Russian President Vladimir Putin may be open to a cease-fire in his war with Ukraine, so long as the country could still declare victory, a new report by the New York Times found.
Putin, still confident in his forces, said that Russia’s goals have not changed. In his annual year-end press conference last week, Putin warned that there would be no peace solution in Ukraine until Russia achieves its overarching goals, the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine.
Putin’s message might be different now, as he has reportedly signaled he is ready to make a deal. Since September, Putin has signaled that he is open to a pause in fighting along the current lines, which is much shorter than his intention to dominate Ukraine, according to the Times who cited two former senior Russian officials.
According to the United Nations, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 18,500 have been injured since the start of the war nearly two years ago.
I am from Russia and i am frustrated with how stupid and misleading this news is.
Presidency is ending soon and Putin need to go through the voting.
Everyone knows it’s a circus with clowns yet Putin need to convince everyone he will be legit president. For the fifth time, after rewriting constitution, hahaha
Also Putin need a timeout to make weapons and train new army. While there is “unlimited” supply of bodies he can throw to die at Ukraine, it’s already costs him some money and gives idk how much payoffs. Just assume not much, cuz i haven’t heard anything about war in the country.
But i shouldn’t be taken as a reliable source of information from here. I can’t stand watching russian propaganda tv
Stay safe.
Thank you, there are many people who feel like they have become an enemies to all of the world and their own country
Same. It’s crazy man.
Yeah, pretty much my takeaway. It’s just a tactic. Delay, regroup, bullshit election, then more “denazification” (Christ on a shitstick).
Sorry, bro, but you’re fucked. I don’t think Russia comes out of this thing in anything resembling a decent, stable, thriving country. Putin fucked you, no lube. Demographic realities imply that your population will continue to shrink for generations to come.
Putin need a timeout to make weapons and train new army
nailed it
“Voting” hah!!! LOL
I’m really sorry you have to live under those conditions. I can understand how maddening that must be. Hopefully Lemmy has been able to help you see past the Russian propaganda machine.
А я считаю “плохой мир лучше хорошей войны”, так что пусть лучше хоть какое то перемирие
It’s not a bad peace, it’s a chance for Putin to rebuild his army and try again. He’s also hoping for a Trump win. So no.
Same chance for Ukrainian strengthen defense Anyway Ukraine will become most armed country in the world
Dude, you should learn history. It’s exactly what happened before WW2
“Please give me time to rebuild my forces” says untrustworthy dictator
Exactly. Their supply lines are shit and Ukraine has worked over their minefields pretty well. A pause now lets them fortify and sort out the supply problems.
Would that give Ukraine a chance to join NATO? They weren’t allowed to join until hostilities were over iirc.
Not with disputed territory afaik
No one is going to sign a treaty that obliges them to enter an immediate hot war with Russia.
This is the same thing he’s been asking for a year & a half. Fuck Putin to straight to hell.
he could literally pull out anytime he wanted and claim victory. His supporters lap up anything he tells them.
Trump should be allowed to call himself president so long as he never steps foot in Washington and promises only to say it on ONAN and Fox.
And since he runs the state propaganda/news stations, nothing would stop him from claiming that they successfully killed all the Nazis in Ukraine. “We went in and killed all the Nazis so we’re pulling all our troops out.”
Of course, they would need to give back the territories that they annexed as well as all the children that they stole. Not to mention pay reparations for all the damage that they did/suffering they caused. Again, though, Putin could spin this to his people. “We only temporarily annexed those areas to denazify them and always planned on returning them to Ukraine. Same with the kids. And since we accidentally destroyed some infrastructure in ‘helping’ Ukraine rid itself of Nazis, we’re generously helping them rebuild.”
Of course, nobody but those who buy Russian propaganda will believe this, but Putin just needs the appearance of everything going according to his plans.
Nah, Trump openly claiming it without repercussions is EXACTLY how we still have MAGAts following him. “Stop the steal” is functionally identical to, “I’m still president.”
Another thing is, access to Black Sea is too juicy military, and now with more ports in Ukraine, also commercially. Add to it the wheat Ukraine can grow and Russian pride. He probably already promised these things and human resources to his moronic oligarchs. He won’t take his words back.
He has a paranoiac disorder. He won’t trust his propaganda channels to listen to him.
That tracks. These peoples are beyond rationality.
It’s stalemate. He’d be better off claiming the captured territories til his re-election so that Russians believe it’s over. Afterwards there’ll be of course another false flag attack to kick the cannon fodders deeper into Ukraine.
Of course “Ukraine attacked us after peaceful 6 months”!
Didn’t he already claim them?
Good point. I still think his propaganda machines will come up with something.
IF Putin is somewhat wanting a pause,
THEN enforce a clusterfuck of CombinedArms hellchaos on him.
'The Art Of WAR", by master Sun.
_ /\ _
deleted by creator
Best I would do maybe is anesthesia for 1 of 8 amputations? I mean after a fair trial and such ofcourse. But I mean when he’s found guilty after the trial and before the whole dragging behind a truck on a chain through town. It could be after that too. But then if everything is already amputated like where do you drag the body from? Gotta leave the balls at least right?
No cease-fire. The military-industrial complex needs profits.
I think it’s funny that when it first started and Russia tried to negotiate it was all, “boo! Fuck you Putin!”
Now it’s all, “why won’t you negotiate? you fucking asshole!”
“When it first started” is such a weird passive way to say “when Russia invaded Ukraine” that I can’t trust anything else you say is without an agenda. But whatever, I’ll bite:
If people break down your door and murder, kidnap, rape, and torture members of your family and then start living in some of the rooms of your house, you don’t reset boundaries to where they are now! I can demand you “negotiate” with the people that did these crimes, but the negotiations start with them getting completely the fuck out, being punished for everything they did, and you being compensated for all of their crimes. No sane person would say, “well, just let them keep one room as part of a truce.”
Countries cannot profit off of illegally invading other ones. It literally incentivizes more war if they can just keep part of what they invaded, especially when done by countries with large militaries.
Not to mention, Putin had every chance to have a stalemate dozens of times. When he invaded Crimea. When he sent mercenaries into the Donbas. When he shelled the Donbas. When he shot down MH17. Putin had dozens of opportunies to walk away from the war and get away with annexing huge regions of Europe.
He chose murder, rape, torture, war, and there needs to be consequences for the Russian state.
“The negotiations start with them getting out”
Ideally yes… pragmatically no. Ukraine lost how many troops in the 2023 counteroffensive and got essentially nowhere? If Ukraine’s goal is to reclaim all of it’s territory, it’s going to be a pyrrhic victory. It will cost more than the territory is actually worth, the war and conscription policy have already demographically ruined Ukraine (e.g all the young people they need fled the country).
“No sane person would say ‘let them keep a room’”
Because they have the ability to remove that person. Ukraine does not, and it’s corruption and underperformance in the battlefield suggests that it may never no matter how many weapons the West gives them or conscripts they send to the trenches.
You are arguing for a perfect victory at all costs. The real world doesn’t work like this, and it would be deeply immoral if it did.
Absolutely delusional take
The absolutely delusional take was the popular opinion that all that needed to be done was to shove as many weapons as possible into Ukraine and with that they would defeat Russia. I even recall talks of “taking Crimea” (which is kind of silly in retrospect given their inability to retake the donbass region).
Instead of avoiding most of this bloodshed thousands of lives were lost only to end up at basically the same position they would’ve ended up had this just been negotiated early on and that’s me being optimistic & assuming they’ll be offered the same deal as before (which there’s very little incentive for Russia to do given their position, Ukraine’s position, & the west’s appetite to continue funding/arming Ukraine going forward.
So let me get this straight- are you arguing that the smart thing for Ukraine to do is just let Russia take them over?
Your argument is that it was smart to go this route and let thousands be killed only for them to end up (at best) in the same place they would’ve been had they just negotiated a peaceful resolution in the first place.
Negotiated how? Putin just invaded.
Basically. The smart thing for Hussein was to step down. Even if the US wasn’t justified in invading, Hussein was an utter moron and made the situation far worse.
For some reason there is this assumption that “national sovereignty” is morally relevant. It’s not states are not subject to moral harm, you have to show that losing national sovereignty results in worse outcomes for the population.
Ukraine would almost certainly be in a better position if they remained Russia-aligned or even joined them. By virtually every metric the Ukrainian population had worse standard of living than Russia, lower birth rates, higher death rates. That was before the war started in 2014, there situation is even worse now. Millions of people fled, and they aren’t coming back, Ukraine has a very bleak future even if they do win all their territory. And they still don’t have any guarantee of joining the EU or NATO (primarily due to corruption and territorial dispute issues).
You seem to think what is good for Russia is good for Ukraine. I doubt many people who don’t worship Putin agree with you.
No. The policies that lead to higher quality of life in Russia would probably not lead to lower quality of life in Ukraine.
In other words we have no reason to believe that aligning with Russia would have resulted in worse outcomes than Ukraine already had. The reason they aligned with the West was primarily to join the EU, which due to corruption and markets they weren’t even eligible to join (and still aren’t).
This resulted in conflict with Russia and the current circumstances which are far worse than they started with and are essentially irrecoverable at this point (certainly population wise).
In summary it was Ukraine’s pursuit of an idealised goal that resulted in negative outcomes. And you are asserting that this is actually a good thing.
Remember when you admitted to me that you were a total moron? Yeah. Your evaluation of every circumstance is super juvenile.
Remember when you admitted to me that you were a total moron?
Then I guess it doesn’t make you look very good to talk to me. No one’s forcing you to waste your time with a moron.
“We should avoid bloodshed by doing whatever the person shedding the most blood wants! That will definitely lead to peace and not the bloodshedder continuing to shed blood for personal gain.”
Arguing that by conceding some territory you concede all territory (and eventually the world), is literally just the slippery slope fallacy. We have zero basis for thinking that Russia’s invasion of Georgia and Ukraine wasn’t simply an attempt at re-aligning former Russian (and later Soviet) territory. This motivation does not exist for any other territory, and didn’t even exist when Ukraine was Russia aligned, and does not exist in the CSTO.
For some weird ass reason1 the only two positions on this are “Ukraine are NAzis”, or “Russia is trying to conquer the world therefore Ukraine must fight to the death for every m2” and zero evaluation of geopolitics is ever performed.
- The reason is people are morons, not actually weird unfortunately.
Weird how your incredible “evaluation of geopolitics” that you performed lines up basically word for word what the Kremlin says.
Totally dude, would you like to flex your IR degree and show the world that this statement is correct?
Was that supposed to make sense? You’re in this thread talking down to people and then can’t form a coherent thought to being called out holy shit I’m dying lmaooooooo.
I’m sure your geopolitics knowledge rivals that of people with doctorates but that is so cringe to say . I’m sure.you got all your takes on Rumble lol
Oh well if it is just to make Russia big again like the imperial days, I guess all that death and destruction is totally acceptable and a fine course of action, then. What was I thinking, imagining that allowing a naked lebensraum style land grab go off would let world leaders seeking more territory know they can take whatever they want? Obviously that would be fine if you could point to a map from a few centuries ago where it says “we totally own this forever guys”. Gosh, I was so silly, I should pay more attention to geopolitics.
“is totally acceptable and a fine course of action”
Motte-and-Bailey fallacy.
The argument is not that it is okay to invade countries based on historical claims, it’s not. It’s that we have no basis for thinking that Russia’s motivation for invading Ukraine and Georgia applies to invading all other countries of the world, which is the argument you made and repeated here again.
You realise that most invasions in the world are ignored by the global community? They mostly happen in Africa. So you trying to generalize it from Russia to all aggressor states in the world, is also false. Most invasions do not receive major international response, so why would aggressor states look at a lack of response to the invasion of Ukraine for inspiration and not say the Second Congo War?
“Gosh I was so silly”
“Brain-dead” is the term I would use.
“I should pay more attention to geopolitics”
And English class, and elementary logic.
