is what it is...
The issue is, that the separatists claim far bigger areas than they actually control. It might be wise to allow the separatists to join Russia, but not in the borders they claim.
That's why I think, IF there will be any deal struck, it will include Ukraine officially agreeing that Crimea is Russia's territory and possibly accept the independence of those 2 regions. But I just can't see any deal being made that includes change of the government personnel and agreeing not to join EU/NATO.
The reason I'd like the war to end is I really don't see a way out of this for Ukraine without Civilian casualties reaching 6 figures based on the way Russia are going and considering the cowardly way the west is acting I really don't see how Ukraine defeats Russia. The west and Ukrainian government seem to be preparing for some sort war of attrition which would have catastrophic consequences. I believe that US and NATO are trying to turn Ukraine into Putin's Afghanistan so, it suits them if this war is prolonged.
In what way does it suit them?
You don't end a war by surrendering that much though. The Russians are basically saying, "give us everything, get nothing from the west, feck you".
That's like me attacking you and then saying it only stops if your wife becomes my sex doll, your house is mine, and you can live in the garden, and by the way, you can never go to the police or our deal is off and I attack again.
This reads like a passage from Gulag Archipelago. Fecking animals.
Last edited:
Civilian casualties barely entered the 4 figures so far, 6 is way off yet. And if Ukraine wants independence, they'll have to turn this into Putin's Afghanistan. What you're proposing is to accept capitulation and complete surrender.
Last edited:
Causing Putin's regime to fall.
The strongman installs the people he wants and they do the things he tells them to.
There’a little to suggest the entire Donetsk and Luhansk regions would have democratically voted for independence from Ukraine, especially with the population there in 2014. These were not organic separatist movements. They were supported, incentivised and manned by Russia. That really has to be emphasised. If Russia shipped (or ships) enough people there though, who knows what people would vote for.
Obviously while many Ukrainians have left the regions over the last eight years for a better life elsewhere, Russia’s invasion will have done nothing to persuade people there that their lives would be better as either part of Russia or a separatist state. Seriously, people think Ukraine should hand over Mariupol and the lives of the citizens living there? C’mon.
But wouldn't turning this into Putin's Afghanistan cause casualties to skyrocket? I can also see Putin getting frustrated and using tactical Nukes if this drags on. I also don't see any deterrent against him using Nukes in Ukraine as it wouldn't result in MAD.
There's no way the World would just stand by and watch Putin launch tactical nukes as a country and not do anything. That would be an incredibly dangerous precedent to set for World politics.