why does that need clarification? why are you constantly putting words in my mouth? bruv, I will readily admit I do not know the exact amenable terms for any side in this conflict. you can always drill down deeper and deeper and find some small issue that I cant answer.

but you dont know any more than me.

I already said I dont think so. but how should I know? apparently you do know for certain so why are we even here. you think some counterfactual that requires 86 assumptions is nearly 0%. I think its not close to 0%.

I do know that your track record in this conflict with predictions is pretty poor.

I know a lot more than you.


The reason I'm asking for clarification is because you are so evasive. For example: you were just saying that if Ukraine signed the April ultimatum then you don't think that Russia would have invaded again, and now you've changed that to "amenable terms". Which is it? "Amenable terms" to Putin could mean a lot more than the April ultimatum.

Be precise!

if you want precision then quote the posts and the context.

if Putin signed something then I am going to assume that the terms are amenable to him.

and if you want precision then you should not say "April ultimatum" bc thats quite a stretch. who reported those terms? (WSJ right) and where did they get it from? (I cant remember tbh). did anyone else confirm these terms to the WSJ? from Russia or Ukraine or 3rd parties?

so for precision sake you should say "the terms leaked to the WSJ (?) by xxx and confirmed by yyy and zzz and jjj".

Yes. The Ukrainian involved in the peace deal who you posted in the previous thread confirmed it.

For precision sake you can read the article to find out where they got it:

for precision sake, I am not certain that such an ultimatum was proposed. we are no well into counterfactuals within counterfactuals.

I am afraid I cannot give you the precision you are looking for without you providing more precise premises.

The guy who tried to take over Ukraine's government to make it a puppet state, then tried that again when he originally failed, then tried to create an uprising so he could take over Ukraine, then sent in troops to kick off an uprising when that failed, then invaded, then invaded again... doesn't want to conquer Ukraine and would be happy with only limiting their military to a police force.

He has his authorities and propaganda constantly promote destroying and conquering Ukraine:

https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/r...-a-collection/


He even has the ex-president of Russia making fantasy maps showing Russia controlling the vast majority of Ukraine:




He personally wrote a manifesto about how Ukrainians aren't a people, aren't a state, calls them "Little Russia", and are part of Russia. He also straight up says he wants to unite Ukraine with Russia:








When given a softball question from Tucker asking for peace, said that if USA stopped sending aid he would be done in a few weeks and then the war would be over. Yet he doesn't want to conquer Ukraine because it's too costly? Yet he's still attempting just that despite the costs and poor results. He just wants to keep their military weak and give himself veto power on them receiving aid if they're invaded again because... who knows? Having accomplished none of his war aims, very little of his goal of conquering Ukraine, and having ensured that Ukraine would not have much of a military, thereby drastically cutting the costs of his future invasion, he would be satisfied and not attack again.


Yeah that's hopium. There's near 0 chance that Putin follows through with that agreement, much like he betrayed the Budapest Memorandum, Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, Istanbul Summit, multiple treaties with Georgia, multiple Minsk agreements, Syrian treaties, Chechen treaties etc.

The only cease fire Ukraine should take is joining NATO but a very large demilitarized line with no NATO troops and let Russia keep Crimea and maybe a tiny bit of **** gained in this invasion.

While I normally don't agree with Victor if Russia got everything the wanted I don't think Putin invades is the next decade or 2 assuming he was negotiating for what he wanted not what he thought he could get.

He would invade again as soon as invading benefitted him. Thinking anything is else incredibly naive.

isnt that what every country does? the point is to make a deal where there isnt enough benefit.

No, that's not what any country does. But if you believe that then signing that deal would be absolutely horrible.

He's an aggressive dictator. He always wants more. Like a shark, if he stops swimming and moving water past his gills, he suffocates. (You may read that 'most sharks' don't need to keep moving, and can breathe using their cheek muscles while lying stationary on the seabed, but this mainly applies to small species that you wouldn't necessarily recognise as sharks. The big sharks, the ones we all know, mostly swim or die.)

every country goes to war when they think it benefits them.

Anyway, the Pope's made a bloody fool of himself, like his ignoble predecessor Pius XII who went easy on Hitler, declined to excommunicate Nazis and oversaw the Vatican programme to help SS war criminals resettle under false identities in South America after the war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68528217

If you believe that then signing a treaty that dismantled your military and places your future in the hands of someone who is currently invading you is extremely dumb. That treaty required complete faith in Putin. Trusting Putin is dumb.

I think signing an absurd treaty giving Putin everything buys a sold 10 years. That is not what I think Ukraine should do. They should give up some land and some area where no troops can be for a NATO membership which is probably the only way to keep Putin from changing his mind or deciding more war is best in 5 years

Ukraine likely agrees with you which is why they want to win this war and continue fighting. 10 years is probably optimistic though.

Ukraine conceding anything only opens the door for more concessions.

Honestly Ukraine says they will refuse to give up land and Russian refuses NATO so if both sides hate the deal it is probably a good one to end this ****.

Russia hates the position they are in but considering the position they are in they would love that peace treaty.

Very high chance they'd renege on any peace deal when it suited them. Putin can't be trusted.

This isn't ending without concessions or without NATO air power/boots on the ground

Yeah I reckon that's true, though it pains me to say it.