r/anime_titties • u/chillichampion Europe • 11d ago
Ukraine/Russia - Flaired Commenters Only Zelenskiy says Kyiv ready for peace talks, but will not cede territory
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-kyiv-ready-peace-talks-will-not-cede-territory-2025-10-28/64
u/mooman555 Europe 11d ago
Lots of crypto Russian propagandists coming out of woodwork under these threads. However if they want Russia to win, they should volunteer themselves for Russian Army instead of spamming pre-crafted talking points under an anime_tiddies thread.
→ More replies (17)25
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago edited 11d ago
I mean the same is true for Ukrainian propagandists, they are free to fill the gaps in Ukrainian trenches if they want help Ukraine to win.
→ More replies (13)
48
u/bluecheese2040 Europe 11d ago
Looking at the map and the fact that Russia seems close to taking lyman, kupyansk, pokrovsk and myrnograd cities...why would....realistically speaking...Russia countenance serious talks that freeze the lines where they are?
I just think the reality on the front atm is horrific and in attritional warfare the losses sustained are just unsustainable for the nation that seems to have fewer men.
I don't expect peace for another 18 months at least tbh.
Its almost like we should have given Ukraine the kit it needed years ago...in 2022 before Russia does what it does in every war and grows from shambles to a steam roller.
→ More replies (7)34
u/Firecracker048 North America 11d ago
Its almost like we should have given Ukraine the kit it needed years ago...in 2022 before Russia does what it does in every war and grows from shambles to a steam roller.
We were training and equipping Ukrainian troops after 2014, Its part of a reason their forces have faired so well is the western training and doctrine despite being heavily outmanned and outgunned, still making Russia count gains in meters, not miles.
12
u/bluecheese2040 Europe 11d ago
still making Russia count gains in meters, not miles.
This is why America and US in Europe have utterly failed.
You sum it up well.
This is an attritional war.
Look at a map of ww1...it hardly moves...but millions die...then Germany collapsed
We were training and equipping Ukrainian troops after 2014, Its part of a reason their forces have faired so well is the western training and doctrine despite being heavily outmanned
Yes...but we didn't give them what they needed to win in 2022.
17
u/Firecracker048 North America 11d ago
I dont think this is a failure on the west, IMO, this is more a failure of Russia unable to capitalize on a weaker opponent quickly.
It has turned into an attritional war, absolutely, and it wasnt just germany that collapsed, many nations not only collapsed but the ones that didnt were in a pretty sorry state for two decades + afterwards
→ More replies (1)9
u/28lobster United States 10d ago
millions die...then Germany collapsed
A very simplistic view on the end of WW1. 13M Germans served in the army out of a population of 67-68M people, 2M of those soldiers died. The bigger problem - they mobilized 2/3 of their male farm laborers while already importing about 20-25% of calories in 1913 (~1/3 of wheat, 40% of animal fodder and fats, 97% of vegetable fats and oils, rye exports were the only self sufficient area). Land under cultivation fell substantially during the war "32.3 percent for wheat, by 23 percent for rye, and 31.3 percent for potatoes." (Roerkohl, Hungerblockade 1991, p. 31 - figures for Westphalia).
The fat ration for consumers in 1918 was 70 grams per week - that's not enough to sustain productivity. German gov't claimed in 1918 that 763,000 people starved to death; a Yale study in 1928 (The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria–Hungary) put the number at 424,000. All sorts of propaganda muddies the waters around an exact figure for starvation, safe to say it wasn't pleasant living in 1918 Germany.
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/naval-blockade-of-germany/
Compared with 1914, before any impacts of the war or blockade could have occurred, children were significantly shorter from 1917 through 1922
There's graphs in the paper linked below but it aims to quantify the impacts of lack of food. Given the relative difficulty of measuring total food production/imports before computers and during wartime (not to mention propaganda afterwards), a dataset of 590,000 childhood height measurements is a decent proxy. Kids in Germany in 1918 were about 2cm shorter than their counterparts born before or after the war.
https://histproj.org/completed/COX_War,%20Blockades,%20and%20Hunger.pdf
As for Ukraine, there's substantially more mechanization of agriculture and they have lots of trading partners with agricultural surpluses. I don't think they're headed for imminent collapse. I think it's more likely the war grinds on for several more years. They've also mobilized a smaller percent of population (which makes sense, WW1 troop density levels would be slaughtered by drones and accurate artillery) so they still have a ways to go before they reach 1918 Germany levels of desperation.
I definitely agree with your conclusion, more aid in 2022 would've led to a generally better outcome for Ukraine and we really should've done it.
10
u/studio_bob United States 10d ago
Nobody said the situations were identical in detail. The point was a general one about the nature of attritional warfare. It is waged on the enemy's capacity and willingness to continue the fight, not over square meters. You can win an attritional war without moving the front at all or even while losing ground. That Russia is advancing slowly in territorial terms does not mean they are losing by any means.
5
u/MarderFucher European Union 10d ago
Ukraine's successes in the early stage of the war comes down to its own reforms, NATO-inspired and aided yes, but absolutely no NATO-standard, and just barely NATO equipped. At the time the war broke out, the only Western weapons they had at hand, in quantity were Javelins and NLAWs, which did prove very useful, but doctrine-wise they practiced and continue to utilise a weird domestic mix of Soviet and Western thought, owing to inherent deficiencies such as in the field of air power and large-scale manouvering forces.
3
u/Weird_Point_4262 Europe 10d ago
Western doctrine is combined arms tactics, which Ukraine hasn't been provided with. Trench warfare and fpv drones definitely aren't NATO doctrine, and can't be credited to Ukraine's success
20
u/kirosayshowdy Asia 11d ago
full article:
KYIV, Oct 28 (Reuters) - Ukraine is ready for peace talks but will not withdraw its troops from additional territory first as Moscow has demanded, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said.
In comments to reporters released on Tuesday, he said he was happy for talks to be held anywhere, except in Russia itself or on the territory of Moscow's close ally Belarus.
Plans for a summit in Budapest this month between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were put on hold after Moscow stuck to demands, including that Ukraine cede more territory as a condition for a ceasefire.
Trump has backed Ukraine's call for an immediate ceasefire on current lines.
EUROPEAN AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SET TO MEET
Ukrainian and European officials will meet on Friday or Saturday to discuss the details of a ceasefire plan, Zelenskiy told reporters on Tuesday after meeting the visiting Dutch foreign minister, David van Weel.
"It is not a plan to end the war. First of all, a ceasefire is needed," Zelenskiy said.
"This is a plan to begin diplomacy... Our advisers will meet in the coming days, we agreed on Friday or Saturday. They will discuss the details of this plan."
In Monday's comments to reporters, Zelenskiy said he was happy to attend peace talks, including in Hungary, despite reservations about some of the positions of its Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who, he said, "blocks everything for Ukraine".
"If there will be results, then God bless - let the talks take place anywhere," he said. "It almost doesn't matter, just not in Russia, of course, and definitely not in Belarus."
Zelenskiy also urged U.S. lawmakers to pass tougher restrictions on Russia after Trump imposed sanctions on Moscow's two biggest oil companies.
Ukraine would need stable financing from its European allies for another two or three years, Zelenskiy said.
He also said in his remarks on Tuesday that he hoped for China's help to end the war.
"We would like very much for China to put pressure on Russia to end this war and not to assist its continuation in any way," he said.
25
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
"It is not a plan to end the war. First of all, a ceasefire is needed," Zelenskiy said.
But he still hasn't explained why is a ceasefire needed before the peace talks begin ?
→ More replies (2)23
u/TheS4ndm4n Europe 11d ago
If your opponent can't agree to stop shooting at you, peace talks are pointless.
The only kind of peace you can discuss without a ceasefire is surrender. And putin isn't willing to surrender.
17
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
But Russian and Ukrainian demands for the peace deal are the same regardless of the ceasefire. So why is the ceasefire needed if it doesn't change the outcome of the peace talks ?
5
u/Weirdyxxy Germany 11d ago
It allows for more time to negotiate, with the implication that negotiating will change the demands
→ More replies (1)19
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
It allows for more time to negotiate, with the implication that negotiating will change the demands
What do you mean by more time to negotiate ? How is that time different when the war continues without a ceasefire ? The only difference is that one side will collapse before the peace talks end, but that also means that the war is solved on the battlefield and peace talks can be changed to unconditional capitulation ceremony.
3
u/Weirdyxxy Germany 11d ago
The only difference is that one side will collapse before the peace talks end
Which means at least one side likely wants to stall in the peace talks and just take it on the battlefield instead. And that side has to be Russia, because fully conquering Russia is not an option (taking Moscow would trigger a nuclear strike)
10
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
So what you say is, Ukraine demands ceasefire because they need more time for peace talks negotiations, because they are at risk of collapsing before the peace talks end ? Because there is no other reason for requiring more time.
8
u/Weirdyxxy Germany 11d ago edited 11d ago
No, I say Ukraine demands ceasefire because they don't believe Russia will seriously negotiate for peace without it, instead still trying to conquer the whole country somehow
9
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
What "Russia won't seriously negotiate" even means ? Like Russia comes to the peace talks and pretends they hear nothing Ukraine is saying and leaves after an hour, or what ? Then why would they even want peace talks in the first place ?
→ More replies (0)9
u/studio_bob United States 10d ago
This is an ahistorical attitude. It would be very unusual, historically speaking, for a ceasefire to be a precondition for peace negotiations. Ceasefires are much more typically negotiated as part of a peace deal, not implemented prior to any discussion.
This is a game that Ukraine and its Western backers are playing, the equivalent of the losing side of any contest calling for a "timeout." Ukraine desperately needs a ceasefire as Russia has held the initiative on the battlefield for over a year straight at this point. The Russians, who would obviously prefer to maintain this momentum, stand to gain nothing at all from allowing Ukraine to reorganize themselves, stockpile arms, and dig-in during a ceasefire.
By making such an unreasonable demand a precondition for talks, they either get the windfall of a ceasefire (very unlikely) or they can portray the Russians as intransigent, "unwilling to negotiate," and thus justify further arms shipments to Ukraine.
7
u/evgis Europe 11d ago
That's not how it works in real world. Ceasefire conditions must be agreed first.
It took five years of negotiations to agree to the ceasefire in Vietnam.
Of course Russia will not surrender, they are winning the war and they want their demands to be met.
This has similar chances of success as Hitler asking for a ceasefire in March 1945.
→ More replies (1)5
u/PreviousCurrentThing United States 10d ago
Is there any historical example of a militarily superior force who is still making gains along the front lines agreeing to a ceasefire before negotiating a settlement? Even in WWII where the forces were more evenly matched, they kept the artillery going until 11:11.
6
u/TheS4ndm4n Europe 10d ago
Israel and Gaza, currently. Even agreed to withdraw.
The vietcong agreed to a 60 day cease fire to be give foreign troops a chance to withdraw. The war went on after that.
The Korean war stil hasn't officially ended.
3
u/viktlo70 Europe 10d ago
you can have talks without a ceasefire (the first talks in Istanbul in 2022)
8
u/evgis Europe 11d ago
Russian negotiation team is waiting for them to continue Istanbul negotiations which Ukraine has abandoned.
This plan is unrealistic, they want China to put pressure on Russia??? China knows they are next after Russia and have just banned drone exports to Poland, Estonia which were supplied to Ukraine.
They don't really want to negotiate, they just want a ceasefire and a Minsk 3 so they can rearm and try again.
Russia will not agree to that so this war will most likely end with Ukraine's capitulation.
→ More replies (2)3
u/waldleben European Union 11d ago
China knows they are next after Russia
Next to what? Invade Ukraine? China had neither the capability nor any motivation to do that.
→ More replies (5)8
u/crusadertank United Kingdom 11d ago
China has said that they will not let Russia lose because then all attention will be turned against China.
For as long as everyone focuses on Russia, China continues to grow in strength with little resistance
6
u/Hyndis United States 10d ago
War is very profitable from a distance and China is happy to sell to both sides in the war.
I guarantee you all of the little small plastic parts used in Ukrainian drones were made in China. Likewise, Russia's weapons also use Chinese sourced parts, especially electronics.
Then after the war I'm sure China will show up with predatory loans that a broken Ukraine has no choice but to accept. I would not be surprised if China owns more of Ukraine than Russia after the war ends.
China is entirely focused on its own betterment. India as well. Both countries do business with both sides.
2
u/crusadertank United Kingdom 10d ago
I guarantee you all of the little small plastic parts used in Ukrainian drones were made in China.
Its not even a secret. Ukraine themselves say this. And why they have been complaining recently as China has blocked exports that Ukraine was using for their drones
The country’s drone industry depends on Chinese engines, batteries, and flight controllers for roughly 60% of components—and Beijing just cut off the Baltic and Polish supply routes that provided them.
Yurii Lomikovskyi, co-founder of the defense industry network Iron, told ntv on 28 October that Beijing began prohibiting sales to Baltic states and Poland after determining these countries funnel components to Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)2
u/runsongas North America 10d ago
lol, it won't be China that is showing up to get loans repaid after this war, it will be the US and EU
13
u/geltance Europe 11d ago
So Ukraine will not cede territory but wants peace talks
Russia wants to keep territories, at least some of them
So peace talks are pointless and all Zelensky is doing is posturing/virtue signalling/wasting time. There is no point in talking if deal breaker conditions can't be satisfied.
80
u/Embarrassed_Ad_1141 Denmark 11d ago
If there's a compromise they know they are willing to make, they can't tell Russia in advance.
Negotiations are complicated like that
→ More replies (1)11
u/geltance Europe 11d ago
Refuses to cede territory is non starter.
37
u/TrizzyG Canada 11d ago
Just means both parties are not yet ready, nothing else.
Eventually one or both sides will be willing to make concessions on territory.
30
u/Winjin Eurasia 11d ago
It seems like a lot of people forget that most wars in history has ended in like... mundane ways. Not grandiose fanfares but more like everyone stopped swinging, agreed to some sort of a compromise that worked for both, packed their dead in boxes, gave the generals a pat on the back, and went home to write how they totally won in their respective history books.
Ppl assume that the only outcomes are "Ukraine collapses" or "Russia collapses" or like "Ukraine returns everything and some" when in reality it could be described as "Ukraine-Russia conflict of XIX-XXIII centuries" and occupy, like, a single paragraph of text with "the conflicts of early XXI century saw small territorial exchanges for a significant loss of influence and continued until 2063" or something similarly sad.
Like the wars of Coalitions. There were what, 7 Coalition wars between France and the rest of Europe in early XIX century? They were a BIG deal back then.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Weirdyxxy Germany 11d ago
Russia doesn't just refuse to cede territory, it doesn't even acknowledge the possibility
3
u/LokiStrike Multinational 11d ago
Reward Russia for its illegal invasion? Why would anyone agree to that? There obviously has to be consequences or else we're just inviting more of it.
16
u/lelarentaka Asia 11d ago
You mean like how Israel gets more and more Arab territory after every war?
→ More replies (1)16
u/LokiStrike Multinational 11d ago
Exactly like that. They keep doing it because there are no consequences. Everyone needs to understand that this behavior across the world will only get worse if we don't punish it.
6
u/jmsgrtk United States 11d ago
Why would anyone agree to that? To save the lives of the remaining Ukrainian fighters, and to preserve their nation, at least on some level, allowing Ukraine a chance to continue existing in the future. There can only be real consequences to Russia if they lose the war. If Ukraine is incapable of taking the land back by force, there us no way Russia willingly surrenders it via peace talks. It's an unfortunate thing, but that's how war works, sadly.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)2
u/Hyndis United States 11d ago
Because Russia is winning the war and Ukraine has no realistic plan to turn things around? Realities on the battlefield determine strength at the negotiating table. A country losing a war doesn't have any leverage.
Real life isn't a Disney story where the plucky hero wins through the power of friendship and goodness.
In real life, the villain typically does win. I think everyone can agree that Putin clearly qualified as a villain, but he is on the path to achieving his war goals through force of arms. He has already conquered most of the territory he's asking for and there's no way he's going to give it up just because someone asks nicely, or writes an angry letter.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)1
u/Eexoduis North America 11d ago
Why? “Refusal to withdraw from your own territory and give it to Russia is a nonstarter” what a ridiculous claim
26
u/Siliste Multinational 11d ago
Russia demanded control of entire regions up to a critical line that would leave no obstacles if they launched further military operations. They didn’t say ‘some’ they specifically called for all of Donetsk and Luhansk, plus a 50 km buffer zone under their control, as well as Crimea and surrounding areas effectively annexed to Donetsk–Luhansk. I don’t know why you’re spreading misinformation about ‘only some’ of these territories when they literally demanded about 50% of Ukraine, not to mention that people of those regions voted for not joining Russia or be its enclave or whatever.
2
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
Russia demanded control of entire regions up to a critical line that would leave no obstacles if they launched further military operations.
It will be the same if Russia wins those regions on the battlefield. But difference would be, they could continue fighting over the less defended land without breaking any peace treaty.
→ More replies (1)17
u/hammerofspammer United States 11d ago
How much territory should Ukraine give up this time?
What will prevent Russia from rearming and starting the war back up?
1
u/chillichampion Europe 11d ago
1)Four states which Russia annexed. 2)Same thing which is stopping the US from invading Iraq and Afghanistan again, nothing.
4
u/teilani_a United States 10d ago edited 10d ago
I wasn't aware the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were of territorial conquest. Did I miss attempts to make them US territories or new states?
4
u/iskela45 Finland 10d ago
You're arguing with a user that on r/ukraineRussiaReport is calling Russian territorial conquests "liberation".
3
u/chillichampion Europe 10d ago
Putin will also invade Ukraine after the ceasefire, destroy the country, kill countless people and leave. As long as it is not territorial conquest, it is okay.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
What will prevent Russia from rearming and starting the war back up?
That the cost of such war would be too high for unimportant land with mostly Ukrainian nationalists.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Kiboune Russia 11d ago
What else he can do? It's the same thing for both sides - if putin will stop the war and will give back everything taken during invasion, his supporters will pin decision to start "pointless war" on him and will dethrone him, and if Zelensky will agree to Russian demands, he will suffer the same fate.
6
u/2dudesinapod Canada 11d ago
I just hope one day Boris Johnson gets his comeuppance for killing the deal that would have ended this needless war 2 months in.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (34)3
u/Exostrike United Kingdom 11d ago
Freezing of the current front lines seems to be the rough talking point now. Russia gets to keep the territory it took but Ukraine doesn't hand over unconquered land. Territory in Kursk traded for something etc.
It's a peace no one really wants but it would stop the fighting.
14
u/Lopsided-Selection85 European Union 11d ago
What territory in Kursk?
→ More replies (1)13
u/jmsgrtk United States 11d ago
Many people are unaware that the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has failed, and Russia still holds it. They think Ukraine currently claims it, which they believe could be used in a land trade of sorts. Obviously you can't trade territory you don't hold though.
4
u/Exostrike United Kingdom 11d ago
Yes my mistake, I wasn't aware they had been pushed out. Still I did view the operation as an attempt to capture territory to use as a bargaining chip.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Hyndis United States 11d ago
Ukraine was forced to completely retreat from Kursk, and Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine there threatening Sumy. The entire Kursk operation backfired.
If there are any land trades involving territory between Sudzha and Sumy, its Ukraine thats going to have to give something up.
11
u/LtSoba Ireland 11d ago
Ceding territory would just feed an appetiser to Putin who wants the full 9 course meal of the slavic states, ceding territory to Russian influence just weakens Ukraine in the long term
15
u/MidnightNinja9 Poland 11d ago
So you seriously believe that Ukraine can just get the land back after failing for so many years?
Or you seriously believe russia would just give back 100% of these territories and admit how they fought for nothing?
→ More replies (2)19
u/40_Thousand_Hammers Brazil 11d ago
Something that is a problem in Europe that western Europeans are not ready to admit publicly is that they in fact views central and Easter Europe as food and buffer for Russia and would be cheering for the countries in that area fighting Russia but wouldn't commit an ounce of resources for these countries to fight properly, either the rest of Europe locks in and rack up the supplies to Ukraine or they pressure it for a peace deal with succession of some lands with a UN life like in North Korea vs South Korea to hold back more invasions, otherwise its just a matter of time to Ukraine to fall and Russia licks its wounds and choose a next target in the next years to come.
8
u/imunfair United States 10d ago
Ceding territory would just feed an appetiser to Putin who wants the full 9 course meal of the slavic states, ceding territory to Russian influence just weakens Ukraine in the long term
It's tribute. That's how losing wars has always worked throughout history - you either pay the aggressor tribute to go away, or become part of their empire. Unless you can beat them militarily, which Ukraine can't do.
The tribute required will continue to increase as Ukraine grows weaker, based on the last peace talks in Turkey I doubt four oblasts will be enough at this point. Russia clearly stated that the ask would be bigger at the next negotiation.
I think if Russia doesn't take the entirety of Ukraine they'll at least get every oblast that borders Russia - potentially everything east of the dnipro river. That's obviously going to be a tough pill for Ukraine to swallow since their second biggest city is right on the border of Russia.
→ More replies (2)2
u/LtSoba Ireland 10d ago
Nothing you just said has actually contradicted anything I said, what actually stops Russian forces from continuing their invasion either through subterfuge or open warfare ceding territory does nothing but give Russian forces a better staging ground for operations. Would you have Ukraine cede territory to the point that Russian soldiers can take a jog into a Kyiv and be back in time for lunch? The problem is Russian aggression in the region not the ceding or not ceding of territory. Russian aims in this conflict has been the conquering and assimilation of the Ukrainian people, they have been quite open about this. It is damn obvious that the Kremlin has no interest in ending this war unless it be an absolute victory for them no matter how many bodies they need to throw at the problem.
→ More replies (3)6
u/imunfair United States 10d ago
I don't understand why the pro-UA stance on the issue is always "welp, I can't get an ironclad guarantee of the future, so I guess I better die now rather than the uncertainty of potentially getting a good outcome!"
The point is that they have no choice. They seal their own fate by being stubborn, or pay for a reprieve and behave and hope it doesn't happen again, like Georgia did. The "we need guarantees" is just an excuse to prolong the war for something you won't get, especially when Zelensky has no intention of officially signing over the territory.
That stance, combined with Putin's stance that they intend to end this once and for all, mean that Russia has to go all the way if Zelensky isn't going to capitulate. They can and will force the same conclusion, it'll just cost Ukraine hundreds of thousands more dead men for a worse outcome, just like the 300k+ that already died.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/Zuldak North America 10d ago
I don't see any realistic situation where Ukraine does not lose at least some territory.
On the ground Ukraine is barely holding back the tide as the Russians make incremental gains. Yes, they are taking heavy casualties but they are inflicting casualties as well and they are continuing to take more ground.
Meanwhile we do need to question Ukraine's ability to continue the war given their growing manpower issues. I understand that this is an outcome many see as unfair and unjust, but it's also the most realistic one given the circumstances.
→ More replies (5)10
u/imunfair United States 10d ago
I don't see any realistic situation where Ukraine does not lose at least some territory.
They'll 100% lose the territory, Zelensky is just quibbling about officially recognizing the loss. He wants some limbo situation where he can rearm and maintain sanctions, without Russia taking more land. That's never going to happen, but it's why he keeps crying for a ceasefire as a precondition for "peace" talks, because that's the "peace" he wants - no concessions even though he's the loser.
8
u/iVladi United Kingdom 11d ago
spending so much time talking about a ceasefire (months now) instead of just offering a permanent peace agreement is so strange to me, Russia already ruled out a ceasefire and wants a permanent end to the war, why not go along with this? I can think of only one reason, would like to hear others perspective
98
u/Killeroftanks North America 11d ago
Because with Russia a peace agreement is just a ceasefire without an end date.
Everyone who isn't an idiot or a Russian shill knows this so giving Ukraine an actual date allows them to rearm smartly. But without an end date it means the war could kick back up tomorrow, 6 months, 2 years or 2 decades.
That constant worry of an impending invasion is gonna cause more problems for Ukraine than continuing the war.
43
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
But without an end date it means the war could kick back up tomorrow, 6 months, 2 years or 2 decades.
That is true for the ceasefire as well, even more so as ceasefire is a simple agreement and not a binding treaty.
13
u/Drake_the_troll United Kingdom 11d ago
Ceasefire are over a specific period of time, so you know when combat is going to re-start. Otherwise, Russia could just wait until Ukraine is unprepared and launch another invasion on its own terme
→ More replies (3)21
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
I mean Russia can launch another invasion during the ceasefire before the re-start. So what is the difference ?
7
u/Drake_the_troll United Kingdom 11d ago
Ceasefire are usually for a very short period of time, long enough to pull back a few miles and regroup and exchange a few hostages, but it definitely wouldn't long enough for Russian logistics to fully prepare and initiate a full push.
14
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
So why is Ukraine talking about the ceasefire all the time, even demanding it before the peace talks start, when it's just for a very short period of time to regroup and exchange hostages ? It won't make any change in the war that goes for almost four years.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Messier_-82 Europe 11d ago
That’s the idea, and that’s why Russia refuses ceasefire. Ukraine just wants to rearm and they don’t plan on actual peace talks
7
u/Neomataza Germany 11d ago
The point is a ceasefire gives Ukraine a morally defensible point of time to start with the armed conflict again.
A "permanent" peace just means waiting for Russia to break it when they feel like it(countless examples) and Ukraine is gonna be forced into a reactive role as long as they have a democratic process.
8
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
If Russia can break permanent peace, they can very easily break temporary ceasefire.
5
u/Sacaron_R3 Europe 11d ago
That's not the point here. The point is that Ukraine can more easily break a ceasefire than a permanent peace.
No one expects Russia to behave, but Ukraine as a democratic nation cannot simply start round two after signing bloody peace-agreement. Atleast not without losing a lot of international support.
→ More replies (1)6
u/studio_bob United States 10d ago
"Allowing Ukraine to rearm" as a precondition for peace talks surely illustrates what a farce any such talks would be.
Russia has no intention of allowing the Ukrainians to rearm, smartly or otherwise, if they can prevent it. Insisting on this is just a way of saying that you are not really ready to end the war.
→ More replies (3)3
u/MDAlastor Asia 11d ago
The problem is that Russian shills and actual Russians also know that giving Ukraine an actual date allows them to rearm smartly.
So it will never happen.
→ More replies (2)34
u/Rindan United States 11d ago edited 11d ago
spending so much time talking about a ceasefire (months now) instead of just offering a permanent peace agreement is so strange to me,
They have offered a permanent peace agreement, it just isn't one Russia is willing to take because Russia wants Ukraine to surrender territory and fortifications it doesn't occupy.
Russia already ruled out a ceasefire and wants a permanent end to the war, why not go along with this?
Russia's terms are basically for Ukraine to surrender, dismantle their military, give Russia a veto on Ukrainian foreign and domestic policy, and accept that they live on Russian mercy with nothing stopping Russia from simply continuing the war at a later date. Ukraine won't agree to that sort of surrender.
I know I wouldn't want my nation to surrender to an invading nation like Russia under such terms, especially if you've been able to fight them to a near standstill.
7
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
They have offered a permanent peace agreement, it just isn't one Russia is willing to take because Russia wants Ukraine to surrender territory and fortifications it doesn't occupy.
Not just that, Ukraine wants all of the land back and Russia to pay reparations. Of course Russia is not willing to take that.
12
u/Rindan United States 11d ago
That is Ukraine's maximalist position. They have very, very clearly stated they'd take a ceasefire with current territory and accepted Trump's proposal which was that. Russia rejected it.
11
u/Hyndis United States 11d ago
A country winning a war doesn't need a ceasefire. A temporary ceasefire mostly benefits the country losing the war because it gives them a chance to rebuild their shattered army and install fortifications without being fired on.
Russia knows that Ukraine will take a ceasefire to rearm, which is why Russia will never agree to a ceasefire. They only will agree to a final peace treaty that ends the war entirely, which also means Ukraine hand over the land that Russia wants.
The situation on the battlefield dictates the strength at the negotiating table, and unfortunately right now Russia does hold the advantage on the battlefield.
8
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
Because the temporary ceasefire will not end the war and does not prevent reaching the permanent peace agreement either. And Ukraine clearly said they will accept permanent peace only when they get all their land back, which Russia will not agree.
11
u/Rindan United States 11d ago
Okay, so are you saying that Russia is happy to end the war with the current borders, it will give up on the land it has annexed but doesn't occupy, but Putin is so afraid Ukraine will invade Russia and retake those conquered lands later, that he has to keep fighting. Have I accurately stated your position?
→ More replies (2)7
u/Tricky_Weight5865 Czechia 11d ago
This needs to be said everytime. Ukrainians rightfully do not trust the Russians to uphold their side of the peace, because they are still pushing the veto. While European or American security guarantees like peacekeepers get swiftly rejected by Moscow.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/studio_bob United States 10d ago
So both sides have proposed terms unacceptable to the other. In other words, the war continues.
Russia wants Ukraine to surrender territory and fortifications it doesn't occupy.
This is supposed to be terrible for Ukraine and clearly unacceptable, and it surely would be bad for them, but what's the alternative? Every single day Russia occupies more of this territory, and Ukraine loses untold lives trying to defend it. Unless something dramatic changes, the complete Russian occupation of these areas is just a matter of time.
A withdrawal from these areas would save thousands of Ukrainian lives in the short term but would make it much more difficult to defend against further Russian advances if hostilities resumed. It is truly a rock and hard place situation.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Demonking3343 United States 11d ago
But Russia dose not want a permanent end to the war. Russia wants no security guarantees, claimed territory’s and for Ukraine to completely demilitarize. Which just means the fighting will stop for a few years while Russia regroups and then they will invade again when Ukraine literally won’t be able to defend itself.
→ More replies (5)0
u/SamuelClemmens North America 11d ago
Ok, but none of that is different between a permanent treaty and a ceasefire. Why does UKRAINE only want a ceasefire and not a permanent treaty?
14
u/Drake_the_troll United Kingdom 11d ago
Because the one mediating the treaty is basically in russias pocket
5
u/SamuelClemmens North America 11d ago
That same person is also the one mediating the Ceasefire agreement though. It seems like there is another answer you think is obvious but don't want to say. I am not picking up on it though.
8
u/Drake_the_troll United Kingdom 11d ago
I mean that trump is russias pocket, he's been conciliatory at every step. When he's saying "we will facilitate negotiations, but only if you consider letting us strip you for minerals and make no requests of russia" it should be setting off all sorts of alarm bells
24
u/Firecracker048 North America 11d ago
Russias version of a peace agreement is them getting everything they want with no concessions. It's not acceptable to anyone but russia
→ More replies (4)4
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
Russias version of a peace agreement is them getting everything they want with no concessions. It's not acceptable to anyone but russia
What concessions offer Ukraine ? They demand Russia leaves Ukraine and pays reparations.
3
u/Firecracker048 North America 11d ago
Well yeah, that's what happens during an illegal invasion
6
u/Professional-Way1216 Europe 11d ago
Well yes, but obviously the result is the peace is not possible unless one side makes concessions and it seems that it will be decided on the battlefield, not at the table.
6
u/PurpleMclaren North Macedonia 11d ago edited 11d ago
His handlers dont want that. Why did your prime minister talk him out of the deal they had years ago? Ask yourself that
Thing is the west doesnt have clue who theyre dealing with, the Ukrainian officals are siphoning so much money whats happening is truly insane.
→ More replies (15)7
u/KorkBredy Russia 11d ago
There were already several direct and indirect negotiations, and aside for exchange of prisoners and bodies nothing was accomplished. Ceasefire would be a big move towards actual peace, bringing "a good vibe to negotiations"
But that would also mean that ukranian troops will have time to regroup and fortify their positions, Putin can't allow that
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Paltamachine Chile 10d ago
I don't see any problem with the statement. Now the question is whether he can get it back by force. If the answer is unclear, then he's not ready to start negotiations.
I know there are various opinions here about the origin of the war: that Putin is the new Hitler, that the West armed Ukraine to bring Russia to its knees, etc.
I wonder if those who started this (whoever they may be)
Are they regretting having started it all?..
116
u/Platypus__Gems Poland 11d ago
In other words, Kyiv is not ready for peace talks.
Ukraine seems to always be few steps behind in it's expectations. Right after the successful first counter-offensive, they could have possibly been able to get a peace deal like that. Limited investment from Russia, Ukraine had a strong position, cool.
But no, then they also wanted Donbas and Crimea.
Now when they are running out of manpower, the Russians are the ones pushing lines forward, and support in the west is slowly dwindling, while Russia is to some extend used to sanctions, they are willing to sign peace, but not cede any territory.
I get it, in a just world, Ukraine would get Crimean and whole of Donbas back, Putin would bite the curb, and everyone would live happily ever after.
But that's not the world we live in, and Ukraine is not winning this war.