The Russians are proposing as part of the peace negotiations that Ukraine adopt a posture of national neutrality, in the model of Sweden. Kremlin says Sweden, Austria could be models for Ukraine neutrality The Kremlin said Wednesday that Ukraine becoming a neutral state with a status comparable to Sweden and Austria is being discussed at talks with Kyiv and would be a "compromise". "This is a variant that is currently being discussed and which could really be seen a compromise," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted as saying by RIA news agency on day 21 of what Russia calls its special military operation in Ukraine. Peskov was commenting on remarks from Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's chief negotiator, who earlier told state TV: "Ukraine is offering an Austrian or Swedish version of a neutral demilitarized state, but at the same time a state with its own army and navy." Ukraine has not confirmed it is willing to discuss neutrality. It says it is ready to negotiate to end the war, but not to surrender or accept Russian ultimatums. So most of the corporate media "experts" are wrong, yet again, about the intentions of Russians here for the future of Ukraine. Not that this should come as any surprise.
Yeah, I think it is possible. Would I bet money on it? No, but I do believe it is possible. Poland borders the Ukraine and they have a history of issues with Russia and they also have a history of being a speed bump for invaders. That doesn't even get into the bizarre politics in Poland. Poland asking the USA to send in the planes and going public about it does not close the door on Poland escalating their involvement in the Ukraine, especially if they believe it is the difference between a Ukraine victory and loss.
Stop this bullshit. First, me and my boys would stomp you.... because that is literally what they have a history of doing, stomping people. Second, you do have something to live for, you at least have a daughter that you love very much and you are a good businessman. Third, this is a message board where people can bounce things off each other and maybe become more informed and in some cases change their opinions.
Sending peacekeeping troops in the case of a ceasefire? Sure they could do that but only with other nations. I just don't think Poland is going to lead in any way shape, or form. That hasn't been their history (at least not modern). They follow. Again, and I can't emphasis this enough - they are too scared to fly airplanes they are gifting from their airbases and want them to come from NATO bases. I think it says it all. Sure, anything is possible. Putin may say, "Hey guys, yo, my bad about this war. We'll pay to fix everything too" - that's about as possible to me as Poland unilaterally sending troops into Ukraine.
No idea except Russia reach out to the moon for troops re-enforcement? WW3 feels less likely honestly with Putin's military stalled and not making progress. Now that the Ukrainian has started their offensive, they might start losing ground, not just stalled.
75 years ago there were Americans in internment camps in the USA..... we had Americans fighting in Japan and Europe and dying.... we had food rations and people forced into the work force that had never had to work before...... we had poverty and crime and degrees of suffering that people now would find foreign. Yet we cannot get vaccinated or wear a mask or be polite to each other.
Ukraine Invasion: Russia's Military Is Adapting After Early Failures - Bloomberg By James Stavridis March 15, 2022, 2:00 AM CDT James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also chair of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation and vice chairman of Global Affairs at the Carlyle Group. His latest book is "2034: A Novel of the Next World War." @stavridisj One question I get repeatedly these days: What is wrong with the Russian military? Many in the West had a mistaken belief that the Russian war machine was a rough match for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and they are surprised at how much trouble the massive force is having subduing a much smaller and less-equipped neighbor, Ukraine. During my time as NATO’s military commander, I spent time with the Russian military and the chief of its general staff at the time, General Nikolai Makarov. A congenial figure, Makarov told me about Russian efforts to modernize his forces, starting with professionalizing them and weaning the nation from a brutal conscript system. There were plans to improve offensive cyber capabilities, precision-guided weaponry and unmanned vehicles. He seemed confident of progress, but from all I have seen in Ukraine, the decade-long effort has not been successful, and draftees abound. There is little evidence of the hardware improvements, either. The Russians present not as a sophisticated 21st-century army, but rather a blunt force in the style of World War II’s militaries. Unlike in Syria, where Russian forces have been effective but are not fighting pitched battles against a serious standing military, today’s battles in Ukraine are showing the fissures in the Russian approach to training, equipping and organizing. Three key problems are worth highlighting, and none can be solved immediately, meaning they will continue to hobble operations in Ukraine. The first is obvious: logistical failures. In the military, we often say that amateurs study strategy but professionals study logistics. Getting ammunition, fuel, food, heat, electricity and communications equipment to the troops is crucial. In particular, getting fuel forward has proven very challenging for the Russians, which is logistics 101 for a Western force. The image of the 40-mile stalled tank and transport convoy outside of Kyiv is a good example of incompetence — any modern Western military would have developed the detailed plans to ensure that such a massive offensive weapon wouldn’t sit on highly exposed terrain for days. Supplying relatively small units in Syria is easy compared to providing sustenance for a 200,000-troop force. A second challenge is perhaps less obvious but more insidious. A significant number of the troops invading Ukraine are conscripts or reservists. They are not a professional, volunteer force led by career senior enlisted cadres. There have been anecdotal examples of Russian soldiers who are literally unaware of the importance of their mission — some surprised to discover they are not on an exercise in Russia when captured by Ukrainians. The third key misstep is the bad generalship on vivid display. The Russian plan encompassed attacking Ukraine from six different vectors, dividing their forces significantly. A battle plan that spreads forces over six axes is inherently flawed. This no doubt can be attributed to flawed assumptions and intelligence: The Russian generals must have expected the Ukrainians to welcome them with flowers and vodka, not bullets and Molotov cocktails. Russian killed-in-action numbers are stunning. In 20 years of hard fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. suffered roughly 2,000 troops killed in combat. The Russians, in just over two weeks, have lost at least 4,000 and possibly twice that. This will haunt President Vladimir Putin even as he tries (but ultimately fails) to keep those numbers from his public. In addition to blood, Russia is bleeding treasure. War is an expensive proposition, especially when your sources of hard currency are drying up due to Western sanctions. And much of the war chest that Putin counted on — more than $600 billion in reserves — has been locked down in Western institutions under sanctions. Russia is reportedly sending its jets on 200 sorties a day, using a tremendous amount of fuel and spare parts that will be increasingly hard to come by given sanctions. Ukraine claims to have shot down more than 50 aircraft at $20 million to $50 million a pop. One recent estimate put the cost of the war at billions of dollars per day, and at that rate Putin will run out of money even before he runs out of public support. For the Russians on the ground in Ukraine, the worst is still ahead. For Putin to subdue Kyiv, a city of nearly four million, he will have to throw a significant level of combat power into the fight. It took the U.S. First Marine Division — the most elite combat troops in the world — nearly two months to conquer Fallujah, an Iraqi city about a tenth the size of Kyiv. The locals know every corner and intersection of their city, are increasingly well armed by the West, and are motivated to fight with their families behind them or evacuated to Poland. It promises to be a long and bloody battle. Here is the caveat: Despite the failures of the Russian military thus far, it is adapting and learning as the battle unfolds. The Russians have held cyberattack technology in reserve for the moment, probably to preserve certain capabilities to use against the West as sanctions increasingly kick in. Moscow’s information warfare and decapitation strategies appear to be sharpening. At least two Ukrainian mayors have been kidnapped. Video of one being hauled off with a bag over his head was surely meant as an example to others. And the Russians have mass and sheer scale on their side, with more reserves upon which they can draw. This could be as many as several hundred thousand troops, depending on how much Putin is willing to move from elsewhere. As of now, time is on the Russians’ side if they choose to simply grind down the Ukrainians and reduce the cities to rubble. But over a longer period, dissatisfaction at home, the coming of the spring mud and military failures will compound for Putin. I do not detect an ounce of quit in the Ukrainians, particularly in their Churchillian leader, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. He will address the U.S. congress on Wednesday, and one of the topics upon which he will certainly touch are the tactical failures of the Russian military, coupled with fervent requests for more weapons and ammunition. Barring a peace agreement, this war is likely to be a long haul. I suspect we will learn more about both the tactical failures and underlying weaknesses of the Russian military before it is over.
Putin ******* invaded Ukraine, he has sent hundreds of thousands of troops into Ukraine and at the border.... he has bombed the hell out of the cities, he has attempted to assassinate the President of Ukraine. He has killed civilians. No one has misconstrued the intentions of Putin....... he is LOSING because his country is financially on it's knees and his military has largely been underwhelming. Further, the arrogance is amazing. Russia should have no say in the future of a sovereign state like Ukraine. It isn't part of Russia and it can elect whomever it wants and it can join NATO if it wants and it is accepted. It can sign treaties as it wishes. The President of Ukraine is looking for a way to guarantee sovereignty of it's nation, to limit casualties and to end the war...... an agreement to not join NATO may be enough for Putin to get his sloppy ass out of Ukraine and still save enough face. I would like nothing better for Putin to die or be deposed of and the Ukraine to decide to join NATO or whatever they feel is in the best interest of their own nation.
Has NATO ever attacked anyone? It's a collective defensive pact. Putin doesn't worry about NATO attacking and invading Russia, he worries that he doesn't get to see his empire-building to fruition. This is why he took a stupid gamble and is paying dearly for it. Folks that still buy his story about an aggressive NATO as his reason for invading - Putin's kool-aid do exist.
Just saw a report that said captured Russian soldiers say they are forced to advance, if they retreat they are shot by their own people. DD
I just wanted to meet up and see if anyone is willing to call me disparaging names to my face - it would be a very civilized conversation I’m sure …btw you know too much about me lol …Nook I’d still meet up with you just leave the boys at home I don’t have eyes on my back. We would go to taco cabana or something
I should have been clearer and added pre-emptively. Afghanistan is due to 911 attack on the US - fall under collective defense. Bosnia started with a UN resolution (China and Russia abstained) and then became a peace-keeping force.
They can keep moving forward and surrender. Seems like the sensible thing if you don't particularly care for the cause you're fighting for. Its not 100% risk free for a few different reasons but it's better then 100% being shot by your own army if you retreat (if those reports are true).
And, to achieve that, Russia invades and bombards and kills and HOW FU**ING REMOVED FROM REALITY and STUPID CAN YOU BE? Stick to your political cartoons.
