For Those Who Might Be Wondering Why We Might Be In Ukraine

[BabyBoomer50s]

We haven’t seen any real offer because Zelensky and Putin haven’t even agreed to meet. What we absolutely don’t want is some “Article Five-style” deal that drags U.S. ground troops into Ukraine, and neither does Russia. Trump’s goal is simple: get both sides to the table to talk about how to end the war. The problem is Zelensky doesn’t seem willing to stop if it means giving up any of the territory already lost, and Putin isn’t about to hand back land that cost him tens of thousands of soldiers. That leaves a brutal reality: this war may only end with a decisive victory or a crushing defeat, not a tidy compromise.

Trump has strongly stated “no US troops in Ukraine.” Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to make some territorial concessions, but he’s not going to cede to Russia’s demand for all of Donbas nor should he. Doing so would be suicidal.

I applaud Trump’s efforts to bring the parties together but in the aftermath of the Alaska meeting and WH meeting, Russia has made it very clear they are not interested in any realistic negotiations. They’re now even demanding to be part of an Ukraine security plan and don’t want to allow Ukraine to even maintain it’s own military! Barring some breakthrough before Labor Day, it will be time to crank up the heat on Russia.

 

[Rightguide]

I just pointed out what occurred at the Press conference.

He literally paused the conference to show off a photo that Putin sent him.

9 yr olds have better self control.

Please, tell us all how this is normal behavior.

Stop with the TDS. Trump has done more for peace world-wide than Biden or Obama.

 

[ll74]

Stop with the TDS. Trump has done more for peace world-wide than Biden or Obama.

Do you consider the President pausing a press conference about the world cup to show off a photo that Putin sent him to be normal behavior for our President?

Please - answer yes or no.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump has strongly stated “no US troops in Ukraine.” Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to make some territorial concessions, but he’s not going to cede to Russia’s demand for all of Donbas nor should he. Doing so would be suicidal.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think we'd do if there were a foreign military operation supported by the Mexican government going on in Mexico that was perceived to be a threat against our national security interests? Do you think we wouldn't put a stop to it militarily, or absent our ability to do so, wouldn't want to establish some sort of demilitarized zone between them and our people? It's unrealistic to think the Russians are going to accept NATO country forces on their border.

I applaud Trump’s efforts to bring the parties together but in the aftermath of the Alaska meeting and WH meeting, Russia has made it very clear they are not interested in any realistic negotiations. They’re now even demanding to be part of an Ukraine security plan and don’t want to allow Ukraine to even maintain it’s own military! Barring some breakthrough before Labor Day, it will be time to crank up the heat on Russia.

Trump’s only mission in Alaska was straightforward: to sound out Putin on whether there was any chance of sitting down with Zelensky to talk peace. He went into that meeting, by his own admission, with limited expectations. His purpose wasn’t grandstanding, it was to see if he could broker even the possibility of dialogue between the two sides. But we also have to recognize the brutal truth, every soldier killed on either side of this war stands in spirit as a witness against compromise. Every death hardens positions, making peace not just difficult, but almost unthinkable.

 

[ll74]

Lol

 

[Rightguide]

Do you consider the President pausing a press conference about the world cup to show off a photo that Putin sent him to be normal behavior for our President?

Please - answer yes or no.

No. It's Trump. What did you think when Joe Biden stopped in the middle of a conference or a public statement to wonder where he was?

 

[Rightguide]

Lol

^^^
Translation: You got me there.

 

[ll74]

^^^
Translation: You got me there.

Probably check your translator

 

[ll74]

No.

Thanks for your answer.

I also appreciate your additional deflection.

 

[Rightguide]

Thanks for your answer.

I also appreciate your additional deflection.

I didn't ask in the expectation that you would give me an answer.

 

[ll74]

I didn't ask in the expectation that you would give me an answer.

I asked you to answer.

Try and keep up.

You answered and then deflected to Biden.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think we'd do if there were a foreign military operation supported by the Mexican government going on in Mexico that was perceived to be a threat against our national security interests? Do you think we wouldn't put a stop to it militarily, or absent our ability to do so, wouldn't want to establish some sort of demilitarized zone between them and our people? It's unrealistic to think the Russians are going to accept NATO country forces on their border.

Trump’s only mission in Alaska was straightforward: to sound out Putin on whether there was any chance of sitting down with Zelensky to talk peace. He went into that meeting, by his own admission, with limited expectations. His purpose wasn’t grandstanding, it was to see if he could broker even the possibility of dialogue between the two sides. But we also have to recognize the brutal truth, every soldier killed on either side of this war stands in spirit as a witness against compromise. Every death hardens positions, making peace not just difficult, but almost unthinkable.

I understand that Putin wants to make Ukraine a Russian state. He basically wants to restore the Soviet Union. Ukraine wants to remain independent.

The hope has been that after 3.5 years, both sides would realize that they are engaged in a stalemate that is likely to continue indefinitely at a tremendous loss of life and economic damage and there would be motivation to negotiate a settlement.

Russia has not moved one iota from their original position. Thus, the war goes on. Greater economic pressure is a lever the west can press harder on and I suspect and hope that happens in the weeks ahead.

 

[Rightguide]

I understand that Putin wants to make Ukraine a Russian state. He basically wants to restore the Soviet Union. Ukraine wants to remain independent.

I hear people say this, but the reality says it will never happen. I haven't seen or heard Putin express a wish to reestablish the old Soviet Union. If you have a quote of him expressing that desire, I'd like to see it.

The hope has been that after 3.5 years, both sides would realize that they are engaged in a stalemate that is likely to continue indefinitely at a tremendous loss of life and economic damage and there would be motivation to negotiate a settlement.

I don't think it's a stalemate. They have four times the population of Ukraine. Look at their history. They have no qualms about the loss of millions to keep what they consider their national territory. It's not about what you or I think, it's about what they think. The citizens of both countries are descendants of a warrior class. Their histories are replete with the autocratic impulse for Alpha-type leadership. That's what we have to understand.

Russia has not moved one iota from their original position. Thus, the war goes on. Greater economic pressure is a lever the west can press harder on and I suspect and hope that happens in the weeks ahead.

We slapped Russia with “punishing sanctions” that were supposed to cripple Putin, but instead they kneecapped Germany’s economy and hammered our own allies who relied on Russian energy. Meanwhile, Moscow just rerouted its oil to China, where it gets refined into fuel and petroleum products, only to be sold right back into the global market at a markup. The only thing we’ve punished is ourselves.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I hear people say this, but the reality says it will never happen. I haven't seen or heard Putin express a wish to reestablish the old Soviet Union. If you have a quote of him expressing that desire, I'd like to see it.

I don't think it's a stalemate. They have four times the population of Ukraine. Look at their history. They have no qualms about the loss of millions to keep what they consider their national territory. It's not about what you or I think, it's about what they think. The citizens of both countries are descendants of a warrior class. Their histories are replete with the autocratic impulse for Alpha-type leadership. That's what we have to understand.

We slapped Russia with “punishing sanctions” that were supposed to cripple Putin, but instead they kneecapped Germany’s economy and hammered our own allies who relied on Russian energy. Meanwhile, Moscow just rerouted its oil to China, where it gets refined into fuel and petroleum products, only to be sold right back into the global market at a markup. The only thing we’ve punished is ourselves.

Sounds like we’re in agreement on some points:

- Russia is demanding full control of Donbas, including parts that it doesn’t currently control and happens to be the nerve center of Ukrainian military and industrial capacity

- Russia is demanding to be a part of the group of countries that guarantee Ukraine’s security against a future Russian attack (that came out yesterday or today)

- Russia want to ban Ukraine from having its own military

- Russia wants to prohibit western troops in Ukraine

- Neither side is on the cusp of victory anytime soon

- Ukraine will continue to have access to western military equipment and intelligence

- Trump & Europe are not divided like Russia had hoped. They are cooperating with each other

- Trump has signaled a willingness to support greater offensive capabilities for Ukraine

Will tougher economic sanctions have an effect? Maybe. Maybe not. I agree with your point that they have been inadequate to date. I believe tightening the screws is still worth doing.

The Alaska meeting was productive in that we have learned more about what Russia wants and its strategy. And that’s why I don’t hold out much hope for a negotiated settlement anytime soon.

Question for you: In any kind of settlement, both sides have to give some things up. We have a strong sense that Ukraine is willing to give up some land. What is Russia willing to concede?

 

[Rightguide]

Sounds like we’re in agreement on some points:

- Russia is demanding full control of Donbas, including parts that it doesn’t currently control and happens to be the nerve center of Ukrainian military and industrial capacity

- Russia is demanding to be a part of the group of countries that guarantee Ukraine’s security against a future Russian attack (that came out yesterday or today)

- Russia want to ban Ukraine from having its own military

- Russia wants to prohibit western troops in Ukraine

- Neither side is on the cusp of victory anytime soon

- Ukraine will continue to have access to western military equipment and intelligence

- Trump & Europe are not divided like Russia had hoped. They are cooperating with each other

- Trump has signaled a willingness to support greater offensive capabilities for Ukraine

Will tougher economic sanctions have an effect? Maybe. Maybe not. I agree with your point that they have been inadequate to date. I believe tightening the screws is still worth doing.

The Alaska meeting was productive in that we have learned more about what Russia wants and its strategy. And that’s why I don’t hold out much hope for a negotiated settlement anytime soon.

Question for you: In any kind of settlement, both sides have to give some things up. We have a strong sense that Ukraine is willing to give up some land. What is Russia willing to concede?

So far, I haven’t seen any verified or consistent demands from either side, only fragmented media reports that often turn out to be inaccurate. We’re reaching the point where most Western legacy outlets, as well as Ukrainian and Russian state media, have to be read primarily as instruments of wartime propaganda, each advancing its own strategic narrative rather than objective reporting.

Russia is unlikely to relinquish the Donbas, given both its predominantly Russian-speaking population and its symbolic role in the origins of the conflict following 2014. Putin has thus far refrained from crossing the Dnieper in force, indicating a preference for consolidating control over the Donbas and maintaining a buffer zone stretching through southern Ukraine to Kherson. Crimea will remain non-negotiable, while Odessa represents a potential target if Moscow seeks to secure full dominance over the Black Sea littoral.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I don't think it's a stalemate. They have four times the population of Ukraine. Look at their history. They have no qualms about the loss of millions to keep what they consider their national territory. It's not about what you or I think, it's about what they think. The citizens of both countries are descendants of a warrior class. Their histories are replete with the autocratic impulse for Alpha-type leadership. That's what we have to understand.

I agree there - except I think Ukraine will take down Russia and the Russian Federation. Ukraine has no qualms now abojut killing millions of Russians.

And the Cossacks were THE warriors of the old Tsarist Empire AND the Red Army. They were quite happy killing Russian peasents for the Tzars and they're quite happy killing them now for Ukraine. JUst listen to their Army anthem.....

Song's don't win wars but they say a lot about the psyche of the soldiers fighting them....here's a few, and they speak to Ukraine - all of these are or have been really popular inside Ukraine

"March of the New Army" - an old Ukrainian nationalist song that is now the Army anthem

Or this one - ""Army's with its people!"

Or this one - the Holodomor had more or less been left in the past but after this war, Ukrainians have a real hate on For Rissans

And you don't even need to undertand the lyrics to get this one....

Same for this one.....

The Sword of Arey

A thunder rumbles in God's forge.
Warriors with shoulder- long hair are waiting.
The hand of gray-haired Svaroh
Smiths a strong sword for Arei.

Now the weapon is ready,
It reflects in the shine of sky.
God Mother blessed it.
And people named it Charkes.

Arei's hand lifts the sword
For the glory of Perun warriors,
For strong spirit, for our defense.
He will kill evil foes!
The Earth shakes because of the Thunder in the Sky,
The sword of Arei brings a freedom for Rus- Ukrraine
Foes will be vanished in Ukraine.
The sword of Arei will bring our land back!

Charkes is the magic sword of Arei,
It has been held by Tur and Sviatoslav.
It has bravely defended
Rus-Ukraine and Borea.

Hatylo, the given by God, has held it,
And great dukes have held it.
The sword was a weapon of knights and hetmans,
And now it's in your hand!

Arei's hand lifts the sword
For the glory of Perun warriors,
For strong spirit, for our defense.
He will kill evil foes!
The Earth shakes because of the Thunder in the Sky,
The sword of Arei brings a freedom for Rus- Ukraine
Foes will be vanished in Ukraine.
The sword of Arei will bring our land back!

 

[ChloeTzang]

I hear people say this, but the reality says it will never happen. I haven't seen or heard Putin express a wish to reestablish the old Soviet Union. If you have a quote of him expressing that desire, I'd like to see it.

There's plenty on this. If I have time this weekend I'll see what I can dig up. It's there

 

[Lazaran]

Trump has strongly stated

Barring some breakthrough before Labor Day, it will be time to crank up the heat on Russia.

BWAHAHAHA…HA.



BabyBoobs



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Baztrachian]

It's unrealistic to think the Russians are going to accept NATO country forces on their border.

That's why the Russians went to war against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania when they joined NATO.

Those wars were something to behold, weren't they?

 

[Baztrachian]

Putin has thus far refrained from crossing the Dnieper in force

Putin's forces can't cross the goddamned street right now without a Ukrainian drone flying up their ass. There is no way in hell they could pull off a massive amphibious operation across the Dnieper. In fact those fucking cvnts were forced to retreat across the Dnieper because they had to run away from the Ukrainians who were and are buttfucking them on a daily basis.

That cvnt Putin would be in fucking Paris if the prick thought he could pull it off so don't pretend he's showing any restraint when he fails to do something he can't do anyway.

 

[Baztrachian]

It is time to repost Russia's ultimatum to NATO from December 2021:

Draft

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

For the United States of America For the Russian Federation

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/23/treaty-between-united-states-america-russian/

 

[Rightguide]

It is time to repost Russia's ultimatum to NATO from December 2021:

Draft

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:

shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;

shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

For the United States of America For the Russian Federation

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/23/treaty-between-united-states-america-russian/

How relevant is the above today?

 

[Rightguide]

That's why the Russians went to war against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania when they joined NATO.

Those wars were something to behold, weren't they?

So, why don't we just send an army of European NATO troops into Ukraine, because nothing will happen?

 

[ll74]

So far, I haven’t seen any verified or consistent demands from either side, only fragmented media reports that often turn out to be inaccurate. We’re reaching the point where most Western legacy outlets, as well as Ukrainian and Russian state media, have to be read primarily as instruments of wartime propaganda, each advancing its own strategic narrative rather than objective reporting.

Russia is unlikely to relinquish the Donbas, given both its predominantly Russian-speaking population and its symbolic role in the origins of the conflict following 2014. Putin has thus far refrained from crossing the Dnieper in force, indicating a preference for consolidating control over the Donbas and maintaining a buffer zone stretching through southern Ukraine to Kherson. Crimea will remain non-negotiable, while Odessa represents a potential target if Moscow seeks to secure full dominance over the Black Sea littoral.

You haven't seen it because your eyes are closed. Russia doesn't occupy Donbas.

Ukraine is the country that chooses whether or not to surrender. They don't own Russia anything

 

[ChloeTzang]

Russia's 'Death Spiral' Accelerates as Elites Flee​

Moscow's elites loot billions as the army's discipline collapses from within. This is not just a battlefield crisis. It's a symptom of deep social decay, where contempt for veterans grows and soldiers desert.

This analysis reveals the stark signals of two nations on opposite paths. While Russia's society fractures under pressure, Ukraine shows profound resilience by honoring its veterans and already planning a future of post-war growth.

The Tale of Two Armies: Innovation vs. Incompetence
How Ukraine's Weaponry Is Crippling Russia's Economy
Russia's Military is Imploding from Within
The Kremlin's Desperate Search for Soldiers
The Exodus of Wealth: Elites Flee with Crypto
The Kremlin's Digital Crackdown: Controlling the People