Ukrainian reports. The usual caveats apply.
Times story on Ukrainian armoured vehicle repairs.
Times story on Ukrainian armoured vehicle repairs.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
We finally got an answer on the Abrams. They aren't likely to be used before the Spring
"
"Ukraine still has not used Abrams tanks and is unlikely to do so before spring", - Business Insider The publication writes that this is due to the fact that it is difficult to use them profitably due to deteriorating weather and due to the Russian defensive lines.
"
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Lots of announcements and revelations today (yesterday?) in the interview by David Arakhamia (the head of Zelensky’s party, People’s Deputy). Among the revelations, the most interesting one (to me) was that the Russians left Kiev as a result of negotiations rather than anything else. Via Google translate.
In his opinion, the delegation coped with the priority tasks “8 points out of 10”, because the Russians nevertheless “left” (retreated from near Kiev - UP), and then everything turned into a purely military direction.
Arakhamia admitted that there was a moment when he believed in the possibility of encircling the capital.
That, if I recall correctly, was exactly what the Russians were saying when they withdrew troops from the area, as well as from Snake Island. And that, again, very strongly reflects on trustworthiness of the Ukrainian authorities (yes, trustworthiness of the Russian counterparts can be questioned as well, but this is just another episode that shows the Ukrainians cannot be trusted any more than the Russians and, in their case, actually via their own admittance). If anyone still remembers the chronological order of the events, Russians retreated from Kiev in what they called as a sign of goodwill or something like that, Ukrainians refused to negotiate shortly after, promises and deliveries of heavy equipment started rolling in from our side, “lightning counteroffensive” a couple months later, actual preparation by the Russians, etc -> here we are today, with revelations.
Another interesting revelation was that he believes that Russians would stop the invasion/war if Ukraine agreed to neutrality.
“They really hoped almost to the last that they would wait for us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. This was the biggest thing for them. They were ready to end the war if we took – like Finland once – neutrality and made commitments that we will not join NATO.
In fact, this was the key point. Everything else is cosmetic and political “seasoning” about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah blah blah.”
He also mentioned that there was no trust, of course.
Another thing he said was that it was Boris Johnson who advised to go to war rather than negotiate.
“Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all - and let’s just fight.”
In the same interview, he also said that there will be no elections of any kind next year in Ukraine. Another thing he mentioned was that any future agreements with Russia should be put up for referendum. Not sure how that would work though and that is what the politicians are for, making hard decisions that make sense (unlike making any negotiations literally illegal). Also, if they think that people can vote on such an issue, what makes them think they cannot vote for their parliamentarians, president, mayors, and so on? Not sure if there is logic in his statements. Sounds like someone is feeling a little cornered (the corner they got themselves into) and looking for solutions or, perhaps, simply another politician talking.
All quotes above were translated via Google translate from the following article:
www.pravda.com.ua
There is a link to the entire interview there as well.
Another interesting point from the Ukrainians. This time from Roman Kostenko, Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence.
We all know that we now have a problem with mobilization, one might say, a failure of mobilization. After the military commissars were replaced, mobilization began to fail. This is a situation that needs to be addressed quickly. Because if we don’t influence and change something, we will have very big problems.
Now, perhaps, the problems with mobilization are greater than the problems with ammunition. Therefore, now we need to influence this, do something.
Again, via Google translate from:
It appears that the internal disagreements in Ukraine within and between political and military circles are real and quite significant. Bloomberg, as well as others, still suggests that while Russians are sending “waves” of troops regardless of the losses, “Kyiv is reluctant to send many more soldiers to the front.” It now appears that the lack of troops to send to the front is a real and apparent problem. According to the last guy quoted above, the firing and replacing of all the corrupt “voenkoms”, as they call them, completely failed and backfired. He isn't the first one talking about it, by the way; talks about it have been going on for weeks in the Ukrainian media space - main point is that the new appointments simply have no idea what they are doing and some are being as corrupt as their predecessors.
The same Bloomberg article is also suggesting that, while still a minority, but a “growing minority of Ukrainians is coming around to the idea that territorial concessions to Russia might be an inevitable price for peace.” My question is if there is such a resistance to “territorial concessions”, why is there such a reluctance to enrolment and mobilization from the population?
The article also talks about what has been talked about for months as well and that is the fact that the EU is no where near to meet their promise of supplying Ukraine with 1M artillery shells by March, while Russians are expected to produce 2M next year, on top of over a million to be supplied by North Korea. Americans are producing about 28,000 155 mm shells per month (as of October) and are aiming to increase that number to 60,000 in 2024, 80,000 in 2025, and 100,000 in 2026 (source). It is likely safe to say that Russia is currently producing at least twice as many shells as the entire NATO does and, if the reports about North Korea are correct, will have at least triple the advantage in that department, which has been defined to be the most important part of this war. Here is what Pistorius said on the subject of the 155mm shell production:
Arriving at a meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels, Pistorius also questioned the wisdom of having set the target in March this year, with a 12-month deadline.
"I didn't promise 1 million rounds, and that was on purpose. The right question to be asked would be whether 1 million was ever a realistic goal," Pistorius told reporters.
"There were voices that warned: 'You better watch out, 1 million is easily said, the money is available, (but) the production must be there'. These warning voices have been proven right now, unfortunately," he said.
"It is safe to assume that the 1 million rounds will not be reached."
From
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/Y2ODD3APKJKPDBISX23JCANVA4.jpg)
www.reuters.com
And the aforementioned Bloomberg article:
www.bloomberg.com
Then there was an article in the Bild suggesting that Scholz and Biden are pushing Zelensky to realize on his own that it is time to negotiate. I am not posting link because I only read cliff notes in the Ukrainian outlet (in Ukrainian). Actually, here is the article on the subject in Kiev Independent:
kyivindependent.com
I am probably running out of space here in this post, so I will wrap it up. Overall, to me personally, it appears that the common sense starts to kick in a bit and the reality (even if grave) of the situation is slowly sinking in. A number of articles is now suggesting that the delivery of F-16’s is also going to be questionable in light of the election results in Netherlands, along with other help to Ukraine from the EU. Many are suggesting that this “very right’ trend is going to continue throughout Europe as well in years to come.
In his opinion, the delegation coped with the priority tasks “8 points out of 10”, because the Russians nevertheless “left” (retreated from near Kiev - UP), and then everything turned into a purely military direction.
Arakhamia admitted that there was a moment when he believed in the possibility of encircling the capital.
That, if I recall correctly, was exactly what the Russians were saying when they withdrew troops from the area, as well as from Snake Island. And that, again, very strongly reflects on trustworthiness of the Ukrainian authorities (yes, trustworthiness of the Russian counterparts can be questioned as well, but this is just another episode that shows the Ukrainians cannot be trusted any more than the Russians and, in their case, actually via their own admittance). If anyone still remembers the chronological order of the events, Russians retreated from Kiev in what they called as a sign of goodwill or something like that, Ukrainians refused to negotiate shortly after, promises and deliveries of heavy equipment started rolling in from our side, “lightning counteroffensive” a couple months later, actual preparation by the Russians, etc -> here we are today, with revelations.
Another interesting revelation was that he believes that Russians would stop the invasion/war if Ukraine agreed to neutrality.
“They really hoped almost to the last that they would wait for us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. This was the biggest thing for them. They were ready to end the war if we took – like Finland once – neutrality and made commitments that we will not join NATO.
In fact, this was the key point. Everything else is cosmetic and political “seasoning” about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah blah blah.”
He also mentioned that there was no trust, of course.
Another thing he said was that it was Boris Johnson who advised to go to war rather than negotiate.
“Moreover, when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all - and let’s just fight.”
In the same interview, he also said that there will be no elections of any kind next year in Ukraine. Another thing he mentioned was that any future agreements with Russia should be put up for referendum. Not sure how that would work though and that is what the politicians are for, making hard decisions that make sense (unlike making any negotiations literally illegal). Also, if they think that people can vote on such an issue, what makes them think they cannot vote for their parliamentarians, president, mayors, and so on? Not sure if there is logic in his statements. Sounds like someone is feeling a little cornered (the corner they got themselves into) and looking for solutions or, perhaps, simply another politician talking.
All quotes above were translated via Google translate from the following article:
Арахамия заявил, что россияне соблазняли Украину "миром" за нейтралитет
Лидер фракции "Слуга народа" Давид Арахамия, который возглавлял делегацию Украины на "мирных" переговорах с россиянами в Беларуси и Турции в 2022 году, рассказал, что российская делегация обещала Киеву мир за отказ от вступления в НАТО, но веры им не было.
There is a link to the entire interview there as well.
Another interesting point from the Ukrainians. This time from Roman Kostenko, Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence.
We all know that we now have a problem with mobilization, one might say, a failure of mobilization. After the military commissars were replaced, mobilization began to fail. This is a situation that needs to be addressed quickly. Because if we don’t influence and change something, we will have very big problems.
Now, perhaps, the problems with mobilization are greater than the problems with ammunition. Therefore, now we need to influence this, do something.
Again, via Google translate from:
«Потрібні непопулярні рішення». Після звільнення військкомів стався провал мобілізації. Що хочуть змінити — інтерв'ю NV з Костенком
Проблема мобілізації в Україні зараз стала більшою за проблему наявності снарядів у війська, каже Роман Костенко, секретар Комітету Верховної Ради з питань національної безпеки, оборони та розвідки.
nv.ua
It appears that the internal disagreements in Ukraine within and between political and military circles are real and quite significant. Bloomberg, as well as others, still suggests that while Russians are sending “waves” of troops regardless of the losses, “Kyiv is reluctant to send many more soldiers to the front.” It now appears that the lack of troops to send to the front is a real and apparent problem. According to the last guy quoted above, the firing and replacing of all the corrupt “voenkoms”, as they call them, completely failed and backfired. He isn't the first one talking about it, by the way; talks about it have been going on for weeks in the Ukrainian media space - main point is that the new appointments simply have no idea what they are doing and some are being as corrupt as their predecessors.
The same Bloomberg article is also suggesting that, while still a minority, but a “growing minority of Ukrainians is coming around to the idea that territorial concessions to Russia might be an inevitable price for peace.” My question is if there is such a resistance to “territorial concessions”, why is there such a reluctance to enrolment and mobilization from the population?
The article also talks about what has been talked about for months as well and that is the fact that the EU is no where near to meet their promise of supplying Ukraine with 1M artillery shells by March, while Russians are expected to produce 2M next year, on top of over a million to be supplied by North Korea. Americans are producing about 28,000 155 mm shells per month (as of October) and are aiming to increase that number to 60,000 in 2024, 80,000 in 2025, and 100,000 in 2026 (source). It is likely safe to say that Russia is currently producing at least twice as many shells as the entire NATO does and, if the reports about North Korea are correct, will have at least triple the advantage in that department, which has been defined to be the most important part of this war. Here is what Pistorius said on the subject of the 155mm shell production:
Arriving at a meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels, Pistorius also questioned the wisdom of having set the target in March this year, with a 12-month deadline.
"I didn't promise 1 million rounds, and that was on purpose. The right question to be asked would be whether 1 million was ever a realistic goal," Pistorius told reporters.
"There were voices that warned: 'You better watch out, 1 million is easily said, the money is available, (but) the production must be there'. These warning voices have been proven right now, unfortunately," he said.
"It is safe to assume that the 1 million rounds will not be reached."
From
EU to miss goal of 1 million shells for Ukraine - Germany's Pistorius
The European Union will miss its target of supplying Ukraine with 1 million artillery shells and missiles by next March, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said on Tuesday.
www.reuters.com
And the aforementioned Bloomberg article:
Ukraine’s Struggle for Arms and Attention Gives Putin an Opening
As the war in Gaza deepens, some in the US and EU are asking whether they can go on funding what Ukraine’s top general admits is a stalemate.
www.bloomberg.com
Then there was an article in the Bild suggesting that Scholz and Biden are pushing Zelensky to realize on his own that it is time to negotiate. I am not posting link because I only read cliff notes in the Ukrainian outlet (in Ukrainian). Actually, here is the article on the subject in Kiev Independent:
Bild: US, Germany allegedly seek to prod Ukraine to negotiate
The U.S. and Germany allegedly hope to nudge Ukraine to negotiate with Russia through carefully targeted scope of arms deliveries, the German tabloid Bild reported on Nov. 24, citing an anonymous government source.
kyivindependent.com
I am probably running out of space here in this post, so I will wrap it up. Overall, to me personally, it appears that the common sense starts to kick in a bit and the reality (even if grave) of the situation is slowly sinking in. A number of articles is now suggesting that the delivery of F-16’s is also going to be questionable in light of the election results in Netherlands, along with other help to Ukraine from the EU. Many are suggesting that this “very right’ trend is going to continue throughout Europe as well in years to come.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Ukraine offered that guarantee before the Russian invasion started - Moscow didn't care.
Perhaps Moscow might accept the offer now if it was made again, but stopping the war is vague. Would Russia still hold on to its conquests or withdraw to the de-facto border before the war started? There's not much of an incentive for Ukraine to guarantee neutrality and accept a loss of territory, unless its backers threaten to pull the plug.
The big problem with all of this is that the Russians started this war, & the one before this one, & seized Crimea . . . . . and all of that was contrary to promises (including written agreements) they'd previously made.
We know that Putin & his government cannot be trusted at all. Negotiations with them have no point unless they're from a position of strength. The Russians withdrew from Kiev after taking a beating, & massive logistical failures. It wasn't a sign of goodwill. They've not made any even vaguely realistic peace offers, or shown any sign of sincerity, since. Indeed, Putin's announced that territories that no Russian soldier has yet set foot in are forever parts of Russia.
Peace talks can't begin with someone who's said that your country has no legitimacy, your nationality doesn't exist, & claiming it does is proof that you're a Nazi who should be eliminated. How do you have meaningful negotiations over peace with someone who denies that you have any standing? First, Putin has to accept Ukraine's existence, & that there is such a thing as being Ukrainian.
Care should be taken to distinguish the Russian negotiation team from President Putin. The Russian negotiation team could be given a certain set of objectives and be told "if this objectives were met, there's no need for a military solution." It doesn't necessarily mean that President Putin actually intend to not start the war if the diplomatic objectives were met. After all, he believed that the special military operation will be a quick affair that would've costed little. There is no gain for Putin to tell the Russian diplomatic team to "this list of objectives is just for show". Rather, having his own people truly believing in the possibility for peace would make their Ukrainian counterpart more likely to believe that preventing the war was possible.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The other key point is Western resolve. Putin probably believes this resolve will evaporate. Putin can't be trusted anyway so for Ukraine it is soldier on or surrender depending on Western resolve.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Any negotiation team would be Putin minions. There seems to be no indication Putin wants a reasonable diplomatic solution and it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on any.
Is it really just President Putin when the Russian hardliners in parliament have passed laws recognising such seizing of Ukrainian land and unlawful by international laws the treatment of Ukrainian citizens ,The Russian public have by the media been indoctrinated to any accurate account of the happenings in Ukraine it would be extremely difficult to address to the public a new narrative
The issue is that you start with something clearly true and then descend into something completely untrue.
Trust is a matter of expectations and understanding the other side. And the lack of trust here goes both ways. Ukraine similarly negotiated in bad faith following the '14-'15 war.
This is a deeply problematic point of view. What if Ukraine never has a position of strength vis-a-vis Russia? What then? Fight until Ukraine runs out of bodies?
Of course. But this wasn't a result of negotiations either. It has no bearing on the question of negotiations. All it proves is that military defeats matter. But I don't think this needed proving.
Posturing as part of a bargaining position is normal. Realistic offers depend on many factors including the military reality on the ground. Remember Ukraine is suffering much more from this war then Russia. Prolonging it does permanent damage. So for which side is it more realistic to wait and see? Ukraine's population losses are catastrophic not from war deaths, thought those are also mounting, but from immigration. The longer the war goes on the fewer of them will come back and the more will continue to leave. Russia has experienced far less of this. So how much more population and time is Ukraine willing to use for the empty, mine-strewn steppes of Zaporozhye. Or is Ukraine realistically expecting to recaptured the Donbas?
Can you show me where Putin said those things? Not some vague re-interpretation. Those actual points. I've never come across them and again many Ukrainians live in Russia.
Pretty sure Russia has stated they're willing to negotiate with no preconditions. You could negotiate very easily by not demanding that Russia stop fighting and admit defeat despite being far from defeated as a precondition to being willing to discuss "realistic" peace offers. Many countries have negotiated with Russia in general and Putin specifically successfully. It requires a simple tit for tat approach. Given the realities on the ground, not the imaginary "legitimate situation" that Russia clearly doesn't care about, but the realities, what is Ukraine asking for and what is Ukraine willing to give for it? If the deal is "Ukraine will give you peace if you return all the territory" then obviously that's a non-starter. It's not even a close offer in terms of value especially when you consider Ukraine is suffering more from the war.
ImperatorOrbis
New Member
Here you go but you already knew this. Your stance and arguments have already been repeated countless times in this 450 page thread.
Last edited:
Now if only someone wasn't over him in English the entire time... The part he translates verbatim doesn't include the part you claim. The part where something to that effect was said was talked over. And considering the context of the part that we do get verbatim it's highly likely he's talking about a shared historic "Russian" identity that isn't national or ethnic but rather an umbrella under which people fall. Even I mentioned that in older texts you will find individuals and characters (depending on whether fiction or non-fiction) identifying as Russian even though they are clearly Ukrainian. This doesn't constitute their denial of being Ukrainian but rather a claim to a broader shared identity that doesn't supplant their ethnicity. When Putin talks about a Russian world he isn't inventing anything new, he's just trying to adapt history to suit his needs.
On a sidenote I did find the entire speech in Russian, but I'm not about to spend 2.5+ hours of my life listening to Putin. Let me know if you find the precise part or the actual quote and we can discuss. From where I sit I don't see anything where Putin is denying Ukraine exists or Ukrainian exist. I see him repeatedly using the phrase "Russians and Ukrainians are one people". Which is a carefully worded vague claim since the word he uses "people" ("народ") can refer to nationality ("национальность") or ethnicity ("этническя принадлежность") but doesn't have to and is a distinct term. He's intentionally avoiding the question of whether Ukrainians are a separate nationality or ethnicity because there are those in his target audience that hold the exact view you claim, but other who don't.
Larry_L
Active Member
Ukraine is on the way to getting their second Black Hawk helicopter. The first one they purchased from a private company in the US so it was more or less a civilian model. This unit is coming from the Czech Defense Ministry so is most likely a military model. The money is being provided through private donations in Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in the Present for Putin Campaign. So far $400,000 has been raised. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Ukraine is saying they are easy to fly, and they are ready for a fleet of American made helicopters.
www.ukrinform.net
www.thedrive.com
.
www.aviacionline.com
A Russian mother of 3 (Yekaterina Duntsova ) has announced that she is running for president. I don,t know if fair elections are possible in Russia, but from my perspective it is good to see this.
www.themoscowtimes.com
Russia has delivered the third batch of the Strike fighter SU-34M this year. The quantity was not known, but estimated at 2 or more per batch.
Ukraine may be getting more of the Tochka-U tactical ballistic missile systems. The report is that they will be transferred from Armenia. Also possible Osa-AK ADS. I had thought that Russia still had troops in Armenia so this would be a surprising move.
Russia, and Ukraine, have lately been trading drones back and forth. It looks like this winter the electric infrastructure in Moscow will be also under pressure.
mil.in.ua
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1728697391971229802?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
Ukrainian hackers covertly attended the Russian Railways online conference, and said hello after recording it. It may have been better operational security to not reveal themselves, but the have to have their laughs.
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1673769935334514689
Czechs, Slovaks raise EUR 400,000 for helicopter for Ukrainian intelligence
Over EUR 400,000 was raised in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as part of the Present for Putin campaign in just one week for the purchase of a Black Hawk helicopter for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR). — Ukrinform.
www.ukrinform.net
Our First Look At Ukraine's UH-60 Black Hawk In Action
Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence directorate says the Black Hawk is better than the old Soviet helicopters it uses, and it wants more.
www.thedrive.com
Ukraine begins requesting US helicopters such as the Black Hawk, Chinook and Apache
Having tested the capabilities of the UH-60 Black Hawk, Ukrainian commanders are satisfied and say they are ready to receive hundreds of U.S. helicopters of various types. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s General Intelligence Directorate [GUR] issued a press release to show its degree of progress in
www.aviacionline.com
A Russian mother of 3 (Yekaterina Duntsova ) has announced that she is running for president. I don,t know if fair elections are possible in Russia, but from my perspective it is good to see this.
Meet Putin’s Possible Election Opponent: A Single Mother of 3 Calling for Peace - The Moscow Times
President Vladimir Putin is yet to formally announce his plans to run for re-election next year, but he might already have an unlikely potential competitor in Yekaterina Duntsova, a journalist from the Tver region who announced her bid for the presidency last week. “Why did I make this decision?
www.themoscowtimes.com
Russia has delivered the third batch of the Strike fighter SU-34M this year. The quantity was not known, but estimated at 2 or more per batch.
Ukraine may be getting more of the Tochka-U tactical ballistic missile systems. The report is that they will be transferred from Armenia. Also possible Osa-AK ADS. I had thought that Russia still had troops in Armenia so this would be a surprising move.
Russia, and Ukraine, have lately been trading drones back and forth. It looks like this winter the electric infrastructure in Moscow will be also under pressure.
Blast Reported at Russian Tank Engine Facility, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-Uraltrak
On the territory of the Russian enterprise Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-Uraltrak there was a powerful explosion
mil.in.ua
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1728697391971229802?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
Ukrainian hackers covertly attended the Russian Railways online conference, and said hello after recording it. It may have been better operational security to not reveal themselves, but the have to have their laughs.
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1673769935334514689
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
It is very remarkable, almost unbelievable that Armenia will send their OTR-21 Tochkas to Ukraine. It is a member of the CIS and CSTO, so this is comparable to an EU/NATO country sell advanced weapon systems to Russia during this war. And Armenia is also one of the selected small amount of countries operating the Iskander-E. This can be regarded as a stab in the back by Russia if true.Ukraine is on the way to getting their second Black Hawk helicopter. The first one they purchased from a private company in the US so it was more or less a civilian model. This unit is coming from the Czech Defense Ministry so is most likely a military model. The money is being provided through private donations in Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in the Present for Putin Campaign. So far $400,000 has been raised. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Ukraine is saying they are easy to fly, and they are ready for a fleet of American made helicopters.
Czechs, Slovaks raise EUR 400,000 for helicopter for Ukrainian intelligence
Over EUR 400,000 was raised in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as part of the Present for Putin campaign in just one week for the purchase of a Black Hawk helicopter for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR). — Ukrinform.
.Our First Look At Ukraine's UH-60 Black Hawk In Action
Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence directorate says the Black Hawk is better than the old Soviet helicopters it uses, and it wants more.
Ukraine begins requesting US helicopters such as the Black Hawk, Chinook and Apache
Having tested the capabilities of the UH-60 Black Hawk, Ukrainian commanders are satisfied and say they are ready to receive hundreds of U.S. helicopters of various types. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s General Intelligence Directorate [GUR] issued a press release to show its degree of progress in
A Russian mother of 3 (Yekaterina Duntsova ) has announced that she is running for president. I don,t know if fair elections are possible in Russia, but from my perspective it is good to see this.
Meet Putin’s Possible Election Opponent: A Single Mother of 3 Calling for Peace - The Moscow Times
President Vladimir Putin is yet to formally announce his plans to run for re-election next year, but he might already have an unlikely potential competitor in Yekaterina Duntsova, a journalist from the Tver region who announced her bid for the presidency last week. “Why did I make this decision?
Russia has delivered the third batch of the Strike fighter SU-34M this year. The quantity was not known, but estimated at 2 or more per batch.
Ukraine may be getting more of the Tochka-U tactical ballistic missile systems. The report is that they will be transferred from Armenia. Also possible Osa-AK ADS. I had thought that Russia still had troops in Armenia so this would be a surprising move.
Russia, and Ukraine, have lately been trading drones back and forth. It looks like this winter the electric infrastructure in Moscow will be also under pressure.
Blast Reported at Russian Tank Engine Facility, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-Uraltrak
On the territory of the Russian enterprise Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-Uraltrak there was a powerful explosion
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1728697391971229802?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
Ukrainian hackers covertly attended the Russian Railways online conference, and said hello after recording it. It may have been better operational security to not reveal themselves, but the have to have their laughs.
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1673769935334514689
Unfortunately it's not unbelievable. Armenia is heading in a certain direction and Ukraine can make quick and good use of WarPac kit and not that many sources of it are left within reach. Armenia is also busy cozying up to the West. While it's unclear that this particular bit of news is true (it seems to be conflicted) it's certainly not unbelievable.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Have they offered any guarantees prior though? I don’t believe there were any such guarantees offered before the invasion. If I recall correctly, the only talk about such guarantees was from the anonymous sources in the RU government and two of the three sources said that such an offer came after the invasion began, while one claimed that Kozak (Putin’s aide and negotiator) said he had a peace plan before the invasion.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/Q7KZKWIAXFKOFBYMU5BSABAF2A.jpg)
Exclusive: As war began, Putin rejected a Ukraine peace deal recommended by aide
Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the...
www.reuters.com
I do not think Moscow would stop the war now if Ukraine “submitted” to neutrality. I also do not think that there is currently any incentive for Russia to give up any of the territory they conquered and I find it pretty hard to think of what that incentive may be, realistically speaking.
There is no argument, Russia started this war.
In regards to the written agreements, I had previously expressed my unqualified opinion on the subject and asked that if anyone who is qualified could chime in, but no one did. So I will say it again. From the Budapest Memorandum:
[…]except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.[…]
The initiators and the executors will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
It appears to me that the circumstances have changed significantly since the memorandum was signed. I am talking about prior to 2022 and 2014. The most dramatic change started taking place in 2013. Moreover, the Russians have voiced their concern and very strong opposition to Ukraine being a part of NATO for years. In fact, they defined it as an existential threat to their state, did they not? They had numerous talks about it with the US, EU, NATO, did they not? In other words, Russia guaranteed security of Ukraine as long Ukraine (or its territory) did not represent a threat to Russia. From the Russian perspective, the circumstances have changed significantly, have they not? Russian perspective is key here because from that angle “purely defensive alliance” and “no threat to Russia” have absolutely zero meaning and I have no idea why people keep repeating these words over and over in this context. Again, I am no legal expert, and shooting air here, but it seems to me that “in self-defense” and “consult in the event a situation arises” may have been met.
The next thing is that Russia cannot be trusted. That may or may not be true. However, Kiev has proven itself again and again to not be trusted just as much or even more so, no? Clearly there is an issue of trust between the two (in reality more than two) parties. Why did Russia want to negotiate with NATO and the US in particular prior to the invasion? Because the current day government in Kyiv does not matter to them (should it?).
I agree, the position of strength is key, and I said that before that they aren’t leaving unless forced out. That position Ukraine does not have, however. Is there something that is going to drastically change in that regard? At the moment, the opposite appears to be likely true.
Yes, the Russians got beaten badly in Kiev and other northern regions of the country. However, as it was outlined in my post above, Mr. Arakhamia clearly stated that the Russians left Kyiv region as a result of negotiations. Which Ukraine clearly failed to follow up on. Are you reading it differently?
Has Ukraine offered any meaningful proposals to negotiate the end of the war? It seems to me that their proposals so far have had a lot less to do with reality than what Russia had offered and all Russia offered was to negotiate to begin with as far as we know. It should be clear that what may have been offered before will not be offered now. It is also pretty clear that Russians think they can take more than they have now. On the other hand, common sense suggests that Ukraine likely hopes to hold on to what Russia may be able to take. I do not believe it is really hard math at the moment. Of course, I could be wrong about all of it and am not insisting to be correct.
Actually, negotiations can begin with “territories that no Russian soldier has yet set foot in”. But they surely cannot begin with someone who outlawed the possibility of such negotiations to begin with. Don’t you think?
Most, if not all, statements in the last paragraph you had written are not exactly true.
On the subject of who can be negotiated with, according to vice-Minister of Justice of Ukraine, Ukraine won't sign a peace deal without Russia paying reparations.
www.kommersant.ru
And Zelensky says Ukraine won't give up any territories as part of a peace deal. He allegedly ducked the question when asked about Crimea specifically.
ria.ru
In other words, Ukraine's position, if these figures are to be believed, is that Russia needs to leave all currently held areas except possibly Crimea, and pay reparations as part of a peace deal. Given the "success" of Ukraine's counter-offensive, I think it's clear which side doesn't have any intent to realistically negotiate. On a side note reparations are in my opinion one of the easier points, but it would require something in exchange.
Замглавы Минюста Украины: Киев не пойдет на мир с Россией без репараций
Подробнее на сайте
And Zelensky says Ukraine won't give up any territories as part of a peace deal. He allegedly ducked the question when asked about Crimea specifically.
Зеленский исключил передачу территорий России ради мира
Президент Украины Владимир Зеленский заявил в интервью CBS News, что Украина не готова отказаться от части своих территорий ради мира. РИА Новости, 18.09.2023
In other words, Ukraine's position, if these figures are to be believed, is that Russia needs to leave all currently held areas except possibly Crimea, and pay reparations as part of a peace deal. Given the "success" of Ukraine's counter-offensive, I think it's clear which side doesn't have any intent to realistically negotiate. On a side note reparations are in my opinion one of the easier points, but it would require something in exchange.
Armenia discovered that Russia is not a reliable ally, & membership of the CIS & CSTO doesn't protect you if Russia decides to make friends with your non CSTO neighbour. Armenians see Russia as having stabbed them in the back, & not having anything to lose from irritating Russia.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
This is a small part of his response to a question and parts (of this small part) have been cut out. Also, why do people post info from UA outlets as factual? That’s the same as posting RIA Novosti as legit source for info. Here is a word for word translation of what he said when answering the question (some has nothing to do with it, but I thought I would leave the full translation regardless). This is coming back from 2014 and the full recording of the event can be found here:
I will have to repeat myself. What happened? Yanukovych postponed signing the resolution of economic partnership with the European Union because he decided that this document requires more serious work to be done and our European partners and very radical elements overthrown his government. And regardless of what anyone is saying, we here understand it as well, there aren’t any fools here. Those symbolic “pirozhki” that were handed out during Maidan, informational support (information war), political support… What does it mean? Full involvement of the United States and European countries in this process of regime change, violent, unconstitutional change of the regime. And that part of the country that didn’t agree with it is being suppressed by the brute military force, with use of aviation, artillery, MLRS, and tanks. If these are today’s European values, then I am highly disappointed/appalled. What is happening next? We have talked to the Ukrainian leadership, leaderships of the United States, European countries numerous times and we said that this fratricidal war must be ended and negotiations take place. What did the Ukrainian leadership offer 3 or 4 weeks ago? Ceasefire for 7 days and after that those who did not turn in their weapons would be eradicated. Is it a way to negotiations? It’s an ultimatum. Of course, people who picked up weapons, and they did it to protect themselves, their livelihoods, their honour, did not agree to these demands. What is happening today? Small villages and large cities are surrounded by the Ukrainian army that is directly firing on the civilians, with the intent to destroy infrastructure, suppress the will of people to fight. You know, as sad as it is, this reminds me of the events of the World War 2, when the German Nazi occupants encircled our cities, Leningrad, for example, and directly exterminated civilians. (Snip, a few words on the Leningrad bombings). Do you understand what is happening here? It is horrible, catastrophic. That is why I can completely understand the rebel forces of south east, Donbas, Lugansk, that they attempted… Why are they calling this “operation” military and humanitarian? What is the goal of what they are doing? That is to move the artillery and MLRS away from the big cities, so that they wouldn’t be able to slaughter people. And what do we hear in return from our western partners? That they cannot do that? That they should allow their own slaughter and then they’d be good? There must be negotiations. You know, here is what the position of our partners is, to me this is pretty clear now. Yes, there must be negotiations, but first they want to let the Ukrainian authorities to shoot a little. Maybe they’d be able to have a quick victory. Clearly, they can’t and it is time to recognize that. And they must pressure/make the Ukrainian authorities to objectively begin the negotiations. Not on technicalities, which, course, are also very important, because they serve humanitarian purposes, such as prisoner exchange, other issues, but there must be substance, future rights of people of Donbas, Lugansk, the entire south east region of the country. Within modern, civilized framework there must be formulated legal rights of these people. That’s what the conversation should be about. After that, I am sure, it will be easy, relatively easy, to work on the border and security issues, and so on. It is crucial to agree on the substance. But they do not want to talk any substance and that is the problem.
Now on the other question. Of course, I saw in the media, I have read reports from our Special Services about what is happening. I saw reaction of mothers, wives of the Ukrainian soldiers that ended up in this encirclement. That is a tragedy for them as well. And this is exactly why I reached out to the rebel forces of Donbas asking to open humanitarian corridors so that people could leave. Many are there without any food or water for several days. They ran out of ammunition… Give them an opportunity to leave. The latest information I have is that the Ukrainian authorities and the command of the Ukrainian forces decided not to let anyone leave this pocket, but to continue their attempts to open it by force. I think that is a colossal mistake which will lead to a large number of casualties. But our partners from the west decided to let them fight a little bit. It’s terrible.
In general, it is a great tragedy that we are facing here, the fighting in Ukraine. I… people with their own views on history, and we have many historians here, history of our country, some can argue with me, but I think that the Russian and Ukrainian people are one people. Regardless of what anyone says. (First long applause). Of course, you will correct me, but look… There was a point when there was no Russian people, there were tribes, Slavs… 16, 32, depending on who is counting… after the Christianization of Rus, which… by the way Vladimir himself got baptized in Chersonesus, so Crimea for us is a Holy place in this context. Only then he came to Kiev and began to baptize the entire Rus. That is when the Russian nation began to be created. But from the beginning it was being created as multinational (really multiethnic, but Russian can be tricky and everyone is using it for their narrative) and those people who lived on the territory of today’s Ukraine never even called themselves anything else but Russian. Yes, of course, there is Galitchina, territories that border the west, Western Europe, and they, of course, had natural special relationship with the catholic world, natural relationship with their neighbours, interrelation of languages and cultures, but they shouldn’t impose their views on the entire people of Ukraine. What I want to say is that what is happening in Ukraine today is a great and our common tragedy and everything has to be done for it to end as soon as possible. (Applause and next question).