Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Essentially, it's time for some commonsense de-escalation because Russia will never give up Crimea nor the disputed, ethnically divided, far east regions of Ukraine (Luhansk and Donbas). And Ukraine's sovereignty/government is secure. Time for the war (and threats of nukes) to end.
How about this, for some common sense de-escalation. We agree to give Alaska back to the Russians, in exchange for Russia giving up their Nukes and leaving the Ukraine alone. Good common sense de-escalation right?
It would be a win, win for everyone. Ukraine gets all their land back, Russia gets even more land, and we get an end to the threat of nukes.
1) The Russian Army has certainly underperformed, but if Putin actually wanted to "take Ukraine", and believed it would be "easy pickings", Russia would have invaded in 2014.
2) Putin had no choice but to "go in". If you don't understand why then you don't know anything about what has been happening for the last 8+ years.
3) Russia absolutely expected the west to provide advanced equipment and training to Ukraine. They already were long before the war started. NATO began joint-exercises in Ukraine last year. In fact, Putin threatened "consequences which the world has never seen" if NATO interfered(which would be a pointless threat if he didn't think they intended to interfere).
I've been hearing this exact same story since February 24th.
I assume you're referring to Girkin? He is the only person I can think of that fits that profile. He has been critical of Putin for quite some time, although his main complaint is not that the war began, but that Putin didn't do more earlier. He wanted Putin to mobilize day one of the war. I would be interested in seeing a full transcript of what he said to understand the context(I don't speak Russian so video clips are worthless).
BS to "Russian had no choice but to "go in"....
Please, tell us why Russia had no choice to go in...
How about this, for some common sense de-escalation. We agree to give Alaska back to the Russians, in exchange for Russia giving up their Nukes and leaving the Ukraine alone. Good common sense de-escalation right?
It would be a win, win for everyone. Ukraine gets all their land back, Russia gets even more land, and we get an end to the threat of nukes.
Last I checked Russian nukes were a threat to the US. My idea is good, everybody wins. If giving up other people's land to end the threat of nuclear attack is a good idea, then we should put our own land where are mouths are.
How about this, for some common sense de-escalation. We agree to give Alaska back to the Russians, in exchange for Russia giving up their Nukes and leaving the Ukraine alone. Good common sense de-escalation right?
It would be a win, win for everyone. Ukraine gets all their land back, Russia gets even more land, and we get an end to the threat of nukes.
No need to thank me for the idea.
Weird post.
I didn’t know Russian launches attack against the US. Is that why we need to give up Alaska to appease Putin?
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s ability to capture and put back into service Russian tanks and other equipment continues to be an important factor in its forces’ push to repel the invasion.
Ukrainian forces have captured at least 440 tanks and about 650 armored vehicles since the start of the war, Britain’s Ministry of Defense said Friday.
“The failure of Russian crews to destroy intact equipment before withdrawing or surrendering highlights their poor state of training and low levels of battle discipline,” the British said. “With Russian formations under sever strain in several sectors and increasingly demoralized troops, Russia will likely continue to lose heavy weaponry.”
Some of you guys make me chuckle. Does Russia even want to negotiate in good faith? Russia's goalposts are always moving. Ukraine's has as well but they are being more transparent about their goals. Ukraine has the initiative right now. Outcomes on the battlefield will ultimately decide what any peace agreement looks like. It will probably happen when both sides are exhausted. Any hint of the West waffling in support of Ukraine if Putin used tactical nukes in Ukraine would only encourage him to actually use them.
I disagree. Putin's use of tactical nukes may be his last resort to keep from losing the territories he's now claiming and if he loses those and gets kicked out, the Russians will minimally remove him but most likely kill him for dragging them into this war with nothing to show for it.
I think Pootin is desperate to negotiate something that he can claim benefitted Russia. It's just asinine in my view to demand war instead of negotiating with someone controlling 6000 nukes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
