What Putin Wants from the Ukraine Conflict

They were. And they were returned back to Russia.

NATO's support. Now were are de-arming and de-nazificating not only Ukraine, but NATO countries either. And it's going pretty good. Slowly, but effectively.

They were. And they were returned back to Russia.

Thanks for admitting your error.

Now were are de-arming and de-nazificating not only Ukraine,

Good old Russia, saving the world from imaginary Nazis.
Imagine how awful Stalin was that people thought Nazis were better.

And it's going pretty good. Slowly, but effectively.

Yeah, very effective.
Why don't you waste more time, money and people by taking 10 years?
 
Russia have been appeasing NATO, but not starting the war back in 1999.


I prefer to discuss disbanding NATO (and the new architecture of the worlds safety) after your military defeat.

Russia have been appeasing NATO, but not starting the war back in 1999.

With your failed economy and depleted military?

I prefer to discuss disbanding NATO (and the new architecture of the worlds safety) after your military defeat.

Dude, lay off the vodka, your poor liver is 3 times its normal size already.
 
In recent months, the discussion on whether the time has come to stop or at least freeze the war in Ukraine has visibly intensified. When contemplating various scenarios of how this could be done, pundits in both the United States and Europe focus on security guarantees and economic assistance that should be provided to Ukraine or on leverages the West could apply to persuade Kyiv to agree to an inescapably painful would-be agreement.
A lot less attention is paid to possible trade-offs that could be demanded from or negotiated with Moscow. It seems that Western diplomats and analysts, sensing the war fatigue in their respective societies, presume that a similar sentiment exists in Russia, or rather, in the Russian leadership.
To think so would be a mistake. The moment to assume that the Kremlin might be ready to seek a peace deal, if it has ever existed, has long since passed. At this point, Vladimir Putin looks confident that time is on his side. His calculus can, of course, still prove to be wrong, but for now, this is the basis for his decisions.
There are two fundamental sets of arguments that likely drive Putin’s thinking.
The first one is that Russia has preserved, and in some areas even increased, its capacity to wage war, including a war of attrition. In the autumn of 2023, Russian troops seized the initiative and currently are advancing. True, casualties are significant. But this is no novelty: this is how both the imperial and the Soviet armies fought for centuries.
Russia has maintained the necessary numbers of manpower, and Western economic sanctions have had a very limited impact on the Russian economy. Again, Russia’s resources are not endless, but for the time being, the Kremlin has enough money to finance the war, to pay salaries to soldiers or compensations to their families in case of a soldier’s death, and to make sure the defense industry will be able to function.
Russia’s budget deficit at war is smaller than that of many Western countries at peace.
Inside Russia, only a minority opposes the war. For the majority, it is extremely difficult to abandon their positive attitudes. It is worth reminding that 86 percent of Russian citizens welcomed the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Whereas support for the full-scale war against Ukraine has been lower, people are unwilling to accept the loss of the Crimean Peninsula. The “rally-around-the-flag” effect played a role in Putin’s reelection as president in March 2024.
Last but not least, Russia does not feel internationally isolated. It engages with the so-called “Global South,” with China playing the leading part in enabling Russia to continue the war. Countries like Iran and North Korea have become important suppliers of weapons, ammunition, and, in the latter case, also manpower.
The second line of argumentation is that Putin needs to achieve an unquestionable victory not only over Ukraine but, by extension, also over the West.

You put the wrong question into discussion.
What want Putin's masters in the conflict, this sounds a little bit better
 
They were. And they were returned back to Russia.

Thanks for admitting your error.
There were no any error. Ukraine didn't have any nukes in Ukraine because Ukrainian "government" could not control them. Those were Soviet nukes, controlled by Moscow.

Now were are de-arming and de-nazificating not only Ukraine,

Good old Russia, saving the world from imaginary Nazis.
Nazies aren't "imaginary". They are pretty real.
Imagine how awful Stalin was that people thought Nazis were better.
Not "people". Europeans. They are Nazies.

And it's going pretty good. Slowly, but effectively.

Yeah, very effective.
Why don't you waste more time, money and people by taking 10 years?
Why not? Say, reintegration of Alaska and California in Russia might take more than few generations.
 
Last edited:
There were no any error. Ukraine didn't have any nukes in Ukraine because Ukrainian "government" could not control them. Those were Soviet nukes, controlled by Moscow.


Nazies aren't "imaginary". They are pretty real.

Not "people". Europeans. They are Nazies.


Why not? Say, reintegration of Alaska and California in Russia might take more than few generations.

There were no any error. Ukraine didn't have any nukes in Ukraine because Ukrainian "government" could not control them. Those were Soviet nukes, controlled by Moscow.

Right. Nukes on Russia's border.

Nazies aren't "imaginary". They are pretty real.

Is Russia really worried about a few hundred "Nazis" in Ukraine? LOL!

Not "people".

Yes, people in Ukraine thought Nazis were better than Stalin.
 
There were no any error. Ukraine didn't have any nukes in Ukraine because Ukrainian "government" could not control them. Those were Soviet nukes, controlled by Moscow.

Right. Nukes on Russia's border.

Nazies aren't "imaginary". They are pretty real.

Is Russia really worried about a few hundred "Nazis" in Ukraine? LOL!

Not "people".

Yes, people in Ukraine thought Nazis were better than Stalin.
Who are you again? I mean what western shithole are you from? Germany? Gruppenfuhrer seemingly rhymes with your moniker.
 
{...
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ...
...}
Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe

There are multiple documents ensuring no eastern advancement of NATO.
But none are necessary.
Putting nukes on some's border is in itself an act of war, like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which we started by putting nukes in Turkey.
Link to them.
 
Not yet, as far as I know. And to not allow them we are fighting now.
That shows how ignorant and stupid you are. When Ukraine separated from the USSR, it was a nuclear power, controlling a significant portion of the USSR's nuclear weapons. Ukraine, the USSR and NATO brokered a deal to have Ukraine's nuclear arsenal destroyed in return for NATO, the USA and Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia broke that agreement as it always breaks agreements that hinder its expansionist policies. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes Putin would never have dared the first invasion, let alone the second one that attempted to conquer the entire country.
 
That shows how ignorant and stupid you are. When Ukraine separated from the USSR, it was a nuclear power, controlling a significant portion of the USSR's nuclear weapons. Ukraine, the USSR and NATO brokered a deal to have Ukraine's nuclear arsenal destroyed in return for NATO, the USA and Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia broke that agreement as it always breaks agreements that hinder its expansionist policies. If Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes Putin would never have dared the first invasion, let alone the second one that attempted to conquer the entire country.
1) Kiev didn't control even a single nuclear bomb in 91-92. Moscow did.
2) Kiev guaranteed equal rights for all groups (including Russians) and the neutral status of Ukraine. They violated this most important term under which their "independence" can be tolerated.
3) If Ukraine hadn't given up those nukes, its "independence" have been finished by Eltsin in 1992 (with total support of the USA, Britain and French). No one can be stupid enough to allow Ukrainians to have their nukes.
4) We do recognise territorial integrity of Ukraine. The question is that Crimea and Novorussia are not Ukraine anymore.
 
Kiev had the weapons and had the knowledge to bypass Moscow’s controls. Ukraine chose to give up nuclear security in favor of multi-laterally guaranteed security. Ukraine’s mistake was trusting Russia to keep its word. That is not a mistake Ukraine will make again.
 
1) Kiev didn't control even a single nuclear bomb in 91-92. Moscow did.
2) Kiev guaranteed equal rights for all groups (including Russians) and the neutral status of Ukraine. They violated this most important term under which their "independence" can be tolerated.
3) If Ukraine hadn't given up those nukes, its "independence" have been finished by Eltsin in 1992 (with total support of the USA, Britain and French). No one can be stupid enough to allow Ukrainians to have their nukes.
4) We do recognise territorial integrity of Ukraine. The question is that Crimea and Novorussia are not Ukraine anymore.
Crimea and Novorussia aren’t part of Ukraine any more BECAUSE YOU INVADED AND CONQUERED THEM.
 
Crimea and Novorussia aren’t part of Ukraine any more BECAUSE YOU INVADED AND CONQUERED THEM.
Yep. As well as Texas and California are not parts of Mexico anymore. And we invaded and conquered them (and we are going to take much more), because you were stupid enough to expand NATO eastward.
 
Kiev had the weapons and had the knowledge to bypass Moscow’s controls.
No, they hadn't.
Ukraine chose to give up nuclear security in favor of multi-laterally guaranteed security.
Sure. When all real nuclear states together ask you to do something (like give up non-your nukes) you'd better to do it.
Ukraine’s mistake was trusting Russia to keep its word. That is not a mistake Ukraine will make again.
Yep. Because there will be no more Ukraine any more, pretty soon.
 
Yep. As well as Texas and California are not parts of Mexico anymore. And we invaded and conquered them (and we are going to take much more), because you were stupid enough to expand NATO eastward.
You are appallingly ignorant. Neither Texas nor California was invaded OR conquered by the USA. Both revolted against Santa Ana's Mexican dictatorship, were independent republics and then elected to join the USA via a popular vote of the inhabitants INCLUDING the ex-Mexican citizens. The USA wasn't involved in the revolts at all.
 
You are appallingly ignorant. Neither Texas nor California was invaded OR conquered by the USA. Both revolted against Santa Ana's Mexican dictatorship, were independent republics and then elected to join the USA via a popular vote of the inhabitants INCLUDING the ex-Mexican citizens. The USA wasn't involved in the revolts at all.
Well, I don't give a damn actually, neither about Texas nor Mexico, but the Crimeans did just the same, yet you, I'm sure, denied them their right to join Russia and I take it you're not ignorant but on the contrary smart, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom