Turns out that the 50 NATO countries supporting Ukraine, led by the United States, recently discussed how much and what Kiev will have to surrender (not only territory) in order to enter into peace negotiations with Russia and how the collective West can save face.
These considerations are caused both by an analysis of the dynamics at the front, and by the situation in these European countries and in the States, where there is a deadlock in the issue of supplying Ukraine, and Russia’s supply seems endless.
Ukraine is experiencing problems with mobilization, even to the point of protests for demobilization and the methods of the Ukrainian authorities to send new meat to the front.
As the war drags on the calls for surrender will become tougher and the west will begin to demand faster surrender with more concessions. The impasse over aid to Ukraine is only growing stronger as attention shifts to Israel’s war with Hamas.
It’s also worth noting the rhetoric about a certain “dead end” on the battlefield where supposedly neither side can advance successfully that’s now being parroted all across western media. The simple truth that Russia is winning can’t be printed in the mainstream media, but a dead end narrative is politically acceptable. Both Arestovich and Zaluzhny recently expressed themselves in the same vein.
Oh, so you do negotiate with terrorists ? Seems like we(sterners) will simply refuse to negotiate when we’re stronger.
They’ve already lost more territory than if they immediately accepted russian terms 20 months ago(, instead they killed their negotiators for treason).
Seems like Russia made the right choice, i’m glad it didn’t end up in the definitive end of the world by nuclear weapons over this.
Demilitarisation is necessary because you don’t know what the future elections will bring. Russia’s has more than one goal, but i think that its main one was/is to avoid the transformation of Ukraine into n.a.t.o.'s tool( against them), i’m glad if they succeeded in that, and sorry for everyone’s deaths&injuries.
Now we(sterners) will try to open other fronts, Georgia is still in our mind, Scandinavia and Baltic states as well, but Central Asia is even more interesting, especially Kazakhstan, Ukraine was only one of the options and it’s not “our” deaths, only paper money(, like, what, 5% of our military budget ? It’d still be profitable even if it wasn’t in loans and from our own military industries).
Of course, as everyone knows, stopping our conflicts with the many countries who disagree with us is out of the question, because… (?)
More than a little early for victory dances.
Russia won as soon as the u.s.a. decided that the certainty of a nuclear apocalypse wasn’t worth intervening(, which is why they didn’t invade the U.s.s.r. and China back then). The question was more about the losses they would have before then.
I don’t know how many more months of “necessary lies” about successful counteroffensives we need before admitting it.
Sure, it would be different if Russia occupied hostile territories.
And i still think about this :
Every war sucks, it’s just that we can’t ignore that we’re at war against them, it’s too easy to blame them for reacting to our hostility while not trying to solve the cause(s), our demands for peace shouldn’t be addressed only to Russia but mainly towards the west(, and Russia is only one of those oppressed by the “arrogant powers”), if only we were all united in diversity then wars waged for security reasons would cease to exist.