Istanbul 2022 and a time machine

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
160,054
Reaction score
86,479
Points
2,645
In retrospect, should Zelenskyy have tossed Boris Johnson out of his office when ordered to make war instead of peace?

"In early 2022, high-stakes peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul, Turkey, resulting in a draft agreement known as the Istanbul Communiqué. While the agreement aimed to end hostilities, its terms included provisions like Ukrainian neutrality, limits on its military, and other concessions that were widely criticized as being detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty, with some analyses describing it as a blueprint for capitulation.
  • Neutrality: The draft proposed that Ukraine would abandon its NATO membership aspirations and become a neutral country, in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and other countries.
  • Military limitations: The agreement included strict limits on the size and capabilities of Ukraine's armed forces, with one version reportedly capping personnel at 600,000, according to CSIS analysis.
  • Security guarantees: The proposed plan included security guarantees for Ukraine, though these were seen by some as weak and insufficient to deter future Russian aggression.
  • Language provisions: The Istanbul draft also reportedly required making Russian an official language in Ukraine, according to the CSIS analysis.
  • Critique: The draft was met with alarm from Ukrainian and some Western officials, who viewed its terms as a form of unilateral disarmament for Ukraine, according to CNN and The New York Times.
Col MacGregor was provided estimates that Ukraine has suffered at least 1.8MM KIA and an equal amount wounded.

Should Ukraine have accepted Russia's Don't join NATO and we'll leave peacefully" offer?
 
In retrospect, should Zelenskyy have tossed Boris Johnson out of his office when ordered to make war instead of peace?

"In early 2022, high-stakes peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul, Turkey, resulting in a draft agreement known as the Istanbul Communiqué. While the agreement aimed to end hostilities, its terms included provisions like Ukrainian neutrality, limits on its military, and other concessions that were widely criticized as being detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty, with some analyses describing it as a blueprint for capitulation.
  • Neutrality: The draft proposed that Ukraine would abandon its NATO membership aspirations and become a neutral country, in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and other countries.
  • Military limitations: The agreement included strict limits on the size and capabilities of Ukraine's armed forces, with one version reportedly capping personnel at 600,000, according to CSIS analysis.
  • Security guarantees: The proposed plan included security guarantees for Ukraine, though these were seen by some as weak and insufficient to deter future Russian aggression.
  • Language provisions: The Istanbul draft also reportedly required making Russian an official language in Ukraine, according to the CSIS analysis.
  • Critique: The draft was met with alarm from Ukrainian and some Western officials, who viewed its terms as a form of unilateral disarmament for Ukraine, according to CNN and The New York Times.
Col MacGregor was provided estimates that Ukraine has suffered at least 1.8MM KIA and an equal amount wounded.

Should Ukraine have accepted Russia's Don't join NATO and we'll leave peacefully" offer?
I pleaded for peace early on.

Those who profit from war will face judgement one day. I pray my spirit doesn't end up in the same place when I am gone.
 
Col MacGregor
nobody cares, 🇷🇺he (much like 🇷🇺you) works for American 🇷🇺 RT department

our hero about your fav Mongol ulus :
slide_2.webp
 
Recent strikes on tankers in Turkish waters may turn out not to be an isolated incident, but the beginning of a new phase of confrontation at sea.

What Russia may do, while carefully avoiding inflaming an international scandal or calling a UN Security Council meeting.I
f attacks on Russian commercial vessels continue, Moscow will most likely reconsider its approach to naval warfare.

And yes, we all understand that the ship is Russian, and that the people on board are not citizens of Gambia, and that they are not carrying coffee.

Theoretically, the Russian Federation can strike civilian ships heading to Ukrainian ports.
But not only that. Moscow can shut down Ukrainian shipping entirely.
And it can actually do this quite easily.

But then, if both sides expand the zone of hostilities and begin operating in neutral waters, this will lead to a sharp increase in insurance costs, companies refusing to enter disputed areas, and the actual halt of commercial voyages.

Then trade in the Black Sea will stop altogether. And that means a drop in imports, rising fuel prices, and disruptions in logistics.

Kyiv is deliberately escalating at sea, and doing so with Europe’s approval. And that means the growth in the number of USVs attacks is almost inevitable.

Well, at the current pace, by the end of the year the Black Sea may become one of the most unstable regions in the world, where any civilian vessel risks being sunk.

Only then will the “civilized community” take notice. But it will be a bit too late, because the genie will have been let out of the bottle, and finding who sank the next yacht or fishing boat will become impossible.

Very fascinating. I root for both sides
But for some reason it seems to me that once deprived of the ability to export agricultural goods, Kyiv will be the first to start talking about a “new Holodomor caused by Russia.”
We wait.
 
Recent strikes on tankers in Turkish waters may turn out not to be an isolated incident, but the beginning of a new phase of confrontation at sea.

What Russia may do, while carefully avoiding inflaming an international scandal or calling a UN Security Council meeting.I
f attacks on Russian commercial vessels continue, Moscow will most likely reconsider its approach to naval warfare.

And yes, we all understand that the ship is Russian, and that the people on board are not citizens of Gambia, and that they are not carrying coffee.

Theoretically, the Russian Federation can strike civilian ships heading to Ukrainian ports.
But not only that. Moscow can shut down Ukrainian shipping entirely.
And it can actually do this quite easily.

But then, if both sides expand the zone of hostilities and begin operating in neutral waters, this will lead to a sharp increase in insurance costs, companies refusing to enter disputed areas, and the actual halt of commercial voyages.

Then trade in the Black Sea will stop altogether. And that means a drop in imports, rising fuel prices, and disruptions in logistics.

Kyiv is deliberately escalating at sea, and doing so with Europe’s approval. And that means the growth in the number of USVs attacks is almost inevitable.

Well, at the current pace, by the end of the year the Black Sea may become one of the most unstable regions in the world, where any civilian vessel risks being sunk.

Only then will the “civilized community” take notice. But it will be a bit too late, because the genie will have been let out of the bottle, and finding who sank the next yacht or fishing boat will become impossible.

Very fascinating. I root for both sides
But for some reason it seems to me that once deprived of the ability to export agricultural goods, Kyiv will be the first to start talking about a “new Holodomor caused by Russia.”
We wait.
Russia will take Odessa once and for all and end all further discussions and scenarios
 
In retrospect, should Zelenskyy have tossed Boris Johnson out of his office when ordered to make war instead of peace?

"In early 2022, high-stakes peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul, Turkey, resulting in a draft agreement known as the Istanbul Communiqué. While the agreement aimed to end hostilities, its terms included provisions like Ukrainian neutrality, limits on its military, and other concessions that were widely criticized as being detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty, with some analyses describing it as a blueprint for capitulation.
  • Neutrality: The draft proposed that Ukraine would abandon its NATO membership aspirations and become a neutral country, in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and other countries.
  • Military limitations: The agreement included strict limits on the size and capabilities of Ukraine's armed forces, with one version reportedly capping personnel at 600,000, according to CSIS analysis.
  • Security guarantees: The proposed plan included security guarantees for Ukraine, though these were seen by some as weak and insufficient to deter future Russian aggression.
  • Language provisions: The Istanbul draft also reportedly required making Russian an official language in Ukraine, according to the CSIS analysis.
  • Critique: The draft was met with alarm from Ukrainian and some Western officials, who viewed its terms as a form of unilateral disarmament for Ukraine, according to CNN and The New York Times.
Col MacGregor was provided estimates that Ukraine has suffered at least 1.8MM KIA and an equal amount wounded.

Should Ukraine have accepted Russia's Don't join NATO and we'll leave peacefully" offer?
There's an upside to this story, sort of. The EU on the brink of collapse and 1.8 mil of Bandera scum taught to behave post mortem. We lost our share too, but that "Slava to Ukraine" shit couldn't have been left unattended.
 
Back
Top Bottom