Ukrainian President Zelensky Says He's Open to Ceding Territory to Russia to End War

[para bellum]

I will also add, as I have mentioned previously, that the restrictions and qualifications imposed were always imposed by Biden.
The refusal to send weapons early in the invasion, and to strip them of their digital targeting systems.
The denial of tanks and self-propelled artillery.
The denial of tactical aircraft.
The disabling of ATACMS capability in the initial HIMARS launchers.
The promise and then the denial of capable drones to aid in artillery targeting.

All Biden decisions, not Congress.

 

[Zavulon]

Giving Putin a corridor to the Black Sea in exchange for guaranteed membership in NATO is worth it.

There will be no membership in NATO for Ukraine. Russia won't accept this proposal.

 

[Zavulon]

<IF> Putin buys it......~S~

It's a very, very big "IF". Actually, we can be sure that Russia won't buy it.

 

[Zavulon]

That's a joke. Putin waited for over a year after Biden took office to invade Ukraine.

Biden has been completely cowed from the start. He waited until after the Ukrainians pushed the Russians back from Kiev and Sumy, it took 6 months for Biden to send Ukraine any weapons to fight back. And when he finally did, they were monkey models- stripped of their precision targeting capability.

He first said "no tanks, that would be an act of war". Then he finally provided 31 tanks. He blocked the MiG-29's and F-16's for a year or more.

Offensive weapons provided by Biden- 31 M1A1 tanks, 39 M-142 HIMARS launchers, 18 M-109A6 Self propelled howitzers, a couple hundred towed howitzers M-777 and L-118. Whoopee, it only took almost 3 years for that...

Lots of truck and APC's and Humvees, and he trickled in ammunition to keep the Ukrainians shooting. But Biden is not, and never was committed to a Ukrainian victory. His strategy has been to let Ukraine bleed Russia, and that's all, no matter how many Ukrainians are killed in the process.

Your attempt to portray Biden and NATO as the "tough guys" is totally pathetic. Ukraine survived because her immediate neighbors, the former comblock eastern European countries, stepped up to the plate. Western European Countries and the US have consistently been the last to the party.

You can't win a war with nuclear superpower involving its vital interests by non-nuclear means.
Same way Mexico can't return to it's 1820 borders (even less "decolonise" Northern America), doesn't matter how many weapons or soldiers Russia, China and hypotetical Latinoamerican Union invested in it.
At a certain point the USA will use nukes against Mexico or against Russia and China themselves.

 

[Zavulon]

Not really. Putin wanted all of Ukraine. he was planning on using it as a stepping off point to bring the Iron Curtsin back down, and restore the Russian/Soviet empire.

Putin (or anyone else) doesn't need Ukraine "per se". What Russia needs - it is equal rights and equal safety for Russians (including those, who live in Baltic states). And safety for the Russian Federation means, among other things, returning NATO's military infrastructure back to 1997 borders.
So, no. After annexation of Ukraine, if there is no mutually acceptable agreement with NATO and the USA, Putin won't bring the Iron Curtain back. He will diplomatically push and eventually attack NATO countries (including the USA).

 

[para bellum]

You can't win a war with nuclear superpower involving its vital interests by non-nuclear means.
Same way Mexico can't return to it's 1820 borders (even less "decolonise" Northern America), doesn't matter how many weapons or soldiers Russia, China and hypotetical Latinoamerican Union invested in it.
At a certain point the USA will use nukes against Mexico or against Russia and China themselves.

If Russia wants to nuke Kursk, that's her business. No one will go to war over it.

 

[TimFitz]

I am not going to waste the time explaining reality to a TDS afflicted fool. There have been numerous bills on aid to Ukraine and every one of them has passed with broad bipartisan support, and every attempt to strip the bills for funding for Ukraine failed overwhelmingly.

The objections from republicans have been mostly related to accountability measures that republicans wanted, like an Inspector General to audit where the money went. These efforts were blocked by dems every time, were never permitted, and there is still no accountability for that money today. There were attempts to add some border security measures and things like that, which were always defeated.

This is a CRS report on funding for Ukraine through FY24. It lists the bills, amendments, and votes. If you take the time to read it, you will find that every funding bill for Ukraine has passed both houses of Congress with broad bipartisan support.

That is all the proof I need to back up my point, and I do not care about what some journo says "Trump said this or Trump said that", or how you interpret it. I am not interested in your feelz. I am interested in the facts, and this report is the facts.

Pay particular attention to the amendments that are specific to Ukraine, since the broad spending bills like the NDAA's are NOT Ukraine specific. The amendments that attempt to block Ukraine funding show the real levels of support vis-a-vis Ukraine, viewed in isolation.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48195

You’re just going to repeat your false claim.

It is true that Ukraine aid passed with broad bI partisan support.

Support from Republicans who spent months trying to keep the same aid from even coming up for a vote.

Your report offers no evidence to support your claim. It only notes when legislation is passed, not the legislative history or how long any of these measures were delayed.

On the other hand:

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/world-is-watching-say-senators-as-republicans-oppose-to-ukraine-aid-124021200010_1.html

Zelensky Doesn’t Convince Republicans on Ukraine Aid During Visit

"I told President Zelensky, 'Here’s the problem: It’s got nothing to do with you.'"

time.com

Opposition to Ukraine Aid Becomes a Litmus Test for the Right (Published 2023)

The drama that has played out among House Republicans over the past week has highlighted a sharp decline in the party’s willingness to back continued aid for Kyiv’s fight against Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Full List of Republicans Who Have Always Voted Against Ukraine Aid

Dozens of congressional Republicans have repeatedly voted against funding for Ukrainian assistance.

www.newsweek.com

Republican opposition to aid for Ukraine keeps growing

Last year, the House GOP’s so-called “Putin wing” was fairly small. This week's votes on ending U.S. military aid to Ukraine suggest the faction has grown.

www.msnbc.com

House Republican opposition to Ukraine aid grows, threatening funds as war rages

Despite broad bipartisan support in the House and the Senate in favor of funding Ukraine, the opposition among GOP hard-liners could derail a Biden administration priority.

www.nbcnews.com

Republicans Block Aid to Ukraine, Jeopardizing Its Fight Against Russia (Published 2023)

The vote spotlighted waning support in Congress for backing Ukraine in the war, and left the fate of the effort uncertain.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TimFitz]

Putin (or anyone else) doesn't need Ukraine "per se". What Russia needs - it is equal rights and equal safety for Russians (including those, who live in Baltic states). And safety for the Russian Federation means, among other things, returning NATO's military infrastructure back to 1997 borders.
So, no. After annexation of Ukraine, if there is no mutually acceptable agreement with NATO and the USA, Putin won't bring the Iron Curtain back. He will diplomatically push and eventually attack NATO countries (including the USA).

Yes, Russians ever since Stalin have been using the same excuses for their territorial claims.

Your last sentence is typically disingenuous. He won’t bring the Iron Curtain back down. he’ll just bully and threaten Eastern Europe back behind it.

as for 2997, that ship sailed long ago.

No one forced any of the old Warsaw pact countries to join NATO or the EU. They wanted to.

No one wanted to renew the Warsaw Pact either.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

nothing to do with the thread topic you silly spammer. Go pound your Koran somewhere else.

This thread is nothing to do with Islam you silly spammer.

 

[Hollie]

You’re just going to repeat your false claim.

It is true that Ukraine aid passed with broad bI partisan support.

Support from Republicans who spent months trying to keep the same aid from even coming up for a vote.

Your report offers no evidence to support your claim. It only notes when legislation is passed, not the legislative history or how long any of these measures were delayed.

On the other hand:

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/world-is-watching-say-senators-as-republicans-oppose-to-ukraine-aid-124021200010_1.html

Zelensky Doesn’t Convince Republicans on Ukraine Aid During Visit

"I told President Zelensky, 'Here’s the problem: It’s got nothing to do with you.'"

time.com

Opposition to Ukraine Aid Becomes a Litmus Test for the Right (Published 2023)

The drama that has played out among House Republicans over the past week has highlighted a sharp decline in the party’s willingness to back continued aid for Kyiv’s fight against Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Full List of Republicans Who Have Always Voted Against Ukraine Aid

Dozens of congressional Republicans have repeatedly voted against funding for Ukrainian assistance.

www.newsweek.com

Republican opposition to aid for Ukraine keeps growing

Last year, the House GOP’s so-called “Putin wing” was fairly small. This week's votes on ending U.S. military aid to Ukraine suggest the faction has grown.

www.msnbc.com

House Republican opposition to Ukraine aid grows, threatening funds as war rages

Despite broad bipartisan support in the House and the Senate in favor of funding Ukraine, the opposition among GOP hard-liners could derail a Biden administration priority.

www.nbcnews.com

Republicans Block Aid to Ukraine, Jeopardizing Its Fight Against Russia (Published 2023)

The vote spotlighted waning support in Congress for backing Ukraine in the war, and left the fate of the effort uncertain.

www.nytimes.com

Lots of cutting and ousting from predictably leftist tabloids.

There are many good reasons not to blindly shower a comedian with endless boatloads of taxpayer cash and taxpayer funded weapons without oversight.

 

[TimFitz]

If Russia wants to nuke Kursk, that's her business. No one will go to war over it.

You do understand that Kursk is a Russian city. For a poster who parrots the Moscow line regularly, your command of your own geography seems to be lacking.

 

[Hollie]

This thread is nothing to do with Islam you silly spammer.

That's why you were told to pound your Koran elsewhere

 

[TimFitz]

Lots of cutting and ousting from predictably leftist tabloids.

There are many good reasons not to blindly shower a comedian with endless boatloads of taxpayer cash and taxpayer funded weapons without oversight.

Refute my post.

You can’t, and we both know it.

Facts don’t go away.

There are far more reasons to shower people fighting for their own freedom with support.

Post like your make that point strongly.

 

[Hollie]

Refute my post.

You can’t, and we both know it.

Facts don’t go away.

Facts don't away. That's why you were forced to retreat when confronted with the fact that US taxpayer money and weapons to the comedian are not attached to clear oversight.

 

[martybegan]

Putin of course started planning the invasion while his useful idiot was president. He thought his useful idiot would weaken the western alliances. Biden and our allies quickly proved him wrong.

And what's your bullshit excuse for Russia taking the Crimea under Obama in 2014?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's why you were told to pound your Koran elsewhere

So why bring up religion at all? I didn't. Oh and you can bleat all day, no fascist apologist tells me what to do.

 

[hadit]

Putin of course started planning the invasion while his useful idiot was president. He thought his useful idiot would weaken the western alliances. Biden and our allies quickly proved him wrong.

Putin of course did not invade Ukraine until the Peace President was out of office and he knew he could push around the replacement.

 

[hadit]

And what's your bullshit excuse for Russia taking the Crimea under Obama in 2014?

He knew TRUMP! would win in 2016 and would allow him to keep Crimea. Irrational TRUMP! hatred is retroactive.

 

[Foxfyre]

A bit of the "Trump effect'', I suspect. Shirley to enrage the left, our comedian friend must understand that he won't have his demands for boatloads of US taxpayer cash and military hardware as he did when he could make demands of Biden-Harris and the democrats who
would jump when the comedian commanded.

Ukrainian President Zelensky Says He's Open to Ceding Territory to Russia to End War

redstate.com

I doubt he will be asked to cede much if any. Maybe just enough, with consent by a vote of Ukrainians in that area, to allow Putin to save face. Or I'm pretty sure if the Ukraine joining NATO is off the table, that would be sufficient. The Ukraine keeps its territory and the reason for the invasion is eliminated. I would not be surprised if Trump was negotiating Option 2 with Putin, Zelensky and NATO members as we speak.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And what's your bullshit excuse for Russia taking the Crimea under Obama in 2014?

You need to do some research and stop willfully swallowing US propaganda. This is from The Guardian, May 2014, as it says the US has been seeking war all along:

Read the full report:

In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia | John Pilger

John Pilger: Washington's role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regime's neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world

www.theguardian.com