Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2964905]That's not at all accurate. I believe war in general is insane. Outside of the generals and defense contractors there are no winners. Only losers. And war between countries as similar as Ukraine and Russia is doubly insane. I suspect, before 2014, the people in the Ukrainian area currently under Russian control had more in common culturally with people in southwestern Russia than they did with residents of Lviv.

Yeah, I was watching the Darkest Hour the other night, which at its core is about that speech, and figured you might draw this analogy. Well, the analogy is faulty. Going into World War II, the UK and German economies were roughly the same size. Great Britain is an island nation, and it had the strongest navy in the world. Ukraine, even with western aid, didn't have a prayer. Russia has a much larger population, military and GDP. And it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

A better analogy from World War II would be the Volkssturm, the rag tag army composed of old and young men who defended Berlin in the last days of the Reich. That's where Ukraine's headed unless there's peace in a reasonable timeframe. It just doesn't have the manpower. .[/QUOTE]Right. The war is crazy, so Ukraine must surrender.

No one has ever changed anyone's opinion on the Internet, so you can keep yours. Behind your articulate sophistry lies one entrenched notion: "leave me alone". That's what you want. To be left alone, to avoid hearing or seeing about Russia's atrocities, to avoid being taxed to help a victim of aggression. What you are really saying is that might is right. Give Russia what they want and don't make Putin mad, full stop.

I will always disagree. Also full stop.

Then there is your stubborn refusal to realize that Russia's economy is doomed, something that even Russian economists are saying today and that was unheard of a year ago.

Well, faith is a powerful thing. What else to add?

Only that the government-subsidized 8% mortgage rate is over. It was never a good deal anyway--just a scam that was helping a group of oligarch developers sell overpriced real estate.

In any case, the program was cancelled on July 1.

Or maybe it's just me slinging dirt at mother Russia.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2964998]Right. The war is crazy, so Ukraine must surrender.

No one has ever changed anyone's opinion on the Internet, so you can keep yours. Behind your articulate sophistry lies one entrenched notion: "leave me alone". That's what you want. To be left alone, to avoid hearing or seeing about Russia's atrocities, to avoid being taxed to help a victim of aggression. What you are really saying is that might is right. Give Russia what they want and don't make Putin mad, full stop.

I will always disagree. Also full stop.

Then there is your stubborn refusal to realize that Russia's economy is doomed, something that even Russian economists are saying today and that was unheard of a year ago.

Well, faith is a powerful thing. What else to add?

Only that the government-subsidized 8% mortgage rate is over. It was never a good deal anyway--just a scam that was helping a group of oligarch developers sell overpriced real estate.

In any case, the program was cancelled on July 1.

Or maybe it's just me slinging dirt at mother Russia.[/QUOTE]No, I simply want the two sides to start talking and stop fighting.

Sorry, I thought your article stopped at "mortgage rates were fixed at 8% which helped drive a property market boom. " I see now that it continues after an advertisement and says "the government ended the subsidies. " The effect on inflation would depend in part on how many mortgages were floating rate vs. Fixed rate, and the level of rates for the fixed mortgages. The fact that the western analysts are predicting inflation will remain around the current level for the rest of the year and go down in subsequent years would indicate this isn't something they're expecting to drive out-of-control price increases. It will dampen the housing market.

The analyst consensus for 2025 is for Russian unemployment of 2.8%, a fiscal budget deficit of 1.2%, a current account balance of 2.8%, and GDP growth of 1.5%. Those are all better than the consensus for the EU, and better except for GDP versus the USA. And yes, forecasted CPI inflation for Russia, 6.9%, is higher than for the EU or USA. That doesn't sound like a doomed economy.

Nice to see reality sinking in, just like I said it would. I wonder what the Pro Ukrainian robots in this thread are going to say now. But Zelensky is still delusional or full of shit, or both. The dumbass thinks Russia will accept anything other than NEUTRALITY for Ukraine. And he thinks Ukraine can get the 4 new territories plus Crimea back through diplomatic means. LOL. What a fucking clown.

[URL]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/major-compromise-how-ukraines-zelenskyy-shifted-goals-to-end-russia-war[/URL]

In an interview with Sky News chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, published on November 29, Zelenskyy said the "hot phase" of the war could end if NATO offered security guarantees for the part of Ukraine currently under Kyiv's control.

He said the return of land occupied by Russia at the moment could be diplomatically negotiated later. The Ukrainian leader reiterated this stance in an interview published by the Japanese news agency Kyodo News on Monday.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2965144]...But Zelensky is still delusional or full of shit, or both. The dumbass thinks Russia will accept anything other than NEUTRALITY for Ukraine. And he thinks Ukraine can get the 4 new territories plus Crimea back through diplomatic means. LOL. What a fucking clown...[/QUOTE]To state the obvious, it is misdirection. Zelensky is appearing to be willing to negotiate, knowing that this "position", while appearing reasonable to Trump and the west, is unacceptable to Putin. His game is to temporize while waiting for the death of Putin or collapse of the Russian state.

[B]Russian forces have suffered over 2,000 casualties in a single day for the first time, according to the Ukrainian military.[/B]

[QUOTE]On Friday, Kyiv's general staff reported that 2,030 Russian troops had been lost over the past 24 hours. It did not specify whether these were killed, captured or missing.

The figure surpassed the previous record of 1,950 casualties, which Ukraine said Russia suffered on Nov 12.[/QUOTE][URL]https://news.yahoo.com/news/russia-loses-over-2-000-142033806.html[/URL]

In other news, some Russians are slowly waking up by refusing to fulfill their lofty destiny as cannon fodder.

[B]Russian Army Division Hit by Desertions of 'Whole Regiment': Report[/B]

[QUOTE]An "entire regiment" of more than 1,000 soldiers left the 20th Guards Motor Rifle Division of the Russian Armed Forces stationed in Volgograd amid rising tensions in the Russia-Ukraine war, according to the Russian investigative outlet iStories.

Among those who deserted the division, also referred to as "sochniks," which translates to "those who left their unit without permission," were 26 junior officers, a major, and two lieutenant colonels. Newsweek reached out to the Ministry of Defense for the Russian Federation for comment via email.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.newsweek.com/russian-army-division-hit-desertions-whole-regiment-report-1988712[/URL]

Ukrainians flee from Kiev regime to regions reunited with Russia — politician.

The process, which can today be confidently called the reunification of the Ukrainian people with Russia, began after the 2014 coup, Viktor Medvedchuk stressed.

MOSCOW, November 29. Ukrainian citizens are fleeing in large numbers from the Kiev regime to regions that have already reunited with Russia, as they see this country as a safe haven, Viktor Medvedchuk, leader of the Other Ukraine movement and former head of the Opposition Platform. For Life party banned in Ukraine, said.

Zelensky and his team are terrified. Citizens of Ukraine are rushing in large numbers to the territories that became part of Russia. Statements by government officials about the mass flight from Ukraine essentially show that Zelensky's regime fails to manage the country. Ukrainian citizens are fleeing to become citizens of Russia, Medvedchuk wrote in his article, published on the movement's website.

Zelensky's gang plundered and ruined the country, and now more and more Ukrainians are choosing Russia as a place to live, the politician said, noting that many Ukrainian citizens from Europe are also moving to Russia after facing language barriers and difficulties in finding employment.

The process, which can today be confidently called the reunification of the Ukrainian people with Russia, began after the 2014 coup, Medvedchuk stressed. In 2014, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, a population of 2. 5 million people, exercised their right to self-determination. In 2022, Ukrainian citizens of the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, and residents of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions exercised their right to self-determination. Today, these are 6. 1 million people. Or, to be more precise, over 7. 1 million citizens of Ukraine, if we take into account all those who worked and studied in Russia before the start of the special military operation, as well as those who moved to Russia in 2022. Thus, a total of 15.7 million Ukrainians have chosen Russia, Medvedchuk calculated.

Ukrainians have begun viewing Russia as a country where they can stay safe from the havoc that current authorities have created in Ukraine, the politician said. These are not hundreds of thousands, but millions of people who are leaving for regions that became part of Russia. This process is only accelerating, becoming a steady-state process of the Ukrainian people's reunification with Russia, Medvedchuk said.

[QUOTE=Questner;2963393]Below is the quote from the Ukrainian POV on the events of 2004:

On November 22nd a round date passed by without much notice - 20 years since the beginning of the first ("orange") Maidan in 2004.

Meanwhile, this event played a huge role in the history of Ukraine. In particular, it became one of the steps leading to the current bloody war....[/QUOTE]Very interesting article Questner, thanks for posting it. Yanukovych was playing a delicate balancing game, trying initially to extract the benefits of EU membership and western aid at the same time he wanted cheap gas from Russia, and it backfired on him, and ultimately on Ukraine.

I would have liked to have seen Hillary Clinton mentioned in the piece, along with Joe Biden. Her interference in the Russian election in 2012 did as much as anything to create the mess we're in now. Also the writer could have developed the theme around natural gas further. Because Ukraine wasn't paying for gas and wanted to charge high pipeline tariffs for transport to Europe, Russia ended up building the Nord Stream and Turkish Stream pipelines to be able to bypass Ukraine. I suspect if that had never happened, neither would the 2022 war.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2963432]What a pointless, longwinded bunch of crap![/QUOTE]The article starts slow but by the time you get to the end is fascinating. Definitely worth a read. And it's not, as you probably thought, necessarily pro-Russian.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2965144]Nice to see reality sinking in, just like I said it would. I wonder what the Pro Ukrainian robots in this thread are going to say now. But Zelensky is still delusional or full of shit, or both. The dumbass thinks Russia will accept anything other than NEUTRALITY for Ukraine. And he thinks Ukraine can get the 4 new territories plus Crimea back through diplomatic means. LOL. What a fucking clown.

[URL]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/2/major-compromise-how-ukraines-zelenskyy-shifted-goals-to-end-russia-war[/URL]

In an interview with Sky News chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, published on November 29, Zelenskyy said the "hot phase" of the war could end if NATO offered security guarantees for the part of Ukraine currently under Kyiv's control.

He said the return of land occupied by Russia at the moment could be diplomatically negotiated later. The Ukrainian leader reiterated this stance in an interview published by the Japanese news agency Kyodo News on Monday.[/QUOTE]There's an interesting Wall Street Journal Article out today on this subject. While the WSJ editorial page is anti-Russian and pro-Republican Party, their news reporting is next to none in the USA, if you're looking for an unbiased source. And this is a news piece. One interesting takeaway is that now a majority of Ukrainians in the unoccupied part of the country support negotiating to end the war [B]as soon as possible[/B] according to a Gallup poll. And you can be guaran-damn-teed that most people in the occupied area want an end too, soon.

[B]Zelensky Signals He's Open to Negotiating a Peace Deal[/B]

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-zelensky-russia-war-comments-nato-1b40c55d?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos2[/URL]

Here are some excerpts.

Zelensky is suggesting that he could accept a cease-fire that effectively would leave occupied territory in Moscow's hands if the rest of Ukraine were given protection by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two significant hurdles stand in the way of this idea, however: Ukraine's chances of joining the military alliance in the near term remain slim, and there is little indication that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to negotiate.

In recent months, Russian forces have advanced more quickly in eastern Ukraine than at any point since the early days of the war. Moscow has also moved its economy onto war footing and recently approved the largest defense budget in Russia's history, giving Putin confidence that he can continue to grab more Ukrainian territory by force.

In a news conference on Sunday, Zelensky said Ukraine would only be willing to enter such negotiations from a position of strength, which would require further steps toward NATO and new provisions of Western long-distance and other weapons.

"If we'll have a frozen conflict without any strong position for Ukraine, so Putin will come in two, three or five years," Zelensky said. "he will come back and destroy us totally. Or try to destroy us. ".

Still, the Ukrainian leader's openness to ceding territory, even temporarily, is a significant concession. Speaking to Sky News on Friday, Zelensky said NATO membership would need to be offered to unoccupied parts of Ukraine for Kyiv to consider ending what he called the "hot phase of the war. " While Ukraine would continue to claim the whole of its territory, Zelensky suggested that Kyiv would seek to "get them back in a diplomatic way. ".

He made a similar case in an interview with Kyodo News, a Japanese outlet, that was published on Monday.

"Our army lacks the strength to do that," Zelensky said of ousting the Russians from occupied territory. "We do have to find diplomatic solutions. ".

Zelensky's rhetorical shift reflects a growing weariness among Ukrainians, who are expressing desire for an end to the conflict. Russian strikes have left much of the country without consistent electricity this winter, while manpower shortages mean that more men who don't want to fight are being forcibly conscripted.

[B]A Gallup poll published last month found that 52% of Ukrainians in unoccupied parts of the country support negotiating an end to the war as soon as possible, up from 27% last year; 38% supported continuing to fight until Ukraine wins, down from 63% last year.

Western officials have been raising some kind of security-for-territory arrangement for more than 18 months now, as the Russian invasion of 2022 has ground into a bloody war of attrition. Trumps election has given new urgency to negotiation efforts, as Western allies arent certain whether as president he will continue sending military aid to Ukraine, or how much.[/B]

Major capitals, including Washington and Berlin, remain reluctant to move Ukraine closer to NATO.

Zelensky has been pushing for an invitation to join the alliance, though he acknowledges that accession to NATO could only come after the war ends. For now, Ukrainian and European officials say, Kyiv is pushing for a recommendation from NATO foreign ministers that alliance leaders invite Ukraine to join.

Even that looks uncertain, however. Without NATO membership, Ukraine and its closest allies say Kyiv will have no real security guarantees and will face capitulation in any negotiations with Russia. Officials in Washington, Berlin and elsewhere worry that moving Ukraine closer to the alliance could sharpen the West's confrontation with Moscow.

"I've been quite clear about this. The strongest security guarantee is NATO membership," Kaja Kallas, the EU's new foreign-policy chief said during a visit to Kyiv on Sunday. She said it was for Ukraine "to say when is this point to sit down around the negotiating table. ".

Joining her in Kyiv, Antnio Costa, the new European Council president, said that the bloc had supported Ukraine from the first day of the war and "will stand for Ukraine as long as necessary. ".

Yet behind the scenes, European officials are trying to position themselves for Trump's plans. People involved in the weekend's Kyiv talks said that while they saw some nervousness in the Zelensky team, the Ukrainians appear to be dealing with the need to adjust to the Trump team's focus on ending the war.

Based on conversations so far, and the president-elect's foreign-policy picks, there is cautious optimismif not confidencein Brussels and Kyiv that the Trump administration would push to wrestle real concessions from the Kremlin if Putin engages in talks.

Still, many Western officials remain deeply skeptical that the Kremlin will sit down for negotiations while Russia is making gains on the battlefield.

Russian officials remain confident that the tide has turned in their favor. Last month, Sergei Shoigu, the secretary of Russia's Security Council, told a Russian state news agency that the West should recognize that Russia is winning the war, and negotiate. Russian officials have also said that Ukraine would need to give up hopes of joining NATO as part of any peace settlement.

Some Ukrainian officials acknowledge that an alternative to relying on NATO could be to spell out to allies the military support they would need in coming years to be able to deter Russia. But Zelensky has complained publicly that the West's assistance has fallen short of the promises to equip his full army. And the costs involved might be too high for Western governments to stomach politically, especially if Trump follows through on threats to cut USA Aid to Ukraine.

One Ukrainian official said that Kyiv would need somewhere around 120 billion euros, equivalent to $126 billion, in military aid next year alone to match the war outlays of Russia's spiraling military spending.

View from Ukraine in November 2023.

From Maidan to War. How Events That Changed Ukraine and the World Began in Kyiv 10 Years Ago.

On November 21,2013, journalist Mustafa Nayem wrote his famous post on Facebook: "Let's meet at 10:30 pm under the Independence Monument. Dress warmly, bring tea, coffee, a good mood and friends. ".

The post triggered the events that would later be called Euromaidan. The reason for the protests was President Yanukovych's refusal to negotiate the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU.

The subsequent events from the end of 2013 to the present day are well known. The heavenly hundred who died on Maidan, thousands who died in the war in Donbass and tens, and perhaps even hundreds of thousands, who died after February 24,2022.

But these 10 years have changed not only Ukraine.

The world of 2013 was very different from the world of today. Conflicts were still smoldering in some places (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen), there were contradictions between Russia and the West, between the West and China, but at that time it was considered madness to even discuss the possibility that they could lead to a major war. On the contrary, economic and other ties between Russia and the EU were growing stronger, and statements about the creation of a "united Europe from Lisbon to Kamchatka" in the foreseeable future were constantly being made. And the whole world was becoming more and more global and interconnected. And it seemed that, overcoming disagreements, humanity was moving towards unity and an era of prosperity based on technological progress and respect for different cultures.

Now the topic of a new world war and a direct clash of the world's leading powers, even to the point of a nuclear apocalypse, is being discussed everywhere.

And one of the key points for the start of the process was the post of Mustafa Nayem. In this regard, in its historical significance, it stands on a par with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by the Serbian high school student Gavrilo Princip, which gave rise to the First World War, the collapse of European empires and the creation of a new reality into which humanity was plunged in the 20th century.

Naturally, just like Princip's shot in 1914, Nayem's post in 2013 was only a pretext, not the real cause of the subsequent turbulent events.

They were determined by much more global factors stemming from the contradictions of world powers. Specifically, in 2013, it was Russia's desire to involve Ukraine in its integration projects in the post-Soviet space (the Customs Union), which the West was trying hard to prevent by offering Kyiv an Association Agreement with the EU. This was superimposed on domestic political contradictions in Ukraine, where a broad coalition of forces emerged that wanted to remove Yanukovych from power, or at least limit his power.

And, just like Princip in 1914 (or more precisely, the organization "Mlada Bosna", of which he was a member and which organized the assassination attempt on the Archduke), Nayem, almost 100 years later, hardly wanted such radical changes in the world that followed. Obviously, more local goals were pursued.

However, it was the actions of Princip and Nayem that, by the will of fate, became a turning point for the history of the 20th and, perhaps, the 21st centuries, respectively.

At the same time, after 2013, there were many moments when it seemed that everything was about to end, make peace and stop. But each time, suddenly, some kind of "explosion" occurred, which moved the confrontation to a new level.

The November 2013 protests in Kiev were relatively few in number, and after Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement in Vilnius, they had a completely understandable prospect of dying out. But for some reason, the president's entourage decided to disperse the remnants of the Maidan under the pretext of erecting a Christmas tree. The attempt led to clashes, footage of the dispersal of the protesters aroused the anger of a significant part of society, and within a day hundreds of thousands of people had already taken to the streets in Kiev.

On December 1, protesters attempted to storm the building of the Presidential Administration on Bankova. The attack was repelled by the Berkut and internal troops, and the entire Ukraine watched the footage of the carnage, radically divided in their sympathies – who was on whose side.

By mid-January 2014, the Maidan began to die down again. But then the Party of Regions adopted the so-called "dictatorial laws," which caused a new escalation. A few days later, part of the protesters, calling themselves the "Right Sector," attacked the Berkut and internal troops cordons on Grushevsky Street. A violent confrontation began, during which the first fatalities appeared on the Maidan side. This radicalized the situation, giving new impetus to the protests. As did the appearance in Kiev of the "titushki" bandits, who were called in by the authorities to help in the fight against the Maidan.

By mid-February, the standoff between the government and Maidan had reached a dead end and the first compromise agreements were reached – the protesters left the Kyiv City Administration building, and government units unblocked the streets. But already on February 18, the Maidan self-defense forces attempted to break through to the Rada building, and clashes began that escalated into a massive massacre.

By the morning of February 20, it seemed that the parties were once again close to a compromise. The authorities and the Maidan leaders agreed on a truce, and a visit to Kyiv by the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany, and France, as well as a special representative of the Russian president, was expected to conclude an agreement to end the confrontation. But early in the morning of February 20, a group of Maidan activists opened fire on law enforcement officers on the Maidan from the Conservatory building (this fact was established by the investigation during the presidency of Petro Poroshenko). A new massacre began, in which dozens of people died.

Agreements on resolving the crisis with the participation of foreign mediators were concluded on February 21 (they provided for the return of the 2004 Constitution with limited powers of the president, as well as the election of the head of state by the end of 2014), but they were of little interest to anyone. A lot of blood had been spilled. Maidan demanded not to compromise with the authorities.

On February 21, Yanukovych left Kyiv for Kharkov and by the morning of February 22, he had effectively lost power. Mezhyhirya was captured by the Maidan supporters, who were able to create their majority in the Rada, appointing Turchynov as speaker. Almost the entire Party of Regions and the elites of the southeast made it clear that they were not ready for further confrontation (as demonstrated by the congress in Kharkov on February 22, to which Yanukovych was not allowed). This opened the way to compromises and agreements on a controlled transfer of power. However, on February 22, the Rada, at the suggestion of Turchynov, suddenly decided to remove Yanukovych from power for a reason not provided for by the Constitution. With the wording "self-removal from the performance of duties. " This is what gave Russia and the opponents of the Maidan grounds to qualify the incident as a coup d'etat. And the actual support for the removal of Yanukovych by the West was assessed by Putin as a direct "rip-off" and a violation of the agreements concluded on February 21, which he subsequently spoke about on numerous occasions.

However, even this situation did not predetermine a major conflict. A significant part of the Maidan leaders, including future President Poroshenko, were not initially anti-Russian. On the contrary, they tried to negotiate with Moscow, as they saw good relations with Russia as a guarantee of their good earnings. Everyone remembers that Poroshenko closed his factory in Lipetsk only in 2017. Also well known is the recording of his sweet conversation with Putin in 2015 about "shaking hands and hugging". And all this after the war in Donbass and the annexation of Crimea. One can only imagine how deep the interaction between Poroshenko and Moscow would have been if there had been no war or annexation. The question of Ukraine joining NATO would definitely not have arisen (why would NATO be needed if several more confectionery factories could have been opened in Russia). And Poroshenko and his security forces would have been able to neutralize the radical Maidan activists and nationalists very quickly if not for the war. The fate of Sasha Bely, killed by police special forces, is known to everyone.

But then Putin made his move, giving the order to annex Crimea. Why did he do it? Putin himself later said that he was thus preventing "the deployment of a NATO base in Crimea", although there were no prerequisites for this at the time. The version is widespread that he was driven by psychological and political technological motives: he wanted to somehow respond as harshly as possible to what he considered "humiliation" on the part of Maidan and "a scam by the West", in order to show the whole world that he is a "strong ruler" and does not forgive such things. There are other explanations. But one way or another, the annexation became a turning point in relations between the two countries, marking the beginning of a direct conflict.

However, many people thought that Crimea would be the end of it. Pro-Russian protests in the southeast had almost died down by the end of March. Western sanctions were quite soft, and Moscow was sending signals that "no one would go further than Crimea. " But then, suddenly, in April, the "DPR" and "LPR" were proclaimed, and soon Girkin-Strelkov's detachment appeared in Slavyansk, which completely turned the situation upside down. The Ukrainian authorities declared the ATO, and military actions began. But the first months were quite limited. Moscow, unlike Crimea, did not openly introduce its troops. Moreover, Russian media wrote that the activity of Girkin and Borodai, who was appointed "prime minister of the DPR," was allegedly the initiative of individual "Kremlin towers" and the oligarch Malofeev's group, and not the policy of the Russian authorities, who did not want to get involved in a major war, being unprepared for it or for the Western sanctions that could follow. Putin then called on the "LDNR" not to hold a "referendum" in May. Naturally, it was hard to believe that the Kremlin was not involved in the events in Donbas. The intensity of the confrontation gradually increased. People were dying in the fighting. The tragedy in Odessa, where dozens of people were killed during the confrontation, also greatly affected the aggravation of the situation. The overwhelming majority of them were anti-Maidan supporters who died in the Trade Union House. But there was still room for negotiations. In Ukraine, meanwhile, Poroshenko became president, he met with Putin as part of the "Normandy Four", Russian Ambassador Zurabov (a good friend of Poroshenko) returned to Kiev and Poroshenko's special representative Leonid Kuchma went to Donetsk for negotiations with the "LDNR". A ceasefire was declared in Donbas. And by the end of June, it seemed to many that everything was moving towards concluding some kind of agreement on ending the war and autonomy for Donbas. Something like the later signed "Minsk agreements", which would have been much easier to implement in June 2014 than later.

But on June 30, Poroshenko gave the order to end the ceasefire and begin an offensive by Ukrainian troops. The Ukrainian Armed Forces had accumulated significant reserves, the "LDNR" units were disorganized and poorly armed, and, most importantly, Bankova was confident that Russia would not directly intervene in the war. The calculation turned out to be incorrect. After the successes of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in July, the war followed a negative scenario for Ukraine. Russia, although not officially advertising it, intervened, sending units of its regular troops to the war. As a result, the Izvarinsky and Ilovaisk cauldrons occurred. And in September 2014, the first Minsk agreements were concluded. They provided for a ceasefire and a special status within Ukraine for the territories controlled by the "LDNR" at that time. However, these agreements were not implemented. The fighting actually continued, and in January-February a new escalation began, which ended with a new ceasefire and the second Minsk agreements. After this, although the ceasefire was violated periodically, there were no more military actions on the scale of the summer of 2014 or the winter of 2015 until February 2022.

After the second Minsk agreements, there was a feeling that the situation was moving towards a settlement. The dialogue within the Normandy Four was actively continuing. Russia demonstrated its readiness to return control over the "LDNR" to Ukraine if these areas were granted a special status. The Ukrainian authorities were not eager to grant a special status. However, pressure was exerted by Europe (which was interested in normalizing relations with the Russian Federation, based on its economic interests), and the United States (President Obama needed a successful "peace" case before leaving office). But at the same time, both in Russia and in the West and, naturally, in Ukraine, there were forces that were categorically against any compromises and actively torpedoed the Minsk agreements.

The results of their work were seen by everyone very soon. On August 31,2015, during the vote for amendments to the Constitution on the special status of Donbass (one of the conditions of the Minsk agreements), nationalists threw a grenade at the National Guard in front of the Rada building, killing several people. These events were then repeatedly used as an argument not to implement the political part of the Minsk agreements, so as not to provoke radical protests. In 2016, it became clear that there were not 300 votes in the Rada for adopting amendments to the Constitution. In 2017, activists from the Ukrainian side organized a blockade of railways in Donbass, which severed Ukraine's economic ties with the uncontrolled territories. After which the "LDNR" took away their enterprises from Ukrainian owners.

Finally, Donald Trump became the US president, whom his opponents declared a "Russian spy", which is why he could not even approach any negotiations with the Russian Federation. In 2017, it became clear that the Minsk agreements would most likely not be implemented. And the conflict is moving into a frozen stage.

True, hope for a settlement arose after Volodymyr Zelensky came to power, making achieving peace in Donbas the main point of his election program. He established contact with Putin, negotiations were held in Paris, but, in the end, the Ukrainian authorities again refused to grant Donbas a special status and amend the Constitution on this matter. Relations with Moscow began to deteriorate rapidly. A confrontation between the authorities and the Opposition Platform. For Life party began within the country, the National Security and Defense Council imposed sanctions against "Medvedchuk's channels."

However, this, as many thought, did not look like a path to war. On the contrary, despite the frozen conflict, Russia's ties with Europe were gradually being restored, Nord Stream 2 was being built, and sanctions were being circumvented. The situation on foreign markets was very good for Russia, and trade with both the EU and China was growing. And the growing contradictions between the US and China increased the importance of relations with Russia for both sides, which gave Moscow the opportunity to play its own game, increasing its influence in the world.

And by the end of 2021, it seemed that Russia was in such an excellent geopolitical and economic position that if its rulers were thinking about anything, it was not about war, which, as we know, is not started when life is good. The Russian Federation could develop the economy, improve the standard and quality of life of the population. All the conditions for this were there. Why fight if no one is attacking you? Moreover, civil strife began within Ukraine, Zelensky's rating was falling, and there was no talk of the country joining NATO. As well as about the "offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass" (the majority of Ukrainians, according to all opinion polls, were against a military solution to the issue). And Russia did not even have to do anything. Just watch the process, which was already leading to Zelensky's fall. Therefore, when, since November 2021, articles began to regularly appear in the Western press about Moscow preparing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, few believed them. It looked so absurd and crazy from the point of view of not only the interests of the Russian Federation, but also of Putin personally (no matter what angle you look at them from).

The maximum that was expected was recognition of the "LDNR" with subsequent accession to the Russian Federation.

But then came February 24,2022, which came as a shock to many. In short, the introduction of sanctions by the National Security and Defense Council against Medvedchuk and his TV channels in early 2021 was perceived by the Kremlin as a signal from Kiev and the West that the coming to power of forces loyal to Moscow through elections was impossible. Therefore, the bet was made on the path of force. The original plan did not provide for the annexation of Ukrainian territory (at least not immediately). It consisted of establishing a pro-Russian government in Kiev and a complete change in the country's geopolitical course. Considering that Putin intended to accomplish these tasks with relatively small forces. An army of 150-180 thousand soldiers, he initially counted on the fact that Ukraine would not put up serious resistance. There is no exact answer as to why he thought so. Either he convinced himself of this, or he was given false information (according to one conspiracy theory, Putin was pushed to attack Ukraine by part of his entourage, hoping, against the backdrop of the difficult situation at the front, to organize the removal of the Russian president from power, repeating February 1917). In any case, the fact that the calculation turned out to be false became clear already in early March, when it became clear that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had no intention of surrendering, and Zelensky had not fled from Kyiv.

Apparently, Putin already understood then what a grand trap he had fallen into. And so he tried to escape from it as quickly as possible. During March, negotiations were held, as a result of which Moscow agreed to withdraw troops to the line of February 24,2022 in exchange for Ukraine's neutral status Putin was also willing to return the entire Donbas to Ukraine with a special status.

At the end of March, after the meeting in Istanbul, it seemed that everything was moving towards concluding a peace agreement. But already in April the situation changed – the Ukrainian government refused to conclude agreements, taking a course towards "war until reaching the 1991 borders". In Kyiv, they stated that the position had changed after Bucha. The media wrote that Western allies, and, first and foremost, Boris Johnson, convinced Ukraine to refuse to conclude peace on compromise terms.

Russia was forced to get involved in a long war, for which it was not initially prepared, and therefore improvised on the fly. It announced the annexation of captured territories, then, after a series of defeats, retreated some of them, carried out mobilization, miraculously avoided the collapse of statehood during the Prigozhin mutiny, increased weapons production, repelled the Ukrainian offensive of 2023, and itself went on the offensive in certain areas. That is, despite the forecasts, it was able to hold on to the captured territories and did not plunge into turmoil.

All this has already given rise to talk that the war is coming to an end, since neither side has achieved a quick and decisive victory. They talk about "Western fatigue," about the imminent "freezing of the conflict," about negotiations, a truce, a "Korean scenario," and so on, that are just around the corner.

But, as we see, this has happened repeatedly over the last 10 years. And each time something happened that shattered the hopes that "this nightmare is about to end and everything will calm down" - in February 2014, and in June 2014, and in February 2022, and in March-April 2022.

It's as if there is some invisible director who repeats over and over again: "we must continue."

Or maybe there is no director. There is simply a funnel of hatred, into which more and more people are drawn after the blood has been spilled, multiplying deaths and suffering, there is a "logic of war" for all parties involved ("in war you don't negotiate with the enemy, you destroy him" multiplied by the personal ambitions and complexes of political leaders, as well as the global struggle for influence and control over resources, one of the hottest spots of which has been Ukraine since the end of 2013.

And the main question is how to break out of the circle of war, blood and tears. But if there is even one chance, it must be used immediately. And then, having drawn conclusions from the tragic ten-year path, not allow the war to repeat itself.

Notes:

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Nayyem[/URL]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titushky[/URL]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigada[/URL] (Sasha Bely).

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin[/URL]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Borodai[/URL]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Malofeev[/URL]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/[/URL] see Opposition Platform — For Life.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Defense_Council_of_Ukraine[/URL]

ATO – Anti-Terrorist Operation.

DPR – Donetsk People's Republic.

LNPR – Lugansk People's Republic.

[QUOTE=Questner;2965450]View from Ukraine in November 2023...

At the end of March (2022), after the meeting in Istanbul, it seemed that everything was moving towards concluding a peace agreement. But already in April the situation changed the Ukrainian government refused to conclude agreements, taking a course towards "war until reaching the 1991 borders". In Kyiv, they stated that the position had changed after Bucha.[b] The media wrote that Western allies, and, first and foremost, Boris Johnson, convinced Ukraine to refuse to conclude peace on compromise terms.[/b]

Russia was forced to get involved in a long war, for which it was not initially prepared, and therefore improvised on the fly.....

But, as we see, this has happened repeatedly over the last 10 years. And each time something happened that shattered the hopes that "this nightmare is about to end and everything will calm down" - in February 2014, and in June 2014, and in February 2022, and in March-April 2022.

[b]It's as if there is some invisible director who repeats over and over again: "we must continue."

Or maybe there is no director. There is simply a funnel of hatred, into which more and more people are drawn after the blood has been spilled, multiplying deaths and suffering, there is a "logic of war" for all parties involved ("in war you don't negotiate with the enemy, you destroy him" multiplied by the personal ambitions and complexes of political leaders, as well as the global struggle for influence and control over resources, one of the hottest spots of which has been Ukraine since the end of 2013.

And the main question is how to break out of the circle of war, blood and tears. But if there is even one chance, it must be used immediately. And then, having drawn conclusions from the tragic ten-year path, not allow the war to repeat itself.[/b]...

[/QUOTE]Another fascinating read, thanks Questner. Perhaps you could say this was a comedy of errors, but the death and destruction wrought by the war are anything but comedic. The analogy between Princip and Nayem was interesting. Yes, assassinating the Archduke Ferdinand and igniting the anti-Yanukovych demonstrations ultimately led to terrible outcomes.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2965597]Another fascinating read, thanks Questner. Perhaps you could say this was a comedy of errors, but the death and destruction wrought by the war are anything but comedic. The analogy between Princip and Nayem was interesting. Yes, assassinating the Archduke Ferdinand and igniting the anti-Yanukovych demonstrations ultimately led to terrible outcomes.[/QUOTE]The darkest tragedy it is. Of course it was the point of view. There are of course other stubborn facts. Yanukovich was extracted from Ukraine by Russian special ops as he ran for dear life. Putin is actually a godfather to Medvedchuk's daughter, and to imprison him, an elected politician was a mortal insult. The operation in Crimea was very well planned and executed and was an absolute must to avoid the looming bloodbath there and movement of NATO from Ochakov to the peninsula. And of course, the SMO was not a trap.

Like I said in another thread, hypocrites are the worst.

Propacondoms providing the murderous Putin regime with the informational fog cover are worse than traditional war criminals like their generals, politicians and frontline sadists and murderers who rape, torture and kill civilians and prisoners of war. Their feigning empathy makes them more despicable than actual killers.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2965373]There's an interesting Wall Street Journal Article out today on this subject.
[B]Zelensky Signals He's Open to Negotiating a Peace Deal[/B]
[/QUOTE]Reality sinking in slowly but surely, just like I said it would.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2965373]

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-zelensky-russia-war-comments-nato-1b40c55d?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos2[/URL]

Here are some excerpts.

Zelensky is suggesting that he could accept a cease-fire that effectively would leave occupied territory in Moscow's hands if the rest of Ukraine were given protection by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two significant hurdles stand in the way of this idea, however: Ukraine's chances of joining the military alliance in the near term remain slim, and there is little indication that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to negotiate.[/QUOTE]But it looks like the dumbass is still delusional. Ukraine will NEVER EVER join NATO. Write this down. Nothing short of complete NEUTRALITY will be acceptable to Russia. Have people forgotten one of the main if not the main reason for the SMO?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2965373]

In a news conference on Sunday, Zelensky said Ukraine would only be willing to enter such negotiations from a position of strength, which would require further steps toward NATO and new provisions of Western long-distance and other weapons.

"If we'll have a frozen conflict without any strong position for Ukraine, so Putin will come in two, three or five years," Zelensky said. "he will come back and destroy us totally. Or try to destroy us. ".

Still, the Ukrainian leader's openness to ceding territory, even temporarily, is a significant concession. Speaking to Sky News on Friday, Zelensky said NATO membership would need to be offered to unoccupied parts of Ukraine for Kyiv to consider ending what he called the "hot phase of the war. " While Ukraine would continue to claim the whole of its territory, Zelensky suggested that Kyiv would seek to "get them back in a diplomatic way. ".[/QUOTE]Get back the territory in a DIPLOMATIC way? Delusional and on drugs, or he is just saying that rubbish for domestic consumption.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;2966114]Reality sinking in slowly but surely, just like I said it would.

But it looks like the dumbass is still delusional. Ukraine will NEVER EVER join NATO. Write this down. Nothing short of complete NEUTRALITY will be acceptable to Russia. Have people forgotten one of the main if not the main reason for the SMO?

Get back the territory in a DIPLOMATIC way? Delusional and on drugs, or he is just saying that rubbish for domestic consumption.[/QUOTE]My advice: sell your rubles.

The position of the RF was well communicated on December 5, 2024 in Tucker Carlson's interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Mr. Sergey Lavrov. It has been uploaded to Tucker's channel on X. I recommend watching the full interview which was conducted in English.

MOSCOW, December 6. / TASS /. Russia does not believe that the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis is in the hands of Moscow and Washington alone, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson.

He noted that a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine is possible only if Kiev abandons its plans to join NATO, closes Western military bases in the country and cancels exercises involving foreign troops. The West will have to take into account the realities on the ground.

The top diplomat clarified that Russia will judge Donald Trump's administration by concrete steps, but outgoing US President Joe Biden wants to leave Trump a heavy legacy.

TASS has compiled the key statements of the Russian foreign minister.

On Ukrainian conflict.

- Moscow is ready for any development of events around Ukraine, but prefers a peaceful settlement taking into account Russia's security interests.

- If Ukraine wants peace, it should give up its NATO aspirations, close Western military bases and cancel drills with foreign troops.

- Zelensky in 2022 was convinced that he would dictate terms to the West, so he signed a decree banning negotiations with Russia.

- The Russian Federation never intended to kill people in Ukraine, unlike Zelensky's regime.

- The Ukrainian conflict should be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter, but in its entirety.

On use of Oreshnik missile.

- The West is making a big mistake by believing that Russia's "red lines" are flexible.

- Russia does not want a nuclear war with the United States and is doing everything to prevent it.

- The Oreshnik missile strike showed that Russia is ready to use any means to prevent the West from achieving its goal of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on the country.

- Russia is ready to send additional messages if the West does not draw the necessary conclusions after the use of the Oreshnik missile.

On relations with US.

- Russia wants normal relations with the United States and sees no reason why the two countries cannot cooperate.

- There are several closed channels between Moscow and Washington, mostly on issues of prisoner exchange.

- Russia will judge the Trump administration by concrete steps, but outgoing President Joe Biden wants to leave a heavy legacy. This is similar to what President Barack Obama did with Trump.

- Trump is a strong and friendly politician, but he is not pro-Russian.

- The ball in Russia's contacts with the US president-elect is in Trump's court.

On situation in Syria.

- Stabilizing the situation in Syria is not easy, it is a complex game involving many actors.

- Russia will discuss with its partners the issue of cutting off the channels of financing and arming terrorists in Syria.