DarkMonohue said:In reply to 02Pilot :
I think we can all read between the lines there.
I'd say more, but I somwhow don't wield enough power to speak and act with absolute impunity.
This is the only forum that I participate in that regularly shows restraint in such matters. It's an admirable quality.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:Since Zelenskyy is the dictator who started the war, maybe the new American angle will be to support Russia with troops and material so they can finish off their rightful work of getting rid of Nazi's.
Not going to get political but shame on anyone who tries to paint today's comments in some kind of positive Pro Democratic light. It's not any kind of a game.
Come on now. You're smarter than this.
Putin invaded Ukraine. Russia was the aggressor. There is no evidence that Ukraine was supporting any sort of Nazi anything. That's Russian propaganda. Feel free to try to refute that with any verifiable and unbiased news sources.
"You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"In a televised speech at 05:55 Moscow time (02:55 GMT), Mr Putin announced a "military operation" in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. This area is home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Parts of it has been occupied and run by Russian-backed rebels since 2014."
"I should have invaded Ukraine earlier, Putin tells Russians in TV marathon"
Xceler8x said:Come on now. You're smarter than this.
He's clearly being sarcastic. The context being a statement that came from the top of the US government yesterday.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Xceler8x said:Come on now. You're smarter than this.
He's clearly being sarcastic. The context being a statement that came from the top of the US government yesterday.
Oh, thank goodness. I totally misread that. I had a whole diatribe written up about legitimizing Putin's bullsh!t. NATO is our best bet for any sort of stability going forward. Nibbling Putin's taint like the US leadership currently is doing is the path to ruin.
In reply to Xceler8x :
There's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Pretty sure you're dancing all over it.
Soooo... I am currently curious to find out if "recent statement" have any relationship to what is actually going on in the negotiations or their goals. I always find it is useful, when interpreting the statements of certain people, to do a bit of a "count to ten" thing, since in many cases.... Anyway, as o2 has pointed out, it is certainly having an affect, whether that was intended or not....
I haven't seen any specifics about results from the talks yet, but there seems to be a clear want to re-open embassies etc, which enables better communication, which is clearly one of the goals of the talks.
This one talks very much to the careful maneuvering that happens with such talks that 02 talks about (point / counterpoint / counter, counterpoint etc):
Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly trying to optimize the Russian negotiations delegation to be most effective with the specific individuals whom the United States chooses for its negotiation delegation, likely in an effort to extract maximum concessions from the United States. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on February 19 that Putin will appoint a negotiator for talks with the United States after the United States appoints its own negotiator.[1] Russian opposition outlet Meduza reported on February 19, citing a source close to the Kremlin, that the United States was the first to select its delegation for the February 18 bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia, after which Russia attempted to "select relevant" counterparts for each of the selected US officials.[2] The source claimed that Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev's appointment to the delegation appeared largely as a response to US demands that Russia appoint someone that would "understand" the United States. Another source close to the Kremlin told Meduza that Putin may appoint his aide Vladimir Medinsky to the Russian negotiations delegation if Ukrainian representatives join future negotiations because Medinsky took part in the Spring 2022 Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul. The source claimed that the Kremlin does not need to include Medinsky in the Russian delegation so long as negotiations remain bilateral between the United States and Russia. The Moscow Times reported on February 19, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the February 18 US-Russia meeting, that the Kremlin seeks to restore access to roughly $6 billion worth of frozen Russian Central Bank reserves in the US.[3] The source claimed that the Russian negotiations delegation in Saudi Arabia pushed for the United States to agree that both countries fully resume the operations of their diplomatic missions in the other country and to return Russian diplomatic property in the United States, which US authorities had previously seized on charges of being used for intelligence purposes. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on February 18 that the United States and Russia had agreed to restore "the functionality of [their] respective missions in Washington and Moscow."[4] The Kremlin appears to be attempting to push the United States to accept economic and diplomatic terms that are unrelated to the war in Ukraine, possibly in return for Ukrainian and Western concessions that are related to the war.[5] US acceptance of these economic and diplomatic terms — without demanding any Russian concessions on Ukraine in return — would give away leverage that the United States will need to achieve US President Donald Trump's stated objective of achieving a lasting and enduring peace that benefits the United States and Ukraine.
From a strictly, and very cold, perspective, it does seem that, currently, the US (just the US here) seems to very much have the upper hand here. There seems to be a lot the US can "do" for Russia, but very little that Russia, can "do" for the US (comparatively). This of course is if you essentially ignore Ukraine (like I said, very cold), which is, not the US.... (did I mention this was a very cold way of looking at it?)
I am not sure how much this indicates anything (?):
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz reiterated on February 18 that US President Donald Trump's position that the war in Ukraine must end in a way that is "fair, enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all parties involved" remains unchanged.[6]
US Special Representative for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg arrived in Kyiv on February 19 for his first official visit to Ukraine
Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
Ukrainian forces continue to conduct drone strikes against Russian energy facilities supplying the Russian military.
Head of Ukraine's Center for Combating Disinformation Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko stated that Ukrainian forces struck the Rosneft Syzran Oil Refinery in Syzran, Samara Oblast on the night of February 18 and 19.[13] Kovalenko noted that the refinery has a processing capacity of 8.9 million tons of oil per year and produces fuel, jet fuel, and bitumen
In reply to aircooled :
There may be more the US has to offer Russia on the positive side, but getting Russia to desist from its ongoing hybrid warfare campaign against Europe and stop transferring technology to Iran are reasonable gains as well.
It's just way too early to say much of anything. After all, the Paris Peace Talks began in 1968 and didn't result in an agreement until 1972, one that was presented to South Vietnam's Thieu as a fait accompli. He was so enraged that he basically refused to accept it, but that didn't stop the US from leaving, and we know how that turned out. Compared to that debacle, I suspect these talks will be reasonably successful in that Ukraine is left sovereign and sustainable, but it might take just as long to get there.
The issue with that I see, is the lack of any enforcement mechanism. Russia could just continue their hybrid warfare as is, and continue to deny it. As it is, it has been happening since far before the Ukraine invasion, that only intensified it.
In reply to eastsideTim :
The US (and West) has a lot of economic muscle to throw around. An economic mechanism could certainly be used. There are currently a lot in place. Russia can pretend they are economically sound, but they are clearly very much hurting.
Removing those for good behavior and re-applying for bad behavior. Historically, the West has been relatively far less aggressive with those, but now that they are in place, it should be far easier to turn them back on if they are reduced (now that they have practice in how to get them done).
Obviously, releasing economic restrictions and essentially fueling the Russian military machine is something that needs to be a consideration.
Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
That's justified. They deserve a seat at the table. It's their people dying on the field. It's their country at risk. To freeze them out isn't right. Any negotiation without them involved isn't legitimate nor should be upheld.
In reply to Xceler8x :
There seems to be an assumption by many that these negotiations are the primary negotiations for the ending of the war. There really is no indication of that. As has been the case for a long time now, getting the Russians to even talk in any reasonable way about ending the war is a huge step, and I don't think we can say that has really even happened yet. The US setting the groundwork for not only how to talk, but maybe giving some indication of what cards they hold (what the can do to, and for the Russians) seems to be a necessary first step and not a step that needs to involve the Ukrainians.
There are some discussions with Ukraine:
US Special Representative for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on February 20. Zelensky stated that he had a "good" conversation with Kellogg during which they discussed the battlefield situation, the return of all Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs), and effective security guarantees for Ukraine.[16] Zelensky reiterated Ukraine's readiness to make a "strong, effective investment and security agreement" with the United States and stated that Ukraine has proposed the "fastest and most constructive" ways to achieve such results.
Regarding those POW's:
The Financial Times (FT) published an investigation on February 20 supporting ISW's long-held assessment that Russian military commanders are either complicit in or directly enabling subordinates to execute Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) in clear violation of international law
FT's investigation suggests that more senior Russian commanders may also be complicit in issuing orders to execute Ukrainian POWs
And... it's highly likely that there will be zero repercussions for that. The Russians certainly don't care.
Repercussions? Probably not
Rewards ? For the guy who kills the most of the Nazi terrorist degenerates (or whatever the Russian baseless insult of the week is). Probably yes .
Xceler8x said:Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
That's justified. They deserve a seat at the table. It's their people dying on the field. It's their country at risk. To freeze them out isn't right. Any negotiation without them involved isn't legitimate nor should be upheld.
I've never met a more determined people than the Ukrainians who want their country back. I suspect whatever the outcome of this "peace deal" becomes they won't forget the war crimes that happened to them, and they won't stop extracting "justice" for them in Russia. If a deal is forced upon them, it won't last long.
You'll need to log in to post.
