- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

USA - Russia talks

#21

@LeftCleverGlove said in #20:

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and captured Crimea.
Now they again invaded Ukraine in 2022

Yes.

And now USA is lying about it, because the Republicans support Russia.

@LeftCleverGlove said in #20: > Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and captured Crimea. > Now they again invaded Ukraine in 2022 Yes. And now USA is lying about it, because the Republicans support Russia.
#22

Trump is like the coward who hang round with the school bully, joining in instead of confronting.

Trump is like the coward who hang round with the school bully, joining in instead of confronting.
#23

This is all happening because Trump has styled himself a peacemaker.

His problem here is that the Russians are so thoroughly winning that nearly any kind of peace deal that they can come up with would be to their disadvantage.

The Ukrainians cannot be included in the negotiations because they are imprisoned largely by their own propaganda spun by guys like Zelenskyy - what would be the use of bringing these people to the table? They would turn it into a spectacle with Zelenskyy focusing on trying to improve morale by manufacturing soundbytes that would not be helpful.

This is also why they need new elections - elections could at least give us an idea of what the Ukrainians in the actual war zone want to some degree. But again, this would almost not matter -- the Russians can basically impose their will as they please, albeit slowly, and the only thing that could drastically shift the situation is another country entering the war.

This is all happening because Trump has styled himself a peacemaker. His problem here is that the Russians are so thoroughly winning that nearly any kind of peace deal that they can come up with would be to their disadvantage. The Ukrainians cannot be included in the negotiations because they are imprisoned largely by their own propaganda spun by guys like Zelenskyy - what would be the use of bringing these people to the table? They would turn it into a spectacle with Zelenskyy focusing on trying to improve morale by manufacturing soundbytes that would not be helpful. This is also why they need new elections - elections could at least give us an idea of what the Ukrainians in the actual war zone want to some degree. But again, this would almost not matter -- the Russians can basically impose their will as they please, albeit slowly, and the only thing that could drastically shift the situation is another country entering the war.
#24

@Decaffeinated said in #23:

This is all happening because Trump has styled himself a peacemaker.

His problem here is that the Russians are so thoroughly winning that nearly any kind of peace deal that they can come up with would be to their disadvantage.

This is just pro-Russian propaganda.
In 2024 Russia gained 4000 km2, in just 120 years they will occupy all of Ukraine. (As blitzkrieg goes that's not very impressive.) That is, if they can continue the war. Russian economy gets worse all the time. It is impossible for them to continue for a long war.

Ukraine still have forces in Kursk. If Russia can't expel them, how are they winning?

"Russia’s Artillery Advantage in the Ukraine War Is Slipping Away"
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/russias-artillery-advantage-in-the-ukraine-war-is-slipping-away/

No, if Ukraine is supported well enough Russia will fizzle away.

The Ukrainians cannot be included in the negotiations because they are imprisoned largely by their own propaganda spun by guys like Zelenskyy - what would be the use of bringing these people to the table? They would turn it into a spectacle with Zelenskyy focusing on trying to improve morale by manufacturing soundbytes that would not be helpful.

This is also why they need new elections - elections could at least give us an idea of what the Ukrainians in the actual war zone want to some degree. But again, this would almost not matter -- the Russians can basically impose their will as they please, albeit slowly, and the only thing that could drastically shift the situation is another country entering the war.

Ukraine will have elections if Russia withdraws and end the war. Why not suggest this? A peaceful Russia would mean:
No war.
No need to support Ukraine.
No battlefield losses for Russia or Ukraine.
No civilian losses due to Russian terror bombings.
The sanctions would end meaning better Russian economy.

If Ukraine wasn't included because their propaganda why was Russia included. Is their propaganda good enough?
If elections are important for negotiations why was Russia included? Their sham elections can't be good enough?

Why not have equal conditions? The reasons are just excuses to fool simpletons.

@Decaffeinated said in #23: > This is all happening because Trump has styled himself a peacemaker. > > His problem here is that the Russians are so thoroughly winning that nearly any kind of peace deal that they can come up with would be to their disadvantage. This is just pro-Russian propaganda. In 2024 Russia gained 4000 km2, in just 120 years they will occupy all of Ukraine. (As blitzkrieg goes that's not very impressive.) That is, if they can continue the war. Russian economy gets worse all the time. It is impossible for them to continue for a long war. Ukraine still have forces in Kursk. If Russia can't expel them, how are they winning? "Russia’s Artillery Advantage in the Ukraine War Is Slipping Away" https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/russias-artillery-advantage-in-the-ukraine-war-is-slipping-away/ No, if Ukraine is supported well enough Russia will fizzle away. > The Ukrainians cannot be included in the negotiations because they are imprisoned largely by their own propaganda spun by guys like Zelenskyy - what would be the use of bringing these people to the table? They would turn it into a spectacle with Zelenskyy focusing on trying to improve morale by manufacturing soundbytes that would not be helpful. > > This is also why they need new elections - elections could at least give us an idea of what the Ukrainians in the actual war zone want to some degree. But again, this would almost not matter -- the Russians can basically impose their will as they please, albeit slowly, and the only thing that could drastically shift the situation is another country entering the war. Ukraine will have elections if Russia withdraws and end the war. Why not suggest this? A peaceful Russia would mean: No war. No need to support Ukraine. No battlefield losses for Russia or Ukraine. No civilian losses due to Russian terror bombings. The sanctions would end meaning better Russian economy. If Ukraine wasn't included because their propaganda why was Russia included. Is their propaganda good enough? If elections are important for negotiations why was Russia included? Their sham elections can't be good enough? Why not have equal conditions? The reasons are just excuses to fool simpletons.
#25

Russia has wanted the Ukraine's wealth.

Now, it’s the USA that wants the Ukraine's wealth : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-officials-us-owning-half-ukraine-rare-earth-minerals-rcna192325

How much I sympathize with Ukraine!

Russia has wanted the Ukraine's wealth. Now, it’s the USA that wants the Ukraine's wealth : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-officials-us-owning-half-ukraine-rare-earth-minerals-rcna192325 How much I sympathize with Ukraine!
#26

Ukraine will never get their territory back. Not in Zelensky's lifetime. That ship has sailed.

They CAN save the next generation of young Ukranians lives by making a peace deal. Not doing so means another generation of Ukranian youth will be sacrificed.

They just have to accept that they have won and lost the same war. They have won by not being overrun and losing Kyiv.

They have lost because they could never actually win. It was always a war of survival, for them.

They have to make peace. They have survived, battered, diminished, but alive. They should rejoice.

Ukraine will never get their territory back. Not in Zelensky's lifetime. That ship has sailed. They CAN save the next generation of young Ukranians lives by making a peace deal. Not doing so means another generation of Ukranian youth will be sacrificed. They just have to accept that they have won and lost the same war. They have won by not being overrun and losing Kyiv. They have lost because they could never actually win. It was always a war of survival, for them. They have to make peace. They have survived, battered, diminished, but alive. They should rejoice.
#27

@hpgyre said in #26:

Ukraine will never get their territory back. Not in Zelensky's lifetime. That ship has sailed.

Why do you think you can judge that? You don't lknow anything. You haven't heard about stuff that everybody knows.

They CAN save the next generation of young Ukranians lives by making a peace deal. Not doing so means another generation of Ukranian youth will be sacrificed.

No, because Russia will attack again. Any peace will just be used for Russia to restock weapons and rearm. They want all of Ukraine.

What your ignorant about as usual is that they actually published maps 3 years ago of what they want of Ukraine which is like twice the land they're holding now already. To get "peace" Ukraine would have to hand over land with millions of Ukrainians living in it that Russia has never even been close to controlling.

They just have to accept that they have won and lost the same war. They have won by not being overrun and losing Kyiv.

No they do not, they can keep on fighting.

@hpgyre said in #26: > Ukraine will never get their territory back. Not in Zelensky's lifetime. That ship has sailed. Why do you think you can judge that? You don't lknow anything. You haven't heard about stuff that everybody knows. > > They CAN save the next generation of young Ukranians lives by making a peace deal. Not doing so means another generation of Ukranian youth will be sacrificed. No, because Russia will attack again. Any peace will just be used for Russia to restock weapons and rearm. They want all of Ukraine. What your ignorant about as usual is that they actually published maps 3 years ago of what they want of Ukraine which is like twice the land they're holding now already. To get "peace" Ukraine would have to hand over land with millions of Ukrainians living in it that Russia has never even been close to controlling. > They just have to accept that they have won and lost the same war. They have won by not being overrun and losing Kyiv. No they do not, they can keep on fighting.
#28

In Afghanistan-Russia War less than less than 15, 000 soldiers deaths.

How many 100, 000 in Urkain-Russia War?

We do not have the same definition of success.

In Afghanistan-Russia War less than less than 15, 000 soldiers deaths. How many 100, 000 in Urkain-Russia War? We do not have the same definition of success.
#29

@botliquor4547 said in #28:

In Afghanistan-Russia War less than less than 15, 000 soldiers deaths.

How many 100, 000 in Urkain-Russia War?

We do not have the same definition of success.

Russia lost like 850.000 men, so lost means "so damaged you cannot fight anymore".

We don't know how many of those are dead and how many got wounded and then healed up more or less intact, but probably they have many dead as Russia has terrible medic aid and often also just doesn't bother and leaves their wounded to die.

Ukraine it's like 45 000 dead soldiers, IDK wounded. Also IDK dead civilians, we don't even have numbes for dead civilians in the Russian controlled areas. It's a lot.

The reason Russia is loosing much more men is that for a long time Russia has played attack and they liked to just tell loads of people to run straight into machine gun positions which off course means a lot of casualties.

They seem sometimes to attack like to make the defense run out of bullets, the Russian attackeds sometimes being referred to as bullet sponges as they ate ordered to just run into the fire and die.

@botliquor4547 said in #28: > In Afghanistan-Russia War less than less than 15, 000 soldiers deaths. > > How many 100, 000 in Urkain-Russia War? > > We do not have the same definition of success. Russia lost like 850.000 men, so lost means "so damaged you cannot fight anymore". We don't know how many of those are dead and how many got wounded and then healed up more or less intact, but probably they have many dead as Russia has terrible medic aid and often also just doesn't bother and leaves their wounded to die. Ukraine it's like 45 000 dead soldiers, IDK wounded. Also IDK dead civilians, we don't even have numbes for dead civilians in the Russian controlled areas. It's a lot. The reason Russia is loosing much more men is that for a long time Russia has played attack and they liked to just tell loads of people to run straight into machine gun positions which off course means a lot of casualties. They seem sometimes to attack like to make the defense run out of bullets, the Russian attackeds sometimes being referred to as bullet sponges as they ate ordered to just run into the fire and die.
#30

@what_game_is_this said in #24:

This is just pro-Russian propaganda.
In 2024 Russia gained 4000 km2, in just 120 years they will occupy all of Ukraine. (As blitzkrieg goes that's not very impressive.) That is, if they can continue the war. Russian economy gets worse all the time. It is impossible for them to continue for a long war.

Ukraine still have forces in Kursk. If Russia can't expel them, how are they winning?

"Russia’s Artillery Advantage in the Ukraine War Is Slipping Away"
www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/russias-artillery-advantage-in-the-ukraine-war-is-slipping-away/

No, if Ukraine is supported well enough Russia will fizzle away.

Russian warfare is slow and methodical - they possess total air superiority and artillery superiority, have a 5-6x bigger pool of manpower, their own domestic defense industry, and they have all the time in the world. Since they are the attackers, moving aggressively will result in an inordinate amount of casualties, and the smartest way to fight the war is to methodically soften the objective right in front of them, and then move in and take it.

This is also reflected in certain battles like the famous Bakhmut -- the secondary goal of Bakhmut was to capture the land. The primary goal was to create as many Ukrainian casualties as possible, and thus the battle was drawn out, with Wagner's prison units slowly assaulting and even being used as bait to draw in more Ukrainians into what they thought would be a successful defense and ultimate victory.

Russia knows that the Ukrainians will run out of men exponentially sooner than them. They also know that Ukraine can't afford to rotate and rest soldiers much, and each passing day the situation becomes a little more difficult.

It would be irresponsible for them to fight in any other way than the one they are fighting in now.

The gambit of taking Kursk as some kind of bargaining chip was the very best option that Zelenskyy had. It made sense as a concept:

  • Trump could become President
  • Trump really could try to strongarm the Russians into a deal and threaten to intervene on a larger scale if the Russians don't accept a trade of Kursk for LPR/DPR, and the other oblasts would return to Ukraine.

It's a small chance, but it was literally the only conceivable scenario that they would be able to end the war on agreeable terms.

Ukraine will have elections if Russia withdraws and end the war. Why not suggest this? A peaceful Russia would mean:
No war.
No need to support Ukraine.
No battlefield losses for Russia or Ukraine.
No civilian losses due to Russian terror bombings.
The sanctions would end meaning better Russian economy.

If Ukraine wasn't included because their propaganda why was Russia included. Is their propaganda good enough?
If elections are important for negotiations why was Russia included? Their sham elections can't be good enough?

Why not have equal conditions? The reasons are just excuses to fool simpletons.

Why not have equal conditions? Is this a joke?

You don't lose a boxing match and then try to negotiate with the winner - "Give me half your winnings - you couldn't have won today unless I was here to lose to you..!"

The smartest move would have been avoiding the ousting of Yanukovych and letting the democratic process slowly play out.

The next smartest move would have been to adequately punish the aggressors in the Odessa guild hall incident and desperately try to hold Ukraine together by appeasing Russian speakers and ethnic Russians, doing everything possible to avoid armed conflict in 2014-2015...

And then there was the chance to abide by the Minsk II protocols and to be dead serious in negotiating a resolution to the LPR/DPR...

In retrospect, it would have been preferable to allow them to breakaway. Yes, a total loss of land and territorial integirty of Ukraine, but without hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed...

But someone had a little CIA/MI5 bird whispering in their ear and thought they could rumble with Russia. Unless NATO pilots are going to be flying over Ukraine 24/7 and the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is going to be deployed to the Black Sea, this is a completely insane proposition...

But Zelenskyy and his inner circle took it.

The results speak for themselves.

@what_game_is_this said in #24: > This is just pro-Russian propaganda. > In 2024 Russia gained 4000 km2, in just 120 years they will occupy all of Ukraine. (As blitzkrieg goes that's not very impressive.) That is, if they can continue the war. Russian economy gets worse all the time. It is impossible for them to continue for a long war. > > Ukraine still have forces in Kursk. If Russia can't expel them, how are they winning? > > "Russia’s Artillery Advantage in the Ukraine War Is Slipping Away" > www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/russias-artillery-advantage-in-the-ukraine-war-is-slipping-away/ > > No, if Ukraine is supported well enough Russia will fizzle away. > Russian warfare is slow and methodical - they possess total air superiority and artillery superiority, have a 5-6x bigger pool of manpower, their own domestic defense industry, and they have all the time in the world. Since they are the attackers, moving aggressively will result in an inordinate amount of casualties, and the smartest way to fight the war is to methodically soften the objective right in front of them, and then move in and take it. This is also reflected in certain battles like the famous Bakhmut -- the secondary goal of Bakhmut was to capture the land. The primary goal was to create as many Ukrainian casualties as possible, and thus the battle was drawn out, with Wagner's prison units slowly assaulting and even being used as bait to draw in more Ukrainians into what they thought would be a successful defense and ultimate victory. Russia knows that the Ukrainians will run out of men exponentially sooner than them. They also know that Ukraine can't afford to rotate and rest soldiers much, and each passing day the situation becomes a little more difficult. It would be irresponsible for them to fight in any other way than the one they are fighting in now. The gambit of taking Kursk as some kind of bargaining chip was the very best option that Zelenskyy had. It made sense as a concept: - Trump could become President - Trump really could try to strongarm the Russians into a deal and threaten to intervene on a larger scale if the Russians don't accept a trade of Kursk for LPR/DPR, and the other oblasts would return to Ukraine. It's a small chance, but it was literally the only conceivable scenario that they would be able to end the war on agreeable terms. > > > Ukraine will have elections if Russia withdraws and end the war. Why not suggest this? A peaceful Russia would mean: > No war. > No need to support Ukraine. > No battlefield losses for Russia or Ukraine. > No civilian losses due to Russian terror bombings. > The sanctions would end meaning better Russian economy. > > If Ukraine wasn't included because their propaganda why was Russia included. Is their propaganda good enough? > If elections are important for negotiations why was Russia included? Their sham elections can't be good enough? > > Why not have equal conditions? The reasons are just excuses to fool simpletons. Why not have equal conditions? Is this a joke? You don't lose a boxing match and then try to negotiate with the winner - "Give me half your winnings - you couldn't have won today unless I was here to lose to you..!" The smartest move would have been avoiding the ousting of Yanukovych and letting the democratic process slowly play out. The next smartest move would have been to adequately punish the aggressors in the Odessa guild hall incident and desperately try to hold Ukraine together by appeasing Russian speakers and ethnic Russians, doing everything possible to avoid armed conflict in 2014-2015... And then there was the chance to abide by the Minsk II protocols and to be dead serious in negotiating a resolution to the LPR/DPR... In retrospect, it would have been preferable to allow them to breakaway. Yes, a total loss of land and territorial integirty of Ukraine, but without hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed... But someone had a little CIA/MI5 bird whispering in their ear and thought they could rumble with Russia. Unless NATO pilots are going to be flying over Ukraine 24/7 and the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is going to be deployed to the Black Sea, this is a completely insane proposition... But Zelenskyy and his inner circle took it. The results speak for themselves.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.