The war can end the minute Russia stops attackingWhatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
Why not negotiate a lasting deal now to prevent further deaths in Ukraine and further escalation that has the potential for a nuclear exchange?
It depends entirely on the details of the deal.
The war can end the minute Russia stops attacking
No country should ever be able to tell another country what their foreign policy can be.
There is no way Russia would ever allow anything other than a pretense of free and fair voting in Donbas. heck they dont even have free and fair election in Russia
The idea is absurd and incredibly naïve
Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
The underlying reasons are that Putin is trying to expand that is the ONLY reason. The BS the propogandists spew is just that BS lots of former soviet block countries joined NATO without Putin having a meltdown. The reason those countries joined NATO is that like Ukraine they feared Russia and with good reason.I agree but the underlying reasons that caused it also need to be resolved
Thats not how Russia wants it to work but the USA doesn't dictate foreign policy to Britain, Canada, France. Sure there is back and forth discussion but no dictating.I agree but that's not how it works in the real world
Russia is very well known for this. You need to be very very naïve to think otherwise.You don't know that for sure. There could be a commitment from both sides to demilitarize and have UN peacekeepers and neutral officials oversee any elections
I have no problem if Ukraine agrees to those conditions, its their country but dont for a second think they will have any lasting impact on peace. Russia is expanding that is what it is about. If Putin could install a puppet govt he would be happy but it is clear now that any puppet govt would not last which of course would give Putin an excuse to re-enter the country for "peac keeping"Most of this has already been agreed in the Minsk2 agreement mentioned above. It wasn't " absurd " or " Naive" when the UNSC voted for it, or the OSCE, so is it just those things when someone else you disagree with mentions it?
Why is Ukraine worried about NATO? They are under siege/war already. You appear to want Ukraine to buckle for the sake of NATO, it makes little sense.There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
I suspect negotiations are in the minds of Ukraine, the problem is what each side wants and what they're willing to give up.Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
because i want a nuclear war, and that means doing everything to antagonize putin until he presses the button! Isolate him! make him **** up the entire world and notably democrat cities!Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
Nostrovia!because i want a nuclear war, and that means doing everything to antagonize putin until he presses the button! Isolate him! make him **** up the entire world and notably democrat cities!
I agree. You should tell Russia to de-escalate the conflict and stop murdering Ukrainians. Let us know when you've successfully averted the full scale war.Whatever happens wars always end with dialogue, If there is a nuclear war well we can scratch that anyway but the point remains if that isn't the case.
I see so many people, so whipped up by the western MSM, that they can't allow for two sides of a story to be heard. They are pushing for extending the war in what is truly a wreckless approach given the dangers I have just outlined.
Ukraine can be neutral, it's an option that is not that unreasonable. It doesn't have to be a NATO member and the likelihood it was never really on the cards anyhow. It likewise, would prevent any Ukrainian membership of the Russian defence grouping
The conflict in the Donbas can be deescalated and elections held, free from influence of Kiev and Moscow and the wishes of the people there gauged to see what they want , inline with international law. The same with Crimea.
There is still time to end this in a much better way than risk a full scale war between Russia and NATO so why isn't it being discussed here?
There is no lasting deal to be made. Putin wants the Ukraine back as a part of Russia. Period. If you think anything else is the case the Russian propaganda has worked.
I suspect negotiations are in the minds of Ukraine, the problem is what each side wants and what they're willing to give up.
I agree. You should tell Russia to de-escalate the conflict and stop murdering Ukrainians. Let us know when you've successfully averted the full scale war.
I wish Russia would de-escalate and hope the ongoing behind the scenes talks can bring that about. That is the immediate concern, to stop the war and not be pushing for it to escalate into a Russia/NATo conflict
At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia
It's not up to me and if it bothers you that someone decided to put up a thread based on the pros and cons, likelihood or not of a negotiated settlement that's a you issue imo
At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia
Why is Ukraine worried about NATO? They are under siege/war already. You appear to want Ukraine to buckle for the sake of NATO, it makes little sense.
It's up to Ukraine if they want to try and retain their independence/freedom or not.
That Russia's national security concerns are legitimate is debatable. What threat would NATO pose to Russian sovereignty if it shared a border? When was the last time a NATO country invaded a sovereign nation with the intention of adding it's territory to its borders?I wish Russia would de-escalate and hope the ongoing behind the scenes talks can bring that about. That is the immediate concern, to stop the war and not be pushing for it to escalate into a Russia/NATo conflict
At the same time there needs to be a agreement aiming for a longer term solution that allows the people of Ukraine to make up their own minds about how they prefer to be alligned or not AND address the legitimate national security concerns of Russia
It's not up to me and if it bothers you that someone decided to put up a thread based on the pros and cons, likelihood or not of a negotiated settlement that's a you issue imo
Your wiseassery aside, the key is to find the solution that each side can accept. I would guess Ukraine is going to what some for of reparations for the death and destruction Russian inflicted at least; Russia is going to want some real estate, I think.Thanks for not being wholly predictable and actually trying to discuss the topic
I think, in the light of the reaction to the war itself, that both Ukraine and Russia have it within them to make the necessary compromises. Ukraine is a divided country no matter how much the MSM try to down play it and the wishes of the people there, along with the legitimate security concerns of Russia wrt NATO, can be thrashed out as a better alternative to an escalating war.
In the current climate we haven't seen much in the way of support for a negotiated settlement because, imo, too many outside actors are pushing their own interests off the back of war in Ukraine
Russia already shares border with NATO countries, has for some time now. (Latvia, Estonia)There is no legitimate security concern with Russia and NATO sharing a border. Other countries can do it. So can Russia.
I think Putin’s letters to the leaders of Finland and Sweden show that he’s not going to care what ordinary people think or want - as long as he can demand others bend to Russia’s terms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?