Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 144K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that today's talks did not result in much progress.


Russian and Ukrainian delegates met in Istanbul on Monday for their second set of direct peace talks, a day after Kyiv launched a shock drone attack on Russia’s nuclear-capable bombers, in an operation that President Volodymyr Zelensky said was a year and a half in the making.

The talks began late and lasted barely over an hour. Although both sides agreed to work on a new prisoner exchange, statements from the two sets of delegations suggested that little had been achieved to bridge the gulf between their positions, particularly on the matter of a ceasefire.

After the initial round of discussions in the Turkish city last month – the first between the warring countries since soon after Russia’s full-scale invasion in early 2022 – both sides agreed to share their conditions for a full ceasefire and a potentially lasting peace.

Russian state media agencies reported that Russia laid out two ceasefire “options” in its peace memorandum.

In the first option, Moscow will ask for the complete withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) from Ukraine’s mainland Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, RIA Novosti reported. Russia annexed those regions during its invasion in 2022, but has been unable to fully capture them in the years since.

In the second option, called a “package deal,” the UAF would have to demobilize, and all foreign military aid to Kyiv, including intelligence, would be halted, a summary of the memorandum published by RIA Novosti said.

Ukraine would also be prohibited from deploying and mobilizing its armed forces, and martial law in Ukraine would need to be lifted, with elections to be held no later than 100 days after it is lifted, the memorandum outlined.

It is not clear whether Ukraine can choose just one of the options, or whether it must agree to both.

The maximalist demands expand on the terms set by Russia during the 2022 trilateral talks held in Turkey.

In the past, Ukraine has refused Russian proposals for territorial concessions in exchange for peace.

Zelensky criticized Russia for not sharing its memorandum ahead of time. “Despite this,” he said before the talks began, “we will attempt to achieve at least some progress on the path toward peace.”
Click to expand...
So when is "Day One?" Is it tomorrow?
 
WaynetheDrain said:
So when is "Day One?" Is it tomorrow?
Click to expand...
Come on now. You didn't realize he was just being sarcastic?

apnews.com

How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours

During his campaign, Donald Trump said repeatedly that he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in 24 hours” upon taking office.
apnews.com apnews.com

MARCH 14: Trump says he was “being a little bit sarcastic” when he repeatedly claimed as a candidate that he would have the Russia-Ukraine war solved within 24 hours.

“Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that,” Trump says in a clip released from an interview for the “Full Measure” television program. “What I really mean is I’d like to get it settled and, I’ll, I think, I think I’ll be successful.”
 
Ramrouser said:
No, I just meant that it wouldn't be a good look for the US/EU to be heavily involved in a military action that destroyed significant aircraft and equipment, etc. 3,000 miles in the interior of Russia. That moves the needle on the old doomsday clock. Russia's internal investigation will reveal that Ukraine was not assisted by the Western Allies and did not even give them a heads up on the mission.

Otherwise, I'm thrilled with what the Ukrainians accomplished. It's a game changer, further weakening Russia and significantly strengthening Ukraine's hand. Once the dust settles, and Putin gets his "revenge" by bombing Kiev and other parts of Ukraine, this action just might get us closer to a peace agreement. Z showed the world and the US (Trump) that Ukraine does have a card or two to play.
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to say... and somewhat agree... but if the US & EU hadn't been funneling them weapons for so long, they probably aren't in a position to pull this off.
 
Ramrouser said:
Russia's internal investigation will reveal that Ukraine was not assisted by the Western Allies and did not even give them a heads up on the mission.
Click to expand...
Uh........knowing the Russian propaganda machine, what their investigation shows and what Russia says it shows (publicly) are two different things. I would think its 100% that Russia will claim Ukraine had help. Can't have their population thinking the Nazi Ukrainian regime could pull this off by themselves.
 
whatntarnation said:
Ukraine has struck the Crimean Bridge. Detonated a large amount of explosive on a underwater support.
Click to expand...

Seem like I posted in the last month that it was puzzling why Ukraine was not doing much to attack Russia's rail system which is mostly powered by electricity. Well, in the last few days there are reports of other rail bridges being blown up.. Two or three I believe. And now this, which appears to have been a hit on the rail side of the Crimean Bridge.

Wouldn't want to ever play chess with any of these Ukrainians. The timing of their moves is impeccable.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Seem like I posted in the last month that it was puzzling why Ukraine was not doing much to attack Russia's rail system which is mostly powered by electricity. Well, in the last few days there are reports of other rail bridges being blown up.. Two or three I believe. And now this, which appears to have been a hit on the rail side of the Crimean Bridge.

Wouldn't want to ever play chess with any of these Ukrainians. The timing of their moves is impeccable.
Click to expand...
Well, Ukrainians and Russians alike tend to be great chess players . . .

I suspect the calculus goes like this:

A. Ukraine can destroy as much infrastructure as it wants, but it cannot win a long war of attrition. Peace is therefore of great importance.
B. You can't get to a peace deal with that level of aggression.
C. So Z needed to give peace a chance, so to speak. At the very least, he needed to present Ukraine as striving for peace, for the benefit of its European allies one supposes. And he did that. But Russia doesn't want peace.
D. Meanwhile, Ukraine was setting up multiple surprise attacks. Unleashing them all at once is perhaps particularly frightening for Russia -- how much else can they do? In other words, Z is hoping for a Tet Offensive type of effect, where Ukraine demonstrates to Russia that it cannot win the war without massive losses and maybe Russia will lose the stomach for a long fight.
 
nycfan said:
BTW, Russians and Russian supporting Americans comparing this Ukrainian attack to Pearl Harbor are outrageous.
Click to expand...
They seem, for the most part, fairly accurate if you focus on the message conveyed by the analogy, which I take to be this:

A. At Pearl Harbor, the Americans had a whole lot of military equipment that wasn't very well guarded. The surprise attack completely crippled the US fleet. Had the US not had a lucky victory at Midway, it is possible the war in the Pacific couldn't really have been fought.

B. In Russia, the Russians had a whole lot of equipment that wasn't very well guarded. A surprise attack crippled the Russian air force. It is possible that without the air force, Russia cannot win the war, at least not in the short term.

In other words, in one day, the military capability of the US in 1941 and Russia in 2025 have been decimated.

I don't take the comparison to be a judgment about the morality of the attack. Remember: the betrayal Americans feel is quite specific to America. To the rest of the world, Pearl Harbor was just a surprise attack. They probably feel the same way about Pearl Harbor as we do about the Germans punching through the forest and storming through France in a week or two (or however long it took).
 
Equating what happened yesterday to Pearl Harbor is quite possibly the biggest airball of all time. Yikes.
 
superrific said:
They seem, for the most part, fairly accurate if you focus on the message conveyed by the analogy, which I take to be this:

A. At Pearl Harbor, the Americans had a whole lot of military equipment that wasn't very well guarded. The surprise attack completely crippled the US fleet. Had the US not had a lucky victory at Midway, it is possible the war in the Pacific couldn't really have been fought.

B. In Russia, the Russians had a whole lot of equipment that wasn't very well guarded. A surprise attack crippled the Russian air force. It is possible that without the air force, Russia cannot win the war, at least not in the short term.

In other words, in one day, the military capability of the US in 1941 and Russia in 2025 have been decimated.

I don't take the comparison to be a judgment about the morality of the attack. Remember: the betrayal Americans feel is quite specific to America. To the rest of the world, Pearl Harbor was just a surprise attack. They probably feel the same way about Pearl Harbor as we do about the Germans punching through the forest and storming through France in a week or two (or however long it took).
Click to expand...
Based on the propaganda and posting histories of many of the folks embracing the Pearl Harbor analogy, I have to disagree with your assessment of the intended judgment about the morality of the attack. It is very much intended for pro-Putin American audiences to deepen the myth of Ukraine as the representative of decadent wokeism (and somehow also Naziism) bad guy against which Russia is defending Western Society.
 
nycfan said:
Based on the propaganda and posting histories of many of the folks embracing the Pearl Harbor analogy, I have to disagree with your assessment of the intended judgment about the morality of the attack.
Click to expand...
All right. I can't speak to that. I used the passive voice to focus less on the specific motivations of speakers (which I don't know) and more on the inherent logic. I'll take you at your word that it has been used nefariously -- but at the same time, my mind went to Pearl Harbor and I'm not pro-Putin at all. I don't think it's an inapt analogy; it's just that even apt analogies can be misused. In every analogy, there are some things the same and some things different. If, on the basis of the sameness, you conclude that everything about the comparison is the same -- that's just bad reasoning. It doesn't make the analogy terrible all around.
 
dukeman92 said:
Equate, compare. Semantics.
Click to expand...
Talk about a mega-airball.

1. Equating is a strict subset of comparing. All equating is comparing, but not all comparing is equating. This is such a basic logical principle that I genuinely cannot understand how educated people fuck it up.

2. Our entire legal system is based on non-equating comparisons. Literally. That's what the common law is. A dispute arises, and it's brought to a judge (or jury). There are often multiple competing precedents. The judge has to pick the one that's most like the situation at hand, taking into account the relevant factors and leaving aside the irrelevant ones. For instance, nuisance law evolved from fence laws in England in the 17th century. If animals roam free and destroy public property, the animal's owner is liable. What about smoke pollution? Judges made it follow the same rule, even though smoke and animals don't have much in common.

3. There are solid arguments that almost all practical human knowledge (i.e. leaving aside scientific theories derived from math and experiment) takes the form of non-equating comparisons.

The way we know that equate and compare are not synonyms is the sheer amount of non-equating comparisons we use every single day. Virtually every meme is a non-equating comparison. Every movie quote. Every physical model.
 
Just a reminder that "one phone call" was all it was gonna take for Trump to end this war. He scored a LOT of votes with that soundbyte.

I seem to recall something about the price of groceries, too.

confused jim carrey GIF
 
BlueSteel said:
Just a reminder that "one phone call" was all it was gonna take for Trump to end this war. He scored a LOT of votes with that soundbyte.

I seem to recall something about the price of groceries, too.

confused jim carrey GIF
Click to expand...
Bro that’s not why they voted for Trump. They won’t admit it but we know they voted for him because he is a racist, bigot piece of shit.
 
superrific said:
Talk about a mega-airball.

1. Equating is a strict subset of comparing. All equating is comparing, but not all comparing is equating. This is such a basic logical principle that I genuinely cannot understand how educated people fuck it up.
Click to expand...


To quote @nycfan "Zero comparison to Pearl Harbor"

I genuinely cannot understand how educated people could fuck this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top