• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia Says They Will End Ukraine War on These Four Conditions

Liberal7360 said:
If this is true it sounds like putin has changed his mind about this war.

I don't know if Ukraine will accept the conditions.

From the article:

In an interview with Reuters, Peskov said that Russia could "end war immediately" if Ukraine agrees to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO, recognizes Crimea as Russian and the separatist regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and ceases all military action.

Click to expand...
So Russia...you wanna play THAT game huh? Okay...we have some conditions of our own that will stop the crippling sanctions we have on you:

- Putzin is removed from office.
- Putzin is handed over the the International Criminal Court for war crimes trials.
- Russian soldiers pull out of EVERY INCH of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea.
- Russia pays every cent for the rebuilding of every single building & utilities/transportation infrastructure in Ukraine.
- Russians cease providing monetary and military aid to the so-called "separatists" in Ukraine.
 
Napoleon said:
The situation is more complex than that. Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries and didn’t gain independence until the 1980s. The Ukranian people are not a monolithic entity and there are plenty who prefer to be independent from Ukraine and align with Russia. I don’t know how you tell the people of the Donbas region for example that they don’t have a right to self-determination.
Click to expand...
They do have self-determination. If they don't want to be Ukrainian, they can renounce citizenship and ****ing leave. I'm sure Russia would welcome them. They don't get to steal Ukrainian land and property on their way out.

It's the same thing we've been telling moron secessionists since the confederacy.
 
Ginger Ale said:
I watching the history of Putin's antics, and he has never really had this kind of push back before Biden. Biden is really after his ass, and he's probably a bit shocked. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump all did very little, and still worked with him with a smile on their face.
Biden has rallied everyone against him, and these are the most sever sanctions ever given.

So, he might want out.
Click to expand...
TBH, it's not just Biden. I think the entire EU got shocked, and realized how dangerous an unchecked Putin was. Or rather, this was the straw that broke the camels back, and a reminder.
 
Linc said:
Putin has the go-ahead to rebuild the USSR from trump and the GOP. Putin’s war is designed to help the GOP in the upcoming elections.
Click to expand...

Anything bad that happens in the world has to be Trump's fault.
 
Jkca1 said:
It really makes me wonder why anyone in our intelligence community didn't see this war coming? Let me rephrase, I wonder why people didn't listen to those in the intelligence community that saw this war coming? Remember when the USSR put missiles in Cuba? And what our response was? That was 90 miles from the US. Imagine they had put them on the border of Mexico and the US? Do you think we'd stand for it? This war could easily have averted.
Click to expand...

Yes. And a NYT article said it should have been prevented by Western Europe, not the US. Europe is happy to let the US do all its defense. Not fair.
 
Cardinal said:
These are eminently unserious demands and I certainly wouldn't agree to them, but of course that is up to Ukraine to decide.
Click to expand...
I don't see what real choice they have. Soon the people of the Ukraine that have not or can not flee may be facing starvation as Russian troops have or can completely disrupt the food supply.

Despite how the Western media is trying to spin the war effort, things are not going well for the defenders, and Russia is pretty much marching it's troops wherever and whenever it will.

So it is either they give in to these demands and end the war, or risk the likely loss of the entirety of the Ukraine to Russian oppression.
 
MaryP said:
I'm not sure Russia should be able to waltz out without any restitution for damages, but at least keep all the sanctions on, maybe?

But it may be a moot point. Don't know if Ukraine will agree to officially accepting the loss of those territories.
Click to expand...

They can accept the loss of those territories, or they can accept the loss of their whole country. Unless the US decides to go in and start WW3 over this.
 
Napoleon said:
Not really. According to the UN, the Ukranian military killed 5,000 civilians during the Donbas War. And so far there have been no repercussions for that. That is what Putin is talking about when he says that Ukraine has been committing genocide.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then Putin's invasion could be called retaliation. I guess that's what Trump's remark was about.
 
Chomsky said:
1] Crimea may be lost to Russia at the moment, but I think recognizing it - officially - might bea tough sell.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I think it comes down to it being a practical matter. I don't see anything that changes Russian hold over Crimea; from a demographic perspective it is mostly Russian.

Chomsky said:
2/3] Luhansk & Donetsk seem to want independence, so that might work
Click to expand...
Demographically speaking, both of those regions are more evenly split between Ukrainians and Russians. Tough call, but I'm hardly an expert on the cultural dynamics there.

Chomsky said:
4] Bar NATO? No idea how that sets with Ukrainians, who had seem extremely reticent to join NATO, but may have changed their minds after all this.
Click to expand...
There might be some wiggle room here. If the concern is mainly one of NATO encroachment and weapons placement, this could work; there would need to be some pretty strong reassurances from Russia it will not repeat its invasion ever again. Ukraine joining the EU might be more acceptable and a good compromise; the EU would be of economic benefit to Ukraine as well.
 
Good4Nothin said:
They can accept the loss of those territories, or they can accept the loss of their whole country. Unless the US decides to go in and start WW3 over this.
Click to expand...
Or not accept it and keep fighting even if the Russians are able to capture most of the country. Insurgencies can be really problematic for the invading force, since it is a resource drain. Consider that Afghans have fought successful insurgencies and driven out two of the world's most heavily armed countries.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Yes, but I think it comes down to it being a practical matter. I don't see anything that changes Russian hold over Crimea; from a demographic perspective it is mostly Russian.


Demographically speaking, both of those regions are more evenly split between Ukrainians and Russians. Tough call, but I'm hardly an expert on the cultural dynamics there.


There might be some wiggle room here. If the concern is mainly one of NATO encroachment and weapons placement, this could work; there would need to be some pretty strong reassurances from Russia it will not repeat its invasion ever again. Ukraine joining the EU might be more acceptable and a good compromise; the EU would be of economic benefit to Ukraine as well.
Click to expand...

But only if the Ukrainians indeed find a bar on joining NATO acceptable. Thy may have changed their minds, after the recent weeks.

However, that's not to say an agreement might not be reached where the U.S. & Europe flood Ukraine with weaponry & technology to defend themselves, while they remain outside of NATO?

Who knows what the end-solution will be?
 
Mycroft said:
That's all they've ever wanted.

Ukraine should take the deal.

Of course, the Biden pukes won't go along with it because they need a boogyman to keep their GND efforts going.
Click to expand...

There isn't any reason for people to remain ignorant. The first time the Putin submitted all his demands in a single document was shockingly late: in December of 2021.

www.theguardian.com

Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe

Contentious security guarantees Moscow is seeking include a ban on Ukraine from entering Nato
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The demands, spelled out by Moscow in full for the first time, were handed over to the US this week. They include a demand that Nato remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe, including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries.

Russia has also demanded that Nato rule out further expansion, including the accession of Ukraine into the alliance, and that it does not hold drills without previous agreement from Russia in Ukraine, eastern Europe, in Caucasus countries such as Georgia or in Central Asia.

The Russia document also calls for the two countries to pull back any short- or medium-range missile systems out of reach, replacing the previous intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty that the US left in 2018.

Hence, your characterization of that being all they ever wanted is dead wrong. IF these reports are accurate, Putin has seemingly backed off the demand that NATO military assets leave all countries who joined after 1997, which includes much of eastern Europe (e.g. Poland and the Baltic States). They also demanded that Russia has veto power over NATO supplied military training not only in Ukraine, but in eastern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. That to does not seem to be a part of the formulation.

Russia also demanded a return to the INF treaty that Russia had been violating since 2013. (Also note Russia's later demands directly to Ukraine, to forbid their obtaining or having Western weapons).

Finally, note that "all Russia is seeking" is without compensation or enforceable security guarantees to Ukraine.
 
Good4Nothin said:
If that is true, then Putin's invasion could be called retaliation. I guess that's what Trump's remark was about.
Click to expand...
827h0u5nxtl81.jpg
 
ElChupacabra said:
Yes, but I think it comes down to it being a practical matter. I don't see anything that changes Russian hold over Crimea; from a demographic perspective it is mostly Russian.


Demographically speaking, both of those regions are more evenly split between Ukrainians and Russians. Tough call, but I'm hardly an expert on the cultural dynamics there.


There might be some wiggle room here. If the concern is mainly one of NATO encroachment and weapons placement, this could work; there would need to be some pretty strong reassurances from Russia it will not repeat its invasion ever again. Ukraine joining the EU might be more acceptable and a good compromise; the EU would be of economic benefit to Ukraine as well.
Click to expand...
 
Jkca1 said:
It's not about nukes. It's about the threat of having missiles and troops on your borders. Why would anyone expect Russia to be different. Damn, a dozen Cubans setup shop in Granada and did we let it go? Did we and do we still about what goes on in South and Central America? Of course. As early as the beginning of the 20th century we setup a hands off policy;

" President Theodore Roosevelt then added the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: “in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power.”23 Thus American policy in Latin America, at the beginning of the 20th century, explicitly justified unilateral intervention, military occupation, and transformation of sovereign states into political and economic protectorates in order to defend them against European interventions that might threaten U.S. national interests and security."
Click to expand...
It is not about security it is about Russian expansionism and the thought of having a thriving democracy next door. The Russians might get the idea that democracy is not as bad as Putin says it is. Ukraine poses no military threat to Russia and you know it. Putin is murdering thug and always has been. He is busy murdering Ukrainians as we speak.
 
RAMOSS said:
This is Zelensky's response. He specifically said 'Putin should start a dialogue rather than give ultimatums

abcnews.go.com

Russia-Ukraine updates: Putin says 'certain positive movements' in negotiations

Live updates on the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
So the answer is no, huh?
Chomsky said:
But only if the Ukrainians indeed find a bar on joining NATO acceptable. Thy may have changed their minds, after the recent weeks.

However, that's not to say an agreement might not be reached where the U.S. & Europe flood Ukraine with weaponry & technology to defend themselves, while they remain outside of NATO?

Who knows what the end-solution will be?
Click to expand...
Russia has dropped its demand that Ukraine demilitarize, so that's hopeful. I was thinking of the same thing.

No one believes Ukraine is going to get Crimea back. They might as well admit it. It could come with a slap on the nose like giving that seized war chest to Ukraine as restitution.
 
MaryP said:
So the answer is no, huh?

Russia has dropped its demand that Ukraine demilitarize, so that's hopeful. I was thinking of the same thing.

No one believes Ukraine is going to get Crimea back. They might as well admit it. It could come with a slap on the nose like giving that seized war chest to Ukraine as restitution.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

But words, especially Putin's, are worthless. Unless it gets hammered-out across a negotiating table, and even then it's - 'iffy'.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What everyone appears to forget is that the Russians have a deep national fear of being encircled, attacked, and destroyed. That fear did NOT start in the 1950s, or the 1900s, or the 1850s, or the 1800s, or the 1750s, or the 1700s, or the 1600s, or even the 1500s.

The way that the US government dealt with the Russians' culturally instilled fear was (after 1946) to encircle them, threaten to attack them, and demonize them as a nation that had to be destroyed.

This, of course, calmed the Russians down totally and they naturally treated the US government as a benevolent entity - right?

BTW, if it is OK for the US to "unilaterally intervene, militarily occupy, and transform sovereign states into political and economic protectorates" in order to protect (what the US government defines as) US national interests and security then why is it NOT OK for Russia to "unilaterally intervene, militarily occupy, and transform sovereign states into political and economic protectorates" in order to protect (what the Russian government defines as) Russian national interests and security?
Click to expand...
Russia has more nukes than any other nation on the planet. Who would be stupid enough to invade them? You make no sense. The are using those nukes now to protect them from the world while they go about murdering as many Ukrainians as they can and the world looks on in horror.
 
Chomsky said:
That's interesting.

But words, especially Putin's, are worthless. Unless it gets hammered-out across a negotiating table, and even then it's - 'iffy'.
Click to expand...
Given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom