re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

The crazy thing is that, from a manufacturing standpoint, it's seemingly easier to scale up drone production than production of artillery shells. And drone capabilities are growing daily.

---

quote:

---

Ukraine is a pawn of the USA. Ukraine is losing badly and the USA is: 1. the only reason this war started

---

quote:

---

If you believe this, you are an idiot. Sadly, you’re incapable of self-assessment.

---

quote:

---

Russian Z-"military correspondent" and serviceman of the 4th Motorized Rifle Brigade of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Andrei (Murz) Morozov, who hosted the popular pro-war channel "They write to us from Yanina" (more than 100 thousand subscribers), shot himself. This was reported by Igor Strelkov's wife Miroslava Reginskaya and lawyer Maxim Pashkov.

A suicide note appeared on Morozov's channel. In it, he explains his death by the pressure of the command of the brigade of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which was previously part of the formations of the "LPR", as well as the command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation as a whole. A few days ago, Murz reported the colossal losses of the Russian army during the assault on Avdiivka - 16 thousand people irretrievably. He also said that the military prosecutor's office of St. Petersburg refused to consider the complaint of a soldier of regiment 1487 about the actions of the command during the assault.

According to Murza, the command decided to keep silent about the losses, allegedly because of criticism of propagandist Vladimir Solovyov.

"Today, Comrade Colonel, by your order, I was forced to delete the post from my telegram channel "They write to us from Ioannina". And you were forced to give this order by your command, relying on the good old army collective responsibility. If it doesn't, we won't give you supplies. Shells. Copters. New tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. And he, your command, was forced to do this by political prostitutes led by Vladimir Solovyov, who are pissing themselves to come and pull the trigger. Well, I'll do it myself. I will shoot myself if no one dares to take on this trifling task. And you will be given tanks and copters. From February 21, 2024, you can safely tell everyone who calls you that I do not serve you, and there are no problems with me," Morozov wrote in his suicide note.

---

quote:

---

This tactic is known as flooding the zone with bullshite.

---

quote:

---

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.

"Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign [an agreement] with you [Ukraine], but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.

Behind this visit and Johnson's words, there is much more than a simple reluctance to get involved in agreements with Russia.

Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined.

Moreover, there is a chance to "press" him. And the West wants to use it.

Three days after Johnson, now the happy owner of a Vasylkiv rooster, flew back to foggy Albion, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had reached a dead end".

Ukrainian Sources - May 2022

---

quote:

---

All sources show a similar Ukraine vision of a peace deal. Key elements of it are outlined below.

(1) The peace treaty applies after the Russian army withdraws from the territory of Ukraine, except Crimea and the occupied Donbas area.

(2) Ukraine expects a group of world powers to offer security guarantees. Kyiv proposed the following guarantors' list: Russia, China, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel. However, not all of them have so far agreed to that. Details of this role are even less clear. Ukraine insists that the guarantors should pledge protection equal to Art. 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty, but it's rather unreal.

(3) These guarantees do not apply to the occupied Crimea and the occupied Donbas area. This would allow guarantor states not to be involved in the war on the first day after the ratification of the treaty.

(4) Instead, Ukraine limits its sovereignty in Security and Defence. Kyiv pledges non-accession to NATO or other military alliances and to change the Constitution for this purpose (now Ukraine). Ukraine appears ready to take much stronger obligations than just non-alignment. In particular, Kyiv proposes a ban on any foreign military contingent in Ukraine. Ukraine can conduct any joint military exercises on its soil and sea only with the consent of the guarantor states (including Russia).

(5) In exchange for giving up NATO, the EU Member States present among the guarantors (including Germany and France) guarantee Ukraine's assistance in joining the European Union.

(6) Ukraine and Russia are starting negotiations on the status of Crimea, which will last for 15 years. At the same time, the negotiators emphasize that the issues of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol will be considered separately (probably assuming a different agreement with Russia on them). Instead, Ukraine promises not to return Crimea by military means, but there is no such promise for Donbas.

(7) All this will work only if such an agreement is approved by referendum, ratified by Verkhovna Rada and the guarantor states. The process will begin only after the withdrawal of troops, as referred to in paragraph 1, but may fail at each stage of ratification.

European Pravda - 30 March 2022

---

quote:

---

Schröder says that in 2022 he received a request from Ukraine with an offer to act as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, conveying a message to Putin. According to the ex-chancellor, the current Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov participated in this process.

Schroeder said that then the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow consisted of five main points:

1. Refusal of Ukraine's membership in NATO.

2. Abolition of Ukrainization laws prohibiting the Russian language in the public sphere. Ukraine was ready to discuss the return of the Russian language to Donbass.

3. Donbass remains part of Ukraine, but becomes an autonomy based on the model of South Tyrol in Italy (autonomy with special status).

4. Ukraine receives security guarantees from the UN Security Council and Germany (according to the “5+1” formula, which was supported, according to Schroeder, by Umerov)

5. Crimea, judging by Schroeder’s wording, remains with the Russian Federation: “Crimea for Russia is not just a piece of land, it is part of its history.” But the Ukrainians, he said, demanded negotiations on the status of the peninsula.

According to Schroeder, it was not possible to reach an agreement because “everything was decided in Washington.”

"I think that the Americans did not want a compromise between Ukraine and Russia. The Americans think that the Russians can be contained.

LINK

---

quote:

---

Why Peace Negotiations Between Russia And Ukraine Failed

On April 6, of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson “Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not” is how one of Zelenskyy’s negotiators associates, Savyd Arakmahia, summed up the gist of Johnson’s remarks. Three days after Johnson returned home Putin announced publicly that talks with Ukraine “had reached a dead end”. For his part Johnson promised Zelensky $130m of military equipment and $500m in in financial aid, while President Biden announced a $800m military package to Ukraine.

Johnson’s intervention has been discounted on the ground that he was in no position to tell the Ukrainian government what to do. This is legally correct, but vacuous. He was in a position to tell them whether NATO powers would be willing to join Russia in guaranteeing Ukrainian independence outside NATO, and under what conditions Britain (and the USA) would supply further military and economic aid. Had Johnson’s promise of support been conditional rather than unconditional, it is inconceivable that negotiations would not have continued.

The Wire

---

quote:

---

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

LINK

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that the USA didn't stop the peace talks when Ukraine was readu to end the war with Russia???

---

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

quote:

---

In his December 29, 1940 Fireside Chat radio broadcast, President Roosevelt proclaimed the United States would be the "Arsenal of Democracy" and proposed selling munitions to Britain and Canada.[12] Isolationists were strongly opposed, warning it would result in American involvement with what was considered by most Americans as an essentially European conflict. In time, opinion shifted as increasing numbers of Americans began to consider the advantage of funding the British war against Germany, while staying free of the hostilities themselves.[17] Propaganda showing the devastation of British cities during The Blitz, as well as popular depictions of Germans as savage also rallied public opinion to the Allies, especially after Germany conquered France.

Lend-Lease proposaledit

After a decade of neutrality, Roosevelt knew that the change to Allied support must be gradual, given the support for isolationism in the country. Originally, the American policy was to help the British but not join the war. During early February 1941, a Gallup poll revealed that 54% of Americans were in favor of giving aid to the British without qualifications of Lend-Lease. A further 15% were in favor of qualifications such as: "If it doesn't get us into war," or "If the British can give us some security for what we give them." Only 22% were unequivocally against the President's proposal. When poll participants were asked their party affiliation, the poll revealed a political divide: 69% of Democrats were unequivocally in favor of Lend-Lease, whereas only 38% of Republicans favored the bill without qualification. At least one poll spokesperson also noted that "approximately twice as many Republicans" gave "qualified answers as ... Democrats."[18]

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 8, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.[19]

The vote in the Senate, which occurred on March 8, revealed a similar partisan difference: 49 Democrats (79 percent) voted "aye" with only 13 Democrats (21 percent) voting "nay". In contrast, 17 Republicans (63 percent) voted "nay" while 10 Senate Republicans (37 percent) sided with the Democrats to pass the bill

---

quote:

---

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 8, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.

---