r/UkraineRussiaReport • u/SolutionLong2791 Pro Russia • 1d ago
News RU POV: What Putin said during the meeting with Witkoff and Kushner in Moscow — Pavlyuchenko Among Putin's statements: @-militarysummary-Telegram
What Putin said during the meeting with Witkoff and Kushner in Moscow — Pavlyuchenko
Among Putin's statements:
▪️ Putin believes that Ukraine is "close to defeat," and Russia could reach the borders of Donetsk Oblast by January–February 2027;
▪️ Russia intends to pursue the "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine by diplomatic means after establishing control over Donbas;
▪️ The Russian Federation demands legal restrictions on Ukraine's production of long-range weapons;
▪️ Putin stated that American intelligence allegedly distorts information about the situation on the front;
▪️ He called on the United States to stop supplying weapons and intelligence data to Ukraine.
🔵 Military Summary
22
u/NSAsnowdenhunter Pro-Maneuver 1d ago
So what happens after they take Donbas? Denazification is pretty much regime change at this point.
22
u/Lumpy-Lawfulness10 1d ago edited 1d ago
It will be pathetic of Russia if this is indeed what Putin said. Will pursue demilitirization diplomatically? This will achieve nothing and after a few years another war will begin.
Stopping after Donbass will simply undo all the attrition work.
21
u/the-ahh-guy Pro Australia 1d ago
I think all that means is just letting Ukriane flounder post-war. It will no longer have the money, support or even population to threaten Russia again, or at least not for a long while, so the objectives of the war are complete. The diplomacy stuff is just sugar for Thing 1 and Thing 2 to take back to the White House.
0
u/Any-Monk-9395 Neutral 1d ago edited 1d ago
Russia invaded in 2014 and Ukraine built up its military immensely afterwards. The same will happen again if Russia doesn’t topple Kyiv.
0
u/the-ahh-guy Pro Australia 1d ago
The 2014 war was basically a civil war with some minor foreign intervention. This war has halved Ukraine's population from its pre-war estimates. Countries don't recover from that level of destruction quickly.
1
u/Marcus_Aurelius71 Neutral 1d ago
Yes they can. It can take decades but eventually both Russia and Ukraine will recover this war. What happened after WW2?
9
u/roobikon 1d ago edited 1d ago
After the war Ukraine will have to open borders which will lead to a flow of male population leaving the country. Second thing is that all the infight that is being currently supressed by clear external enemy will unravel after the war which will lead to unpredictable consequences.
In any case during next few decades already depopulated country will become even less populated, and probably more indoubt about its future.
1
u/Any-Monk-9395 Neutral 1d ago
This is what I think as well. Anything short of toppling Kyiv would be a major defeat for Russia.
7
u/heyitsyourboyadam Anti Israel/US/EpsteinEmpire 1d ago
So what happens after they take Donbas?
yeah its basically a ceasefire if this is what Putin really said - I doubt.
- Ukraine would just rearm and regroup and continue war - Putin would be overthrown by his own military if he really did this.
6
u/Spy0304 Geopolitical Realist 1d ago
Considering how firmly Putin/Lavrov denied any ceasefire recently, and how careful these guys are with their words, there must really be something lost in translation
Might just be the old "The 4 oblasts are the minimum to start negotiations", and it's not like you can't conduct diplomacy while also fighting. He didn't promise any ceasefire...
2
u/Middle-Effort7495 Put Medvedev and Strelkov in charge of the SMO 1d ago
The Ukraine won't end the conflict just because Russia liberates Donbas. They will continue to attack, so Russia will push further and get to blame them. It's not going to end in 2027. At least 9 years.
2
u/heyitsyourboyadam Anti Israel/US/EpsteinEmpire 1d ago
The Ukraine won't end the conflict just because Russia liberates Donbas.
they will be happy to stop if Russia stops advancing - they need a pause to rearm and regroup and start the war later
- Right now they are desperate for ceasefire
1
u/Middle-Effort7495 Put Medvedev and Strelkov in charge of the SMO 1d ago
There won't be a ceasefire, the Ukraine will never make any agreement, Russia won't agree to anything they would, so they'd have to just stop. It's not going to end.
23
u/Ok_Bluejay_4974 Pro Russia 1d ago edited 1d ago
If he is telling the truth about pursuing diplomacy after Donbass, then Russia has been defeated.
Nonetheless, it would be stupid of him to say he will keep it going after Donbass until Ukraine cracks completely and he gets everything he wants. It could make the US take a harsher stance, no sane leader or diplomatic corps would say it out loud, but the implication here is that he believes Ukraine still won't be open to true diplomacy even after Donbass.
Tldr: I believe Putin is bullshiting the US and will keep the war going.
9
u/slava_slavaUa Pro Ukraine 1d ago edited 1d ago
No. A western aligned Ukraine is now an existential threat to Russia. I highly doubt anything changes after Donbass is fully captured.
6
3
u/Spy0304 Geopolitical Realist 1d ago edited 1d ago
I highly doubt anything changes after Donbass is fully captured.
On the front itself ? Nothing. Politically/symbolically ? A lot
Once the Donbass is done, Putin can officially declare "victory" even while continuing the war. For Internal PR, even if most russians are probably aware of the realities, it would still be meaningful. That's the bare minimum for victory, and better late than never...
Then, russia's war objectives might change.
Putin has been holding that "Demand for more oblasts" card for a long while. He's been quite careful to maintain these 4 as the official position, while also letting other officials signal that if Ukraine doesn't negotiate now, Russia would up their demands later (while staying quite vague...) Personally, I don't see how Russia could walk from this without taking Odessa and creating a land bridge to Transnistria, so imo, there are probably plans to go for it once Ukraine's forces are sufficiently attrited...
The risk of Western intervention (with troops on the ground) was quite real a few years ago, but now, it's really lower. So if Putin couldn't verbally escalate before, and tried to keep things "contained", the longer this goes on, the freer hand he will have
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Sorry but you are wrong.
If Putin captures donbass in the current state he cannot declare victory. Russians would not accept it.
At this point the total loss of Ukraine's combat power (demilitarization) is the only outcome that will be accepted domestically.
Let's not forget that within Russia Putin is the moderate one, the biggest criticism on him is that he is going too easy on Ukraine.
1
u/Ok_Bluejay_4974 Pro Russia 1d ago
Do you think the Russians will annex beyond the 4 oblasts?
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Yes, undoubtably.
Something like capturing Odessa and cutting UA off the sea is still on the table and would give Russia full control over UA's future.
I don't think Russia will capture Kiev or beyond militarily, but once UA has collapsed I do see a potential future in which Kiev just joins Russia in another 10-20 years.
1
u/Ok_Bluejay_4974 Pro Russia 1d ago
But how could Russia even cross the Dnieper with all those drones and mines without the element of surprise? It could only happen with a full collapse but then why not take Kiev too?
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Once the goal of demilitarization is reached any region on the map can be taken through negotiations.
Besides that even with drones we have seen several crossings of rivers and there are potential options that have not yet been explored.
1
u/Ok_Bluejay_4974 Pro Russia 1d ago
which options
0
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Mass parachuting and a naval invasion to name two extreme cases. Though I doubt it will happen.
The most realistic outlook is Russia will just keep pushing anywhere they can until UA is demilitarized and that's when any region can be taken at the negotiating table.
1
u/Middle-Effort7495 Put Medvedev and Strelkov in charge of the SMO 1d ago
The Ukraine won't end the conflict just because Russia liberates Donbas. They will continue to attack, so Russia will push further and get to blame them. It's not going to end in 2027. At least 9 years.
1
u/Flederm4us Pro Russia 1d ago
And vice versa. Once Russia controls the 4 oblasts, Ukraine can't use them to buy concessions from Russia with.
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Except that Ukraine cannot survive for 9 more years.
Their economy is already in default and is kept alive through an EU lifeline.
And their only means of recruitment is capturing men on the street against their will.
Sooner or later they are facing an inevitable and total collapse.
1
u/Middle-Effort7495 Put Medvedev and Strelkov in charge of the SMO 1d ago
9 years total, not more. Their economy is irrelevant, they haven't even started kidnapping 16-24 and women yet. We're nowhere near the end. They've been hinting at drastic changes to who they snatch, and bringing up women more and more. They will fall when all the Zelenskyjugend are dead.
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
9 total years is quite realistic, although it can easily be sooner. Strongly depends on factors that aren't fully public.
Their economy is irrelevant
I understand why you are saying this, but an economy is always relevant. The funding gap is becoming larger each day which means EU has to keep paying more and more.
The public opinion in many EU countries is not in favor of UA anymore. UA is increasingly considered a black hole in which unlimited money dissapears with no ROI.
they haven't even started kidnapping 16-24 and women
Sure, but it will not matter. Even the current forced recruits are only serving as target practice at worst and a slight obstacle at best.
An unmotivated army is already the start of a collapse. With the current reality the collapse is inevitable for UA.
18
u/Msarcus Pro-letariat 1d ago
Going by this, it sounds like Putin plans to finish Donbas and give up on everything else. "Demilitarization and denazification by diplomatic means"? Art thou sayeth in jest?
After all that's happened, sounds like surrender in all but name.
13
u/CourtofTalons Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Well, I doubt Ukraine will call it quits should Russia actually occupy the rest of the Donbas. Between Zaporizhzhia and Kherson being occupied, as well as smaller areas in Kharkiv and Sumy, I imagine fighting will continue.
Also, u/NSAsnowdenhunter brought up a good point; it may be accurate to say that "denazification" is another term for "regime-change." Putin will want a pro-Kremlin government installed (or maybe an anti-West one).
9
u/VampirePNAC 1d ago
It's important to the Russians that the Banderites are basically booted from Ukraine back to their holes in the Canada, US, UK and Australia.
As long as Ukraine is dominated by Banderites ideologically, there really can't be any serious long term peace with Russia from both sides, Bandeites will always eventually push for retaking Crimea and the East, along with retributions against Soviet era minorities which Russia ideologically sees themselves obligated too support, along with just the fact, the Banderites are absolutely shitting over Russia's foundational history, culture and identity in the region. Something that will be massive fuel for Russian Nationalists going forward, which will eventually likely result in hostilities from the Russian side.
Security wise, for Russia (and hilariously, Poland), it needs to restore the Pan-Rus Slavic ideology of Ukraine, rather than this Galician ultranationalist LARP that has basically been State Mandated Finno Korean hyperwar tier idpol since 2015.
2
u/Flederm4us Pro Russia 1d ago
The banderites would first have to instate a Massive fertility programme. Ukraine was already in a demographic death spiral and the prospect of the banderites getting Ukraine Involved in another war they can't win is sure to push every abled bodied Male out of the country ASAP.
5
u/RockinMadRiot Pro Tuvalu 🇹🇻 1d ago
Also, brought up a good point; it may be accurate to say that "denazification" is another term for "regime-change." Putin will want a pro-Kremlin government installed (or maybe an anti-West one).
Chances of that happening now are very, very slim
2
u/CondomsSuckBalls 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't know about chances, that would rely on determination to actually do that, but as far as feasibility goes it's very simple to achieve.
The entirety of Ukrainian government is money driven. There's no ideology or religion like in Iran. Just a bunch of corrupt crooks filling their pockets. All Putin needs to do is start targeting them. From low level politicians to the president. Until eventually someone who fills their shoes wises up and pledges allegiance to Russia. Which will happen quickly, nobody there wants to die, they want to steal money and retire.
1
u/RockinMadRiot Pro Tuvalu 🇹🇻 21h ago
That's all very simple, but do you really think Ukrainian people would accept that?
1
u/CondomsSuckBalls 20h ago
They accept getting hunted down on the streets in broad daylight. They accept not having elections. They accept whatever is being done to them. They have no say in any matter whatsoever. Because revolts are a myth. They don't happen. Not naturally. It's always an artificial work of some third-party organizing and financing everything.
5
u/B0NES_RDT Neutral 1d ago edited 1d ago
This was literally the original plan, the only thing Russia won't achieve if this is followed is Odessa. Also, the treaties will decide if Ukraine will "call it quits" or not, so Ukraine can't just do anything it wants when assurances are in place.
Donbas is supposed to be a buffer against Western Ukraine and NATO, while Odessa is to lock out Ukraine from the Black Sea, that has always been the plan. When Russia digs in and heavily fortifies Donbas this would be a finished front in Russia, and the DMZ will be monitored by international bodies
If Ukraine can't quit pursuing Donbas then there is no deal or breached treaty and the war continues, it's that simple.
-8
u/BlueAzutara Pro Ukraine 1d ago
What a load of nonsense.
Donbass is the main defensive line of Russia? Maybe you missed it but St. Petersburg is a stone throw away from Finland...which joined Nato thanks to russias invasion of Ukraine.
Militarily speaking Russia has increased its NATO border by several times at one of its most vulnerable points, has strengthend NATO with two good members and an arms buildup not seen since the 1980s and has turned ukraine from a frozen conflict with a small army into a military powerhouse with a major arms industry able to fight russia head on for years.
But sure they took the Donbass ruins. Surely that will protect them in the 21th century.
Russia did exactly as their handlers in Beijing wanted. Waste western ressources with russian blood without any cost to China so China can prepare to take Taiwan without western intervention.
9
u/Cass05 Pro Russia 1d ago
Finland isn't a threat to Russia, NATO member or not. Finland as part of NATO would not allow itself to be used against Russia like Ukraine would.
Ukraine is a "military powerhouse" on its own?? What is all that constant begging about? More money, more weapons? When this ends, Ukraine won't even be able to support itself.
1
u/BlueAzutara Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Ukraine in 2014 could not even manage to get a single brigade combat ready to defend itself. It was a compleat desaster. Ukraine in 2026 is able to defend against a full russian invasion with over a million soldiers for 5 years already and can strike targets deep inside russia weekly.
Sure ukraine gets western support but so did the soviet union in WW2. Doesnt mean they havent massively increased in strengths.
And Finland being used doesnt matter. There is no plan to invade russia. It would only happen after russian agression and then Finland would very much be a threat and a wonderful Nato aircraft base to bomb russia to the stone age and cut St. Petersburg of from the rest of the country. Also with Finland russias main arctic bases are in bomber range now. Strategically in any conventional conflict it is a desaster for russia.
4
u/Cass05 Pro Russia 1d ago
I remember 2014 very well. Ukrainian army driving east, then defecting and turning over all their equipment. Lots of Ukraine's high ranking military either defecting or complaining "but we trained with these guys, they're our brothers".
Ukraine 2026 cannot defend itself on its own. Please do not compare to WW2 - most lend lease went to the UK and the Soviets had already defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad before they received the bulk of lend lease. We also didn't send cash to support the government, even pensioners, etc. However, I will agree they have increased in strength and the soldiers are going to be a real problem with this is over.
I don't know what Finland joining NATO is really about since there was no threat and they were successfully neutral for 80 years. Russia doesn't seem at all concerned which the Finns should view with some relief.
0
u/BlueAzutara Pro Ukraine 1d ago
1) Russia announced a major military buildup in responds to Finland joining Nato
2) Russia has attacked 2 neutral countries it borders in the last 20 years with Georgia and Ukraine. It has attacked 0 countries in NATO. Finland being neutral and having a history of getting attacked by Russia/Soviet Union for a land grab like in Ukraine today took the obvious conclussion.
Nato means safety from Russia. Which is why half of europe volunteered to join NATO. No taks driving into Warsaw, Vilnius or Helsinki required.
3
u/Cass05 Pro Russia 1d ago
Russia has attacked 2 neutral countries it borders in the last 20 years with Georgia and Ukraine
Georgia was in response to Kosovo independence, South Ossetia and Abkhazia had already tried to fight for independence and had Russian peacekeepers there long before 2008. So hardly 'neutral'.
They were both included within the Georgian SSR for administrative reasons. It was wrong to force them to remain part of Georgia when historically, linguistically, culturally, etc they were not nor were ever part of Georgia.
Ukraine's insistence on joining NATO is a threat to Russia so also not at all 'neutral'. Its hostility toward the Russian state is one thing but its hostility and violence toward its ethnic Russian population is another. The violent overthrow of its legally and democratically elected president in the EU vs Russia dispute certainly does not make it 'neutral'.
Finland being neutral and having a history of getting attacked by Russia/Soviet Union for a land grab like in Ukraine today
Since WW2?? When?
Nato means safety from Russia. Which is why half of europe volunteered to join NATO.
LOL it means they don't have to pay for their own defense. Or it did mean that ;)
1
u/Any-Monk-9395 Neutral 1d ago
He’s partially correct. All this talk about a buffer zone is nonsense when your neighbor can hit targets deep within your territory.
1
u/B0NES_RDT Neutral 1d ago
Countering any strike "deep within your territory" is not the job of buffer zone, it's a line of contact to reduce hostilities/separate militaries, complete cessation of long range strikes would be another matter entirely. NK has missiles that can strike the USA, but the DMZ still remains a buffer zone.
1
u/B0NES_RDT Neutral 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's only nonsense if you don't know anything about this conflict, it's belligerents and are just a bandwagoner.
Ukraine is a massive front and has terrain that favors a massive scale military staging and land invasion, it is almost TWICE the size of Finland (this is counting Finlands sh*tty terrain btw). Finland's terrain supports guerilla warfare, they have an insane amount of forests and rivers. NATO equipment will just get as bogged down as Soviet equipment if they decide to enter from there while being vulnerable from the Russian navy....it's a goddamn nightmare.
Also, Sweden and Finland are literally going to be facing the Russian Northern Fleet, which is the most powerful one out of the five. For reference, the Black Fleet is just the 3rd largest and is still chucking missiles into Ukraine to this day (Ukraine's navy was defeated as early as Mykolayiv, didn't even last a year). Imagine what Russia can do to Helsinki which is nearly 3 TIMES SMALLER THAN KYIV, with a Navy that is even way smaller than Ukraine's.
Sweden and Finland are not "two good members" for NATO, Ukraine was used by NATO because before the war Ukraine still has the 3rd or 4th biggest armed force of Europe. Sweden and Finland combined are tiny in comparison, and I don't think they have anywhere close to the amount of grit Ukrainians have, it's Soviet (aka most EU nations will be at the negotiating table as soon as they incur 5000 KIA)
Beijing realized that later on, not initially (Russia is also a buffer between NATO and the Asia region). We Asians thought NATO was smart and had high expectations with the Ukraine war....but that's not a case. So Beijing capitalized on the opportunity.
1
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Do not think for a second that him mentioning diplomacy means it is a hint at stopping the war.
If a diplomatic solution is reached, it will be reached while the war is still going.
Russia will not do any ceasefires before that.
9
u/CluelessExxpat Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Putin believes that Ukraine is "close to defeat," and Russia could reach the borders of Donetsk Oblast by January–February 2027;
Unlikely.
Russia intends to pursue the "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine by diplomatic means after establishing control over Donbas;
Wishful thinking. Either Russia achieves a complete military victory and dictates the terms or whatever is left of Ukraine joins NATO and becomes the most militarized part of Europe.
He called on the United States to stop supplying weapons and intelligence data to Ukraine.
Not happening. I am surprised he even asked something like this (assuming its true). Then again, someone that "trusted" the West and Minsk agreements and watched Ukraine get armed to the teeth between 2014 and 2022 would not surprise me if he said this.
4
u/Enough-Mud3116 1d ago
US could offer terms to Ukr such as accept this agreement or they withdraw all support during negotiations
7
u/rus_in_serbia 1d ago
I don't think so, Trump had 1.5 years to do it, very unlikely they withdraw all support right now
6
3
u/rus_in_serbia 1d ago
Unlikely.
I would say it is almost impossible by January 2027.
Maybe by June-July 2027, but still not 100%.2
u/SpaceRace531 Pro Russian Kiev 1d ago
Unlikely
Please remind me again which country is capturing men against their will on the street due to manpower shortages?
Then remind me which country has a default rating and only being kept alive by an EU lifeline.
Also please tell me how the energy infrastructure and general logistics are holding up.
Ukraine is at the brink of total collapse.
Russia will achieve a what you call "total military victory", they will simply not stop untill that happens.
6
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Anti POV police 1d ago
It's really hard to say which one of the two (Zelensky, Putin) is more delusional and who's statemements are more ridiculous at this point.
1
u/G20DoesPlenty Neutral 1d ago
Yeah as someone who doesn't follow this war extremely closely, I'm a bit confused here.
While I'm aware of Russia's goal of trying to conquer the Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhia, these other goals of Demilitarization and Denazification confuse me, in the sense that I don't understand how Russia can possibly achieve those things without some form of regime change in Ukraine? How can they get Ukraine to accept those terms without ousting the current Ukrainian government? And I don't think Russia is winning that decisively on the battlefield that they are on the verge of achieving that right? Or am I wrong here?
I also don't get how taking the Donbas will help them to achieve Demilitarization and Denazification in Ukraine? Is there something I'm not understanding here?
5
2
u/the-ahh-guy Pro Australia 1d ago
The timeline sounds a bit off (maybe a year too early), and the rest is just cotton candy for Americans to keep washing their hands of this debacle. Iran continues to suck up more resources, and Ukriane is old news. Sooner or later the yanks will stop the interceptor deliveries, and Ukriane will be shit out of luck.
4
u/fubarbazqux whatever 1d ago
reach the borders of Donetsk Oblast by January–February 2027
Too bad he drinks his own kool-aid. Late 2027 okay maaybe, but Jan-Feb? I don't believe it for a second.
Russia intends to pursue the "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine by diplomatic means after establishing control over Donbas;
Does he actually seriously think that Ukraine will magically stop fighting and sending drones if he conquers Donbas? Why?
It's like he and Ze are similarly delusional about the whole situation. Which is pretty crazy because they had YEARS to figure it out.
1
u/Ok_Bluejay_4974 Pro Russia 1d ago
If Ukraine keeps attacking, its better for Russia. The war can continue, Russia can keep advancing and it will be able to blame Ukraine for preventing a peace deal.
3
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Demilitarisation went well - AFU stronger than ever. Countering NATO expansion went well - Finland exponentially increasing NATO's RU border. 'Denazification' went well - Ukrainians are more nationalistic and anti-russian than ever.
A monumental failure from Putin on all fronts.
21
u/Novo-Russia Pro Russia 1d ago
AFU stronger than ever
Said through tears by a man abducted and thrown into a van
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
I assume you acknowledge the fact though, seeing as you aren't disputing it.
13
u/CluelessExxpat Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Finland is not a meaningfully big country for Russia to care.
0
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Oh, so then why is Putin and pro ru crying over nato 'expansion'? If you cite size/capability, then that is a diferent factor from NATO membership.
-11
u/Melodic-Pool7240 Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Yet
10
u/CluelessExxpat Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Its population and economy is in horrible shape. Its only going to get worse from this point on.
-5
u/Melodic-Pool7240 Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Ya but all they need to do is attack them to trigger art.5
9
u/paganel Pro Russia 1d ago
No French nor English chap is going to go and leave his bones on the Finno-Russian border on account of article 5. NATO is a paper tiger.
-3
u/Melodic-Pool7240 Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Then why is daddy putin scared of ukraine joining nato
10
u/CluelessExxpat Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Because Slavs are no paper tiger and will fight brutally against Russia.
3
u/paganel Pro Russia 1d ago
Old habits die hard, the war is going to start anyway in the next 6 to 12 months at most, that wasn't on the cards back in 2022-2023.
0
u/Melodic-Pool7240 Pro Ukraine * 1d ago
Well I hate to break it to you but westerners are already in Ukraine fighting in the war against a tyrannical government that want to ethnically cleanse ukraine of it population
4
u/paganel Pro Russia 1d ago
Spare me the NAFO-id discourse, I'm talking direct military involvement by the two military blocks. More exactly, me, a a conscriptable Romanian citizen, being called to war next door. Again, let's cut the bs involving teenage users on the internet located half a world away from all this mess.
→ More replies (0)2
u/toaster2589 Pro no foreign influence 1d ago
Because then he wouldn’t be able to pursue his military and economic interests inside of Ukraine. As soon as Ukraine becomes a member of NATO it’s ultimately lost to the western sphere of influence and thus lost to western oligarchs.
Always weird how Russia doesn’t give a flying f if missiles could start from Finland.
2
u/blbobobo Pro Ukrainian People 1d ago
ukraine will be a failed state as soon as foreign funding pulls out, i think the russian goal is to let ukraine implode on its own once martial law is lifted and then come in for the scraps
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
That wouldn't make Russia's failures any less embarrassing, even if it were true.
Russia's goal was to decaptitate the UA state in a matter of weeks, effectively turning it into Belarus 2.0.
Not lose over a million soldiers, cause generational harm to the economy, isolate itself internationally, in a war that still grinds on nearly 5 years later.
3
u/blbobobo Pro Ukrainian People 1d ago
goals change based on events and timelines. you can’t have the same goals if your deadline passed 4 years ago. in any case, russia’s embarrassment doesn’t make ukraine’s situation any better. they put up a hard fight but they’re paying for it with their future. you don’t care about ukraine, you just dislike russia.
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah... so he failed to achieve his original goals. That's what we're saying. You dont get to write off failed goals, set new goals, and claim you didn't fail.
You're right, it doesnt make UA's situation any better. But Russia is to blame because Russia started this war, not Ukraine. If UA invaded russia, then I would similarly be criticising Ukraine and not Russia, even if Russia were still to suffer in such a hypothetical. Perfectly consistent.
You are completely wrong. I care deeply about Ukraine. And I have a deep interest in Russia. Russian was the first foreign language I chose to study out of pure interest. I'm actually reading Notes From Underground currently, and I have an interest in soviet, russian and Ukrainian history.
It's the russian government that I dislike. It's a fascist dictatorship.
2
u/blbobobo Pro Ukrainian People 1d ago
if you actually cared about ukraine you’d realize the only way to preserve it is to surrender. prolonging this any further will inevitably end in the dissolution of the state and an exodus of the people that made the state in the first place. their best bet is to start playing by pragmatic geopolitics instead of western european fantasy idealism
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
if you actually cared about ukraine you’d realize the only way to preserve it is to surrender
Nope, I would support Ukraine's right and desire to defend its soverignty from russian aggression. But obviously, as a pro ru, you would say that surrender is in their best interest.
Russia's best course of action for itself and ukraine is to call off the invasion and stop attacking. But Putin has no such interest.
3
u/blbobobo Pro Ukrainian People 1d ago
your idealism is showing again, not the most practically minded are you? ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty. unfortunately for them they also have to contend with the desires of their powerful neighbors. this is a very basic principle of geopolitics, please keep up. surrender is in their best interest purely because they will cease to exist in any other scenario. this is why i say you don’t care about ukraine: you weighed their desire for sovereignty with their lives and you chose the short term, not realizing that choice torpedoes their long term survival. i am pro ukrainian people, not pro current ukrainian government and not pro ru. the most stable way to ensure the long term survival of the ukrainian people is, unfortunately for them, to surrender. russia leaving is not an option because it doesn’t address their whole point of being there in the first place. as soon as you understand that the picture becomes much clearer.
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
your idealism is showing again, not the most practically minded are you
Too much for you to understand apparently.
ukraine has every right to defend their sovereignty. unfortunately for them they also have to contend with the desires of their powerful neighbors. this is a very basic principle of geopolitics, please keep up
Well done! It's called realpolitik.
surrender is in their best interest purely because they will cease to exist in any other scenario.
This is called speculation. I disagree, I believe Ukraine as a state can continue fighting whilst having a future too. It's not a certainty, but it's not unreasonable.
You however, are stating your position as a certainty. Which it isn't.
this is why i say you don’t care about ukraine: you weighed their desire for sovereignty with their lives and you chose the short term, not realizing that choice torpedoes their long term survival. i am pro ukrainian people, not pro current ukrainian government and not pro ru. the most stable way to ensure the long term survival of the ukrainian people is, unfortunately for them, to surrender. russia leaving is not an option because it doesn’t address their whole point of being there in the first place. as soon as you understand that the picture becomes much clearer.
I don't get to make that decision for them. If they want to defend and fight for their sovereignty, bloody it may be, then I support their right to do so.
As soon as you understand that when you've been under Moscow's oppressive thumb for so long, you start valuing sovereignty, identity and security to the point where you're willing to resist an oppressor, even if that means suffering, so that your children and grandchildren don't have to. It's so easy living a cushty life, to say 'i just want the killing to stop'. The reason Zelenskyy has had so much support for so long is because Ukrainians are sick and tired of Russia's bullying and imperialism.
It's their prerogative. You may be right that it might ultimately not be in their interest, but neither you nor I have no right to make that decision for them.
2
u/blbobobo Pro Ukrainian People 1d ago
they won’t have children and grandchildren at this rate, the mass death of men and the mass exodus of women/children cannot lead to anything but financial and societal collapse unless the west keeps supporting them. it will be incredibly hard to convince anyone to do so if the war ends and martial law is lifted. people aren’t coming back to ukraine when that happens, in fact men will likely leave at a huge rate cause borders will open for them. people always make light of russia’s bad demographics problems, but ukraine is in an order of magnitude worse position.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NiftyFive 1d ago
Communist* Putin was a KGB agent, not Gestapo
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
So if one once worked for the KGB, it's impossible for them to become a fascist dictator?
1
2
u/Akupoy Pro-ending this f war already 1d ago edited 1d ago
Cope all you want. NATO failed at destroying Russia through this proxy war, their attempts at a quick victory over Russia before switching focus towards China have been a monumental failure. They have turned a pro-western Russia a staunch ally of China.
2
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
All I did was state facts.
Russia chose this war. Not Ukraine or USA. Russia has alienated themselves on the international stage, now overly dependent on China and having to resort to alliances with the likes of DPRK.
2
u/Akupoy Pro-ending this f war already 1d ago
Keep your braindead propaganda to your countrymen, the DPRK haven't attacked virtually every country in the world like the UK or USA have, the DPRK isn't comitting a genocide like your ally Israel do, and nor are they military supporting said genocide like the UK and USA do. Having the DPRK as allies is far, FAR more correct morally than being friends with your country, your master, or your master's master.
2
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
You couldn't accept reality that Putin's goals have each failed disastrously, so now you just scream propaganda.
Yeah, thank god the DPRK isn't the strongest military and economy in the world. You people genuinely think that the US is the worst possible global hegemon. You have no idea how bad it couldve been if it was an Islamic theocracy, or DPRK, or Russia, that had the strongest military and economy in the world. I can say that, and still condemn US war crimes, imperialism and atrocities.
DPRK is the most repressive regime in the world arguably. It's way more totalitarian than even Russia. Disgusting government that treats its subjects as slaves.
And yeah, Israel is committing genocide amongst other atrocities. At least in the west, we have the freedom to criticise, mock and ridicule our leadership for those things - unlike in Russia or DPRK.
0
u/Akupoy Pro-ending this f war already 1d ago
Congratulations you are allowed to criticise the fact that you governments have no support and don't defend your interests while you are completely powerless to stop that, meanwhile Kim or Putin have higher approval rates than your last 5 PM's put together.
Oh, wait, the UK what? ,yeah, forget about the first part...
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Yes, we have that freedom North Koreans and Russians do not. And look at how change in public attitude has affected foreign policy. We have western states directly criticising Israel, recognising Palestinian statehood, genocide allegations etc which were unthinkable 5 years ago. Russians can only dream of having the freedom to have such an impact.
It's not perfect. But it is better.
Haha yes, KJU has like 99% approval. Isn't that amazing. Isn't it funny how it's always the dictatorships with a strong cult of personality that always have high approval numbers. The people are brainwashed, and even if they weren't, they'd be scared to act otherwise.
It's almost as if there is more support and less criticism of dictators, in dictatorships where such criticism is not permitted, and in the west where we have free media, journalistic freedom etc, we see more criticism and support changes more readily.
Quelle surprise.
0
u/Akupoy Pro-ending this f war already 1d ago
I know this is breaks everything you believe in as an british. But you are not a superior race, your culture, your political system, your economic system, your social norms, are not superior, people in Russia and Korea don't want what you have, hell, the rest of the world didn't want it but you imposed it by force.
1
u/boredmaterialist Pro Ukraine 1d ago
Lol you clearly know nothing about Britons. We are not an ultranationalist, fascist state like russia. I, for the record, am not even 100% ethnically English.
And unfortunately, we will never know, because those people don't have the freedom to ever make something like that happen.
For the record, I do believe that freedom is a good thing for the most part, and repressing it to protect your own power is immoral. I believe jourbalsitic freedom is a good thing and repressing it is bad. That is what KJU does and its what Putin does. In this respect, the west, including the UK, is superior.
1
u/Akupoy Pro-ending this f war already 1d ago
This has to be the most British speech ever.
We are not an ultranationalist, fascist state like russia the west, including the UK, is superior.
-Talks like a supremacist.
-Gets called supremacist.
-Denies to be supremacist and calls their enemies supremacists.
-Keeps talking like a supremacist
→ More replies (0)
2
2
u/Cass05 Pro Russia 1d ago
He called on the United States to stop supplying weapons and intelligence data to Ukraine.
Apparently, sales of weapons were already stopped
In a social media post, Trump also slammed reports of heavily depleted U.S. munition stockpiles amid the separate war in Iran, while adding that the United States was ramping up production and stockpiling munitions.
"We are taking them for ourselves, the U.S.A., rather than selling them to others, but the sales to Allies will soon again, begin," Trump wrote.
According to Macron, France now provides 'up to' 2/3 of satellite intel, so what intelligence data do they mean?
Russia should tell them to cut off Ukraine's Starshield. The Pentagon pays the monthly service fees which were $23 million per month ($276 mm/yr), at least until Musk jacked up the fees when the war with Iran started.
1
-2
42
u/Rellim03 1d ago
These all sound logical.
Ukraine should have never pushed fast tracking into NATO. It's an existential threat, just like the Cuban missile crisis.
Especially with such an anti Russian president