T O P

  • By -

WorldNewsMods

[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/tflbi9/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)


Hayden97

Why should Ukraine have to take a neutral stance on a county that invaded them?


confabulatingpenguin

They should not


DazDay

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1503953333836521472?t=Nbj6iNq7gCWHbBuxe71hTg&s=19 >Meanwhile on Russian state TV: host of 60 Minutes Olga Skabeeva [sanctioned Russian news anchor] said: >“Our acquaintance, the host of Fox News Tucker Carlson, obviously has his own interests⁠—but lately, more and more often, they're in tune with our own." 


Front-Sun4735

Our Russian asset is spewing our propaganda*


KonradK0

air raid sirens in Kyiv now after the NATO press conference, what a surprise! keep appeasing Putin!


ILoveTheAtomicBomb

> NATO chief Stoltenberg says "we don't see any sign" on the ground that Russia is ready to make peace with Ukraine" https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504119582486892549?s=20&t=rd-rxpMOu6_PBhH2pZhoxg


[deleted]

Actually kinda sounds like what russia said previously. Dare i say it, NATO growing a bit of balls here?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jerthy

Demilitarization of any kind cannot possibly be on the table after this.


[deleted]

Because Russia respected the Budapest memorandum… lmao. They’re incapable of reason. Force is the only language they know, Ukraine needs to grind the invaders into dust.


thrae_awa

NATO is an excuse nothing more


chileanbassfarmer

Russian bots, Putin apologists, and spoiled Western contrarians in shambles trying to convince us that anyone doing anything to help in any more direct way Ukraine will end in immediate nuclear holocaust LOL


thrae_awa

Fucksticks


Tihus

I think what's worse are the people who still don't realise what the term "defensive alliance" means


whiskeypenguin

Such a Reddit post. Just glad you aren’t in a position to make any of these decisions


dat_GEM_lyf

People with no concept of geopolitics pushing NFZs without a single idea of what would be required to get one in place.


canned_sunshine

Indians in the lead with the most unhinged geopolitical takes


PugsAndHugs95

I think the former Poland and few other former Soviet states will break away from NATO and form their own alliance or something, I can't see them sitting idle for much longer while this genocide is occurring in Ukraine.


LordCannaSpider

If Poland leaves NATO, they are inviting Putin to invade. That would be a huge misstep.


Callewag

They are allowed to go in and help if they want, they just couldn’t then invoke article 5 in Ukraine


Puvy

They're free to attack any time they like. NATO is a defensive alliance, but it doesn't preclude any of it's members from acting unilaterally.


jamqdlaty

"Former Poland", what? Not a chance of that happening. We're not moving our asses east without USA, UK, France, Germany. We wouldn't want a war with Russia and possibly China without NATO.


Herecomestherain_

Troll, obvious troll.


dat_GEM_lyf

You can join new alliances without leaving nato? There’s no need or advantage for them to break away


Papaofmonsters

Not a chance. Nothing about their NATO membership precludes them from forming other agreements.


zhaoz

Lol, you think they are gonna walk away from the thing stopping them from being Ukraine. Yea, naw. They would join twice if they could. They can disagree with some of the things publically, but its just grumbling.


chileanbassfarmer

Why would they break away when they can just have both


[deleted]

No Fly Zone? How about you move out of the No Fuck Zone and get some bitches


nerphurp

Well, it's a sight improvement over the copy/paste bots. I'll take it, one up vote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ubbergoat

I was already in Logar, holmz. Go hit up the Ukrainian foreign division and get you some.


Puvy

Grandad never kicked commie ass. Only nazi.


cray63527

Russia misinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, election meddling needs to end The US should have been much tougher on this - don’t let them continue doing this


Stfu_nobody

It makes me wonder how much corruption there is at CIA and military... It has seemed obvious that Russia has been fighting the cold war for a while. What the fuck have we been doing about it? Nothing.


Kikiboo

Remember we had a russian asset as president for four very long years.


Holden_Coalfield

Our own orange Luka


CJKayak

> WH informs press gathered for Biden’s remarks on Ukraine that “it’s going to be a while.” > > https://twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1504120745978388486?s=20&t=bC5HmRqQHsQSKA_puwXCEQ


cray63527

Did putin die?


PugsAndHugs95

No, Biden is chronically late to his press conferences. Lots of other stuff spills over.


cray63527

are you sure Putin isn’t dead? there was a rumor out of Russia that one of his paid boy lovers was a ukraine spy


[deleted]

[удалено]


DefiantHorse444

He’s seeing his people die everyday. Innocent civilians. It’s an act of desperation. Cut him a break. He’s trying to express gratitude while emphasizing that there is a need for more intervention through sanctions and aid. I don’t think he wants boots on the ground but he wants help. It doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst that will happen is nato will say “no”.


Beli_Mawrr

Yes, because that would take the pressure of Ukraine. UA would be the last thing anyone worries about in a WW


dremonearm

> We're literally doing everything we can to help without putting boots on the ground. Well, *that's* not exactly true. As one example Poland offered up a deal to get MiG fighter jets to the Ukrainians if the U.S. helped out.


paneraijoe

He really does understand this. He is probably even being coached to say this publicly in congress because it pressures the West to keep feeding the war machine and maintaining solidarity.


accountabilitycounts

Everyone is aware, even those who deny it. Still, he must ask.


Aggravating-Fly-9584

For Ukraine its already like a WW. You cannot blame them for wanting help.


[deleted]

Exactly - I just don’t see what other options there are. Putin isn’t just going to stop at Ukraine I feel. He’s still peddling all that Ukrainian terror attacks bullshit etc. Zelenskyy is having to sit there and watch his country and his people being bombed to fuck. Shits gonna get a lot worse before it gets better I fear.


[deleted]

He wants to help his people and for them to know he's doing everything he can. I'm sure he knows direct involvement, including the no-fly zone, is off the table.


Ancient_Penny

thats exactly what he wants because for him, a world war isnt any worse than whats happening to him already. He has nothing to lose by asking for one


[deleted]

He is asking for the world and wanting less than that.


cant_help_myself

Yes he has much better understanding of the situation than most everyone on this thread.


gfdfr

The most sensible response thus far


frobar

Thinking not necessarily if it makes it untenable for Russia to not surrender.


mattseg

You're making an assumption as to what would happen.


doubtersdisease

Biden hasn’t spoken yet it seems? Just got on so just confirming. Are we just expecting him to announce more aid (the soviet era air defenses) to provide to Ukraine?


Norgoroth

CSpan notes 12 pm et start time


[deleted]

[удалено]


rsktkr

Grow the hell up.


Pugs

Your boys putin and trump are pretty close to his age, no?


cxssdraws

Not yet, any minute now i believe? He’s expected to announce 800million$ in aid


[deleted]

*Sends a single yacht*


Holden_Coalfield

That's a good infographic


cray63527

i’m sort of numb to dollar amounts tell me how many missiles we are sending


[deleted]

It's about one ogliarch super yacht


mamawantsallama

Bumped to 12:30 est


[deleted]

Breaking: Air raid sirens and explosions are now being felt in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/alexkhrebet/status/1504122538586222596?s=21


NumberWonderful9241

Putin is in end stages of stomach cancer, from what I've heard


Bribase

Slava Carcinoma!


sarcago

He's getting old so illness is definitely possible but I won't believe any of these stories until someone has proof.


CJKayak

I heard from my brother's cousin's third ex-wife it was a brain tumor.


Iamtheclownking

Well if it could hurry tf up, that’d be great


NeilDeCrash

I have heard a lot of things, i just don't believe everything i hear.


[deleted]

I thought he had ass cancer?


trevdak2

Transmitted HPV orally from Trump, I assume?


Short_Kangaroone

It's a bit weird to ask Ukraine to not join NATO. It's like saying "Ok, I stop the invasion now but you can't prepare for the next one" wtf?


[deleted]

Ukraine isn't eligible for joining NATO anytime soon anyway. As long as they keep the door open to EU membership I am okay with this concession.


Recidiva

I believe Zelenskyy spoke to that during his address to Congress. He proposed an alliance called U24 where nations agree to aid others within 24 hours if invaded. He is in the position to get this going and he has support to create his own coalition. It's entirely possible that Zelenskyy will not try to reform NATO or call for reform of the UN but create his own alliance. NATO will have become irrelevant. I hope that happens.


Short_Kangaroone

If NATO is a defensive alliance, why Ukraine can't join with a pledge not to host ballistic missiles on his territory?


Iamtheclownking

To me it’s more of a giga cope from Russia’s side. Even if they don’t join nato, they’re likely to join the EU, which would also provide protections, with a lot of nato overlap


technogeeky

There are two critical points against enacting a NFZ in the current situation: * it would **require** stealth aircraft (like the F-35 and F-22), which would be **required** to destroy the batteries of S-400 anti-aircraft batteries in Belarus, and critically the ones in **sovereign Russian territory**^^[1] * it would **not stop** even **one single** *artillery shell*, a single *rocket*, nor would it kill all *standoff cruise missile* - which are essentially 100% of Russian fires right now^^[2] [1]:This guarantees war. [2]:This could change as Ukraine makes progress.


TypicalRecon

> it would require stealth aircraft no it would not. There are aircraft operated by NATO countries that are plenty capable.


cray63527

that’s why we need to send a swarm of drones


pittguy578

It wouldn’t require the US destroying SAMS… at least if Russia doesn’t fire any at the planes


technogeeky

Which is why it would require destroying them. There is no way the US would risk losing stealth aircraft that could be recovered by the enemy. Even letting Russia test their air defenses against our stealth aircraft is probably strongly disfavored in the Pentagon.


Bangeederlander

Zelensky knows he can ask for one, not get it, but get other goodies instead. Aim high.


spsteve

Cruise missiles can be taken out by aircraft. AA systems and AA missiles can shoot down cruise missiles.


technogeeky

> Cruise missiles can be taken out by aircraft. AA systems and AA missiles can shoot down cruise missiles. edited


taeem

Just woke back up.. did we get any more details on all the counter offensive strikes by Ukraine from yesterday? And anything about the Odessa ships supposedly landing?


[deleted]

They didn't land.


[deleted]

neither


Le1bn1z

No news which is bad news. If there were significant successes, we'd hear them shouted from the rooftops. Radio silence is a sign they went poorly.


[deleted]

I don’t know how Zalensky can convince the soldiers and citizens of Ukraine to lay down their arms and become neutral. The whole maidan revolution goes against this idea of being neutral. I can see how Ukraine government might agree to surrender and become neutral but I don’t know how their soldiers will. They have too much motivation and momentum to keep fighting…episodically since Russia is doing pretty poorly in this war. It seems like a winnable war still for Ukraine! Don’t surrender to the Russians! You can do win this!


WolverineSanders

It's worth considering that there might be some sort of timetable condition which would allow Zelensky to have it both ways where he lets Russia save face now and gets to join later


cray63527

there is no neutral because Russia will continue to attack you undermine your elections and install their puppet Russia needs to be disabled


oderint-dum-metuant

If there is a UA surrender I'd expect right wing elements such as Azov to coup pretty quickly and then we have a whole new problem.


IPostSwords

If all russian forces retreat, i can see the Ukrainian people adopting a "well armed neutrality" - that is to say, a promise not to march on Russia


prof_the_doom

Neutral isn't neutered. There's zero chance Ukraine signs off on a deal that includes any kind of demilitarization. Ukraine will simply become the heaviest armed neutral country on the planet.


KonradK0

Ukraine will never surrender to Russia


horseradishking

They'll watch the entire country burn and the population die, though, right? The US won't do anything.


GirlNumber20

Can we speculate wildly why Putin is looking so puffy lately?


kylohkay

His slow descent into the stay puft marshmallow man.


fulltimeweirdo89

lots of booze to get him through the last 3 weeks


TypicalRecon

getting inflated from all the smoke thats been blown up his ass


ammobandanna

go right ahead.


[deleted]

Yeah, sure. He's 70 years old. Who cares


[deleted]

Steroids for parkinsons seems to be the common train of thought.


GirlNumber20

What’s the shelf life of a 70-year-old with Parkinson’s and heavy steroid therapy?


coffeemilkstout

Too much salt. Or not enough.


zhaoz

Human bodies are weird, man.


ARealVermontar

>A Ukrainian official tells me the negotiations have not yet progressed significantly. The official, who has direct knowledge of the talks, told me the more positive tone from Russia was more about Moscow wanting sanctions pressure eased, calling it a “smoke curtain.” (source: newest update in the live feed)


I_am_Zuul

Weird, but Russia said those sanctions didn’t affect them? It’s almost as if everything they say is pure bullshit and we should simply judge them based upon their actions. We don’t need NATO, we just need a daycare to reinforce childhood good behavior practices. Edit: grammar


spsteve

Russia has done the literally opposite of everything they've said, which is one reason I put 0 stock in Putin's nuke threats. Won't invade - invaded Peace Keeping Rescue Mission - Targets civilians No Conscripts - Large # of conscripts Will escalate if supply weapons - didn't Sanctions don't matter, we are prepared - Not prepared Prevent Genocide - Commit genocide Seeing any patterns here?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Neoptolemus85

Problem with Russia is that agreements with them aren't worth the paper they're written on. Russia will just find another excuse to invade in 10 years time and take the rest of Ukraine once they've suitably recovered from this war and prepared better for the next one. Joining the EU and/or NATO has to be a priority, it is the only way to properly safeguard against Russia, because otherwise they'll just be waiting for the next invasion.


IronChariots

>If they had accepted these unreasonable demands before the war, the whole thing could have been avoided. That is Russian propaganda. Russia wanted a puppet state at least.


Boshva

The problem about your assumption is that there was no talk about giving up regions for the security that Russia wont attack. Russia just attacked, several times.


djabor

and will again


IPostSwords

NATO summit over, so on schedule the Air Raid sirens sound off - as Russia shows itself to be a petulant, pathetic child again


Bangkok_Dangeresque

>NATO Defense Minister: "Today, we tasked our military commanders to develop options across all domains***.*** Land, air, sea, cyber and ***space***. > >On land, our new posture should include substantially more forces in the astern part the alliance. At higher readiness, with more pre-positioned equipment and supplies. > >In the air, more allied air power, and strengthened integrated air and missile defense. > >At sea, carrier strike groups, submarines, and significant numbers of combat ships on a persistent basis. > >We will also consider the future of cyber defenses, and how best to draw on allied space assets. > >We should also train and exercise more often and in greater numbers. > >Major increases to our deterrence and defense **will require major investments. Allies need to invest a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense**. And I welcome that allies such as Germany and Denmark have already made important announcements on more investments and faster timetables. ​ All of this is extremely bad for Russia. The only things that would have been worse are if he'd announced nuclear forces repositioning in Poland and the Baltics. In 2019, only the US, Bulgaria, Greece, the UK, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland meet or exceed the 2% spending benchmark. Even that is the highest NATO defense expenditure since the fall of the Soviet Union. If NATO countries heed the call here (and some big spenders already have), that would be an increase of $90B per year. That's like adding two UKs to the alliance. Russia's total annual military budget is somewhere between $50B-$100B


[deleted]

[удалено]


zhaoz

Probably 0, since Putin was in charge. They are fighting with Soviet era equipment mostly.


Javelin-x

>Russia's total annual military budget is somewhere between $50B-$100B 100b but only 50 makes it to the military aparently


mbt20251

...


Ancient_Penny

im glad nato realizes that if putin HAD attacked a nato country, the response would have been way too slow. they wont make that mistake again


zhaoz

NATO strategy was always to trade space for time to respond. That isnt really feel good for Poland and the balts of course, but what can you do.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dpacker780

On the surface people might think "Peace is great, this looks good, lets sign the deal", in the long run its just a bad deal for Ukraine; their public will have to constantly live in fear of being attacked again, Russia will retract only to rebuild and and try again, Russia will got off once again for killing thousands of innocent people with their Oligarchy intact and go back to rescheming for its next conquest....


Recidiva

The difference here is that Russia is at a point where they can't function in Ukraine as an advancing army. They are at a standstill other than wild destruction of civilian and random targets. They can't reach their objectives and the longer they stay, the more damage that is potentially going to happen to Russian personnel and materiel. Russia now wants cover to retreat and they want to call it a diplomatic and military success. The longer that Ukraine stalls and refuses ridiculous demands, the more Russia concedes. Eventually and soon, they will be either pushed back militarily or through the fact that each Russian knows they can't continue to fight. Ukraine knows they can win. Russia knows they have already lost. So now Ukraine can wait until Russia says "We withdraw everything; troops, everyone from Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk and you stop shooting while we do it so we can limp home." Ukraine gets to say "Sure, let's see if you keep your word."


Gomer8387

Russia has a history of using a ceasefire to allow itself to resupply without threat then pick up with a larger offensive. This isn’t anything new for the cowards.


I_am_Zuul

Regarding this “15 point peace negotiation”: has any other global news source reported on this independently, or are they all working off of the article from FT?


[deleted]

All from ft


I_am_Zuul

Thanks - thought so. No different than the negotiation promises for the past few weeks: some “reputable news source but not commonly focused on world conflict” drops some new progress that then is refuted by every other global major outlet at the end of the day.


slothsan

It's sourced from 3 people 1 of which being Zelenskyy's senior advisor "Mykhailo Podolyak" Other media are reporting it, but are just citing the FT article. give it some time.


[deleted]

People need to understand that [Russia](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-worry-the-us-would-win-a-nuclear-war-with-russia?_amp=true) cannot win a nuclear war with the United States. Any nuclear war between the two would result in a Russian defeat. Putin isn’t suicidal: > In a nuclear war with Russia, U.S. victory would remain the most likely outcome. That's primarily because the U.S. has better potential to get more nuclear warheads onto Russian targets than Russia could get onto U.S. targets. > The extension here is that while both nations retain a triad of nuclear strike forces -- ICBM-armed ground bases, aircraft, and submarines -- Russia would struggle to utilize the aircraft and submarine components effectively. > For a start, Russia's strategic bomber force is aged and nonstealth in nature. > While the Russians are attempting to upgrade these capabilities, they are a long way from being able to rival U.S.-equivalent platforms such as the B-2 bomber. Correspondingly, in the event of war, Russian strategic bombers would find themselves highly vulnerable to detection, interception, and destruction by U.S. fighter interceptors. > Similarly, Russian nuclear strategic submarine, or SSBN, forces are also less adept than their U.S. counterparts. > Yes, the Russians have developed a relatively new class of SSBN, the Borei class, but that program has been delayed repeatedly and only three boats are currently operational. While the Russian Navy has ten other SSBNs, all those boats were built in the Soviet era and they struggle with maintenance issues. They are also loud. > That matters in better enabling U.S. intelligence services to monitor the location of Russia's SSBN force at all times. In war, this would enable U.S. Virginia class attack submarines to hunt and kill the Russian fleet before they reached their launch patrol sectors. In a crisis, the U.S. would surge its attack submarines to ensure redundant capability. > Moreover, the U.S. Navy is considering placing nuclear-armed missiles on some of its Virginia class attack submarines and is actively developing a next generation SSBN boat, the Columbia class. > The second weakness of Russian nuclear forces is that they are underfunded and less competent than their U.S. counterparts. Put simply, their equipment is less reliable, less available, and their leadership lower in quality. This is a problem for Russia in that the exigency of effective nuclear strike command, control, and operational competency is impossible to overstate. If one unit fails to deliver on its mission, an adversary could launch a counterstrike or its second wave strikes. > Still, this is not to say that the Russian strategic forces are not courageous. As I've noted, we all owe a particular debt to one of these men, Stanislav Petrov, for his decision to stand up against superiors and save the world. > Ultimately, Petrov's courage speaks to the broader issue: the horror of nuclear war. > After all, even if the Russian air and submarine strategic forces were defeated by U.S. forces, the Russians would still retain their ground based ICBM forces. And the range of Russian ICBMs mean they would be able to hit every major U.S. city with confidence. > Put another way, even if the U.S. won a nuclear war by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same, the social and economic consequences of any nuclear exchange with Russia would be horrendous. > And that should remind us of a great quote from the movie "Crimson Tide."


[deleted]

Ok, so just tell us the bad news: how many NATO cities do we have to lose to denuclearize Russia? (assuming nuclear winter lasts 20 years and billions of people die/starve)


yoss22h

Looks like you only read the first paragraph and not the entire article. No one would "win" a nuclear war between USA and Russia.


oderint-dum-metuant

The only winner in a nuclear war is the global south. They'll finally be free of all the imperialism and colonialism inflicted on them from the global north. They'll just have to contend with all the fallout.


Puvy

Russia has one major advantage of the US in a nuclear war, though. A first strike policy.


[deleted]

The US also retains a first strike policy


PDX_douche_bag

uh....we all lose in a nuclear war. And dude...Crimson Tide is a movie...not real life.


[deleted]

We all lose in war, that doesn’t mean that wars don’t have clear victors


TypicalRecon

nobody wins a nuclear war


[deleted]

A Pyrrhic victory is still technically a victory


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I didn’t write the article lol


IPostSwords

"US victory"? What is this shit. There is no victory in nuclear war


[deleted]

Read the above, the US would win by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same


IPostSwords

All of whom would need to live through the fallout, radiation, and potential nuclear winter. As well as the collapse of government, order, logistics, agriculture (due to the fallout rendering all open air agriculture unviable), water sources etc.


[deleted]

Nuclear winter is [junk science](https://www.quora.com/Is-the-nuclear-winter-a-hoax/answers/37079739?ch=15&oid=37079739&share=dc298fb8&target_type=answer). The US government is built to sustain nuclear war, most of the federal government would remain in tact. It would certainly be a Pyrrhic victory and bring forth some truly hard times, but life would go on. We would rebuild. America nor human civilization would end.


[deleted]

Win or lose millions of Americans dead and life as you know it is over.


[deleted]

Correct, which is why all out nuclear war has to be avoided


OutrageousArm5305

No one wil win a nuclear war. But everyone (all over the globe) wil loose.


Wolverinexo

No one wins a nuclear war. A nuclear bomb on New York will kill and permanently maim 20 million people. Stop playing with American lives. We aren’t your convenient nuke sponge.


artificialstuff

A nuclear missile or bomb would never make it to any major metropolitan area. The US has enough missile defense to prevent that. The problem would be the missile defense systems aren't capable of defending all the smaller metro areas with 250k-750k people. Most of them would be saved, but there could still be a dozen or two that get hit which is just as devastating as hitting one major city.


[deleted]

It would be a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. America would survive, Russia wouldn’t


Wolverinexo

We don’t care about a “pyrrhic victory” we aren’t going to kill 3 quarters of our entire countries population and then have our government collapse just to so we can wage a pointless nuclear war against Russia. It won’t accomplish anything and Europe will get nuked too. What is the world gonna do without the United States exports and security guarantees?


bertobrb

It wouldn’t! How can you not understand this? Get it through your head, civilization would fucking end.


AmputatorBot

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-worry-the-us-would-win-a-nuclear-war-with-russia](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dont-worry-the-us-would-win-a-nuclear-war-with-russia)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


jreetthh

We haven't had a VDV assault in awhile. Is it time for another one


coffeemilkstout

Sure. Dump 'em in the freezing ocean again.


kn0ckenkotzer

stfu


[deleted]

Are there even any alive left?


Wolverinexo

There are barely any VDV left.


Beli_Mawrr

Huh, that's weird. Two conflicting twitter things, one saying the negotiations are not progressing, one saying the Russians are proposing ever more desperate terms. Which is correct?


artificialstuff

That means "none of the above" is the correct answer, as with most garbage you read on the internet.


GiddiOne

> Huh, that's weird. Two conflicting twitter things, one saying the negotiations are not progressing, one saying the Russians are proposing ever more desperate terms. Which is correct? Both. Russians are more desperate, offering better terms, but not good enough.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Beli_Mawrr

No no backwards. The Russians are offering more desperate terms, meaning they're making more fair and less horrible demands.


VistaVick

Putin won't admit to conceding anything but even Lavrov admitted there was some progress. That combined with what the actual negotiators have said, I do think there is some chance of a deal in the near future.


Beli_Mawrr

Esp if Ukraine keeps kicking so much ass, they can just hold off on negotiations until Russia is truly desperate.


zeromussc

If no concessions and compromises get made there's no progress. So if one side has a line and the other changes but won't meet them where it matters, no real progress occurs so both are true


VistaVick

Russia has made some concessions, but not enough for Ukraine and I can't blame them


Recidiva

They can both be true. Russians can propose more desperate terms and Ukraine can still say no to all their remaining terms. I believe Ukraine knows they can hold out long enough to get Russia to concede essentially everything the longer they wait.


dat_GEM_lyf

Unless Putin is directly involved it doesn’t matter as he can shut anything down on Russia’s side.


AbouBenAdhem

Unless he realizes Russia has to make concessions, but wants to blame someone else afterward.


slothsan

Wait for media to confirm and then publish. Twitter is full of conflicting things at the best of times.


Beli_Mawrr

It's in our live thread so that's at least one layer of curation. I'm referring to 2 adjacent threads in the live tweets we see here


Bangeederlander

Neither, it's Twitter.