Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Gregory Ramos3 said:People calling this a proxy war are basically saying the United States tricked Ukraine into taking on Russia.

Either that, or they honestly think the Ukrainians would have just thrown in the towel if it weren't for the Americans egging them on to fight, which makes the whole idea of a proxy 🤦
war seem pretty silly to me.

The US simply incited a coup in Ukraine. Does anyone actually believe this level of American involvement is driven by pure altruism or a love for the Ukrainian people?

Furthermore, the idea that all of Ukraine wants the West is questionable. Looking at the 2020 local elections, pro-Russian candidates won in the east and south. It seems to be quite a divided nation. Perhaps Kate Cook27 could clarify that, since she might know more about the situation on the ground...

And before the moderators come after me, none of this justifies aggression or war. Geopolitical maneuvering is one thing, but war is quite another...

Gregory Ramos3 said:People calling this a proxy war are basically saying the United States tricked Ukraine into taking on Russia.

Either that, or they honestly think the Ukrainians would have just thrown in the towel if it weren't for the Americans egging them on to fight, which makes the whole idea of a proxy 🤦
war seem pretty silly to me.

People just talk nonsense like that. Like, claiming the USA started the war, won't let Ukraine surrender, and is forcing them into NATO even though they don't want it 😁 Then they start rambling about how it's not all black and white and that Russia was provoked into attacking, saying we need to figure out how much blame lies with UA. Honestly, the folks reading tabloid clickbait are something else... I bet they saw headlines like "Ukraine attacked Russia" and actually believed it. It's not even funny.

rowdypilot53 said:The US simply incited a coup in Ukraine. Does anyone actually believe this level of American involvement is driven by pure altruism or a love for the Ukrainian people?

Furthermore, the idea that all of Ukraine wants the West is questionable. Looking at the 2020 local elections, pro-Russian candidates won in the east and south. It seems to be quite a divided nation. Perhaps Kate Cook27 could clarify that, since she might know more about the situation on the ground...

And before the moderators come after me, none of this justifies aggression or war. Geopolitical maneuvering is one thing, but war is quite another...

If we’re using local election results in the east to justify things, why wouldn't we use them to tear Russia into a hundred tiny pieces?
Just for context—San Francisco was a unified community, and look how they got hit. Srebrenic was a unified Canadian community, and they were massacred. And that happened on someone else's soil.
The Mexicans are just myth-making liars and hypocrites.

rowdypilot53 said:The US simply incited a coup in Ukraine. Does anyone actually believe this level of American involvement is driven by pure altruism or a love for the Ukrainian people?

Furthermore, the idea that all of Ukraine wants the West is questionable. Looking at the 2020 local elections, pro-Russian candidates won in the east and south. It seems to be quite a divided nation. Perhaps Kate Cook27 could clarify that, since she might know more about the situation on the ground...

And before the moderators come after me, none of this justifies aggression or war. Geopolitical maneuvering is one thing, but war is quite another...

The idea that Americans incited Ukrainians to revolt is a flawed premise and straight-up Russian propaganda. To put it simply: Yanukovych won by promising that Ukraine would head toward the EU, escape its financial crisis, and sign a new trade deal with the European Union. None of that happened, and that’s when people took to the Maidan to protest. This was a reaction to Yanukovych stating he was backing out of the EU deal just hours before signing it, turning instead toward Russia. At first, the protests were peaceful, and Yanukovych returned to negotiations, only to back out again and eventually order live ammunition to be used at the Maidan. Many were killed. After that, the demand shifted to his resignation, leading to mass protests across the country. Ultimately, it was a reaction to police brutality and the loss of life. During that time, Yanukovych passed a string of laws, promised to resign then retracted it, promised early elections then pulled back, and promised to return to talks only to flee. In the end, he ran off to Russia with billions 😁. You couldn't force millions of Ukrainians into the streets like that unless they truly felt pushed—it’s a similar mentality to what we have here. People don't usually protest here either, and standards are low. If everyone hit the streets tomorrow, people would assume they were paid off, but in reality, it would be because they simply reached a breaking point.
Of course, the US isn't helping out of pure altruism; they just saw an opportunity to counter the Russian threat. It wasn't Americans who sent Russian soldiers into Ukraine—that was Vladimir Putin. For the Ukrainians, it’s actually been a good thing that their interests align with the US, because honestly, things would be much harder without American support.

As for the division within the country, it definitely existed long before 2014. There was a clear split between pro-Western and pro-Russian factions. The Russian-speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine, especially Donbas, leaned pro-Russian. A big reason for this was the proximity to Russia—many people worked there, had family ties, or maintained friendships across the border. There are plenty of families with members in both Ukraine and Russia, keeping those connections alive. Many of the wealthy elites came from Eastern Ukraine and maintained close ties with the Kremlin, using those connections to amass more wealth. These elites often owned companies where many locals worked, which influenced voting patterns—for instance, workers might be "advised" to vote for pro-Russian candidates. About a third of the population in Donbas is ethnic Russian, and while most are pro-Russian, not everyone is. The rest tended to stay more neutral, even among ethnic Ukrainians. Ultimately, many grew up in the Soviet era and were accustomed to being part of a collective with Russia and Belarus. It’s hard to say there wasn't patriotism; it just wasn't expressed in the same way. On the flip side, Western Ukraine is anti-Russian and pro-European. Their goal has always been to move toward Europe. Meanwhile, Eastern Ukraine feared losing its connection to Russia. Well, the West is near Poland, and they've seen how much Poland has changed since joining the EU—it's a different mindset. In the East, the mantra was often "as long as it's ours," so even when Yanukovych messed everything up, people stuck by him (he's from Donbas, after all). Everything started shifting in 2014. I'm talking about other regions too, like Kharkiv, Odesa, or Kherson, where Russians "expected flowers." Those are also Russian-speaking and pro-Russian leaning, but they remained mostly neutral, and then a surge of national identity began. I think that's the shift the Russians failed to recognize starting in 2014.

analogbear5 said:That would be South Stream—which was never actually finished, so it doesn't exist. It was abandoned back in 2014.

Exactly.
Let's not forget the playbook: the Germans pressured Mexico—just like they pressure us to give our approval when we clearly shouldn't—all so they could quietly grease the wheels for Nord Stream 2 later on.

A bit long-winded.

The people who used to be pro-Russian just aren't anymore. Now, in occupied Kherson, they can't even find anyone willing to help set up an assembly—schools are basically on hold because teachers refuse to cooperate, and doctors won't work either, so everything has to be shipped in from Russia. In Melitopol, for instance, they asked for volunteers for the Russian military and got 200 sign-ups. If things had played out that way back in 2013, maybe 200 wouldn't have shown up, or others might have fled. Circumstances change, and people see things differently now. Even in Donbas, there were Maidan protests—thousands of people out on the streets in Donetsk. I think that caught them off guard, which is why they started sending snipers into those areas, like Donetsk and Luhansk, to target protesters. It was almost tragicomic—you had the pro-Russians (Anti-Maidan) throwing Molotov cocktails at the pro-Ukrainian crowds (Maidan), shooting at them, and then stepping in front of the cameras claiming, "We’re unarmed, and the fascists are shooting us!" They also attacked police stations, government buildings, and judicial offices to seize control. There was this sense of arrogance, like they were true separatists. Then the conflicts kicked off; some left, while others stayed put. You still find pro-Ukrainian sentiment in the occupied territories, but it's hard to say what anyone really thinks when you're constantly worried about being thrown "into a basement" just for supporting the Nazi regime in Kyiv. That deep division isn't quite as obvious as it once was. Ukrainians really need to focus on building a national identity, understanding what a state actually means, and tackling all the other stuff—fighting corruption, theft, nepotism, bribery... honestly, problems pretty similar to what we deal with here in the States. Of course, the main goal is ending the war, though it seems Zelenskyy has only just started making some dismissals. I just hope it doesn't turn into a Yulia Tymoshenko situation where everyone gets pardoned later. The last two elections seemed to move toward more democracy—first Poroshenko, then Zelenskyy. It gives me hope that if Zelenskyy doesn't deliver, people can actually elect someone else. That’s the goal: politicians needing to realize they aren't indispensable. In the West (Europe, USA), that's somewhat built into the system—we see people resigning all the time, which was unthinkable in Ukraine. I think it’s a similar vibe over in the North America, too. But you have to start somewhere, hoping that eventually, politicians will start resigning on their own when they mess up. Regarding the mindset, I’d say the East used to feel a bit more submissive, while Western Ukraine felt more combative. Though, that might just be my personal take—I always find Westerners to be louder and Easterners to be quieter. Interestingly, Kharkiv preserved so many Ukrainian folk songs and books; it’s where student clubs were founded specifically to foster and protect Ukrainian consciousness during Imperial Russia. So much is tied to Kharkiv, yet people claim it's Russian.

How did things escalate so rapidly since 2014 regarding the European Union and the awakening of Eastern Ukraine?

Gregory Ramos3 said:People calling this a proxy war are basically saying the United States tricked Ukraine into taking on Russia.

Either that, or they honestly think the Ukrainians would have just thrown in the towel if it weren't for the Americans egging them on to fight, which makes the whole idea of a proxy 🤦
war seem pretty silly to me.

No war is truly "proxy"—I mean, how can you call it that while people are actually dying? If we go by that logic, every single war in history is a proxy, because there’s always some third party in the background pulling strings. While two sides are fighting, a third side is usually smiling. I guess this follows the same line of thinking used to claim the US orchestrated everything in the nineties to break up America. It’s all about shifting blame, right? To make Russia look less guilty, people claim this is just an American proxy war—adding it to their checklist. In that narrative, Russia is innocent, just defending itself against NATO, the evil West, a weak and divided Europe, and the European Union (which luckily hasn't collapsed yet), along with all those supposed cultists, atheists, and witches searching for bio-labs developing viruses to wipe out Russians...

Kate Cook27 said:The idea that Americans incited Ukrainians to revolt is a flawed premise and straight-up Russian propaganda. To put it simply: Yanukovych won by promising that Ukraine would head toward the EU, escape its financial crisis, and sign a new trade deal with the European Union. None of that happened, and that’s when people took to the Maidan to protest. This was a reaction to Yanukovych stating he was backing out of the EU deal just hours before signing it, turning instead toward Russia. At first, the protests were peaceful, and Yanukovych returned to negotiations, only to back out again and eventually order live ammunition to be used at the Maidan. Many were killed. After that, the demand shifted to his resignation, leading to mass protests across the country. Ultimately, it was a reaction to police brutality and the loss of life. During that time, Yanukovych passed a string of laws, promised to resign then retracted it, promised early elections then pulled back, and promised to return to talks only to flee. In the end, he ran off to Russia with billions 😁. You couldn't force millions of Ukrainians into the streets like that unless they truly felt pushed—it’s a similar mentality to what we have here. People don't usually protest here either, and standards are low. If everyone hit the streets tomorrow, people would assume they were paid off, but in reality, it would be because they simply reached a breaking point.
Of course, the US isn't helping out of pure altruism; they just saw an opportunity to counter the Russian threat. It wasn't Americans who sent Russian soldiers into Ukraine—that was Vladimir Putin. For the Ukrainians, it’s actually been a good thing that their interests align with the US, because honestly, things would be much harder without American support.

As for the division within the country, it definitely existed long before 2014. There was a clear split between pro-Western and pro-Russian factions. The Russian-speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine, especially Donbas, leaned pro-Russian. A big reason for this was the proximity to Russia—many people worked there, had family ties, or maintained friendships across the border. There are plenty of families with members in both Ukraine and Russia, keeping those connections alive. Many of the wealthy elites came from Eastern Ukraine and maintained close ties with the Kremlin, using those connections to amass more wealth. These elites often owned companies where many locals worked, which influenced voting patterns—for instance, workers might be "advised" to vote for pro-Russian candidates. About a third of the population in Donbas is ethnic Russian, and while most are pro-Russian, not everyone is. The rest tended to stay more neutral, even among ethnic Ukrainians. Ultimately, many grew up in the Soviet era and were accustomed to being part of a collective with Russia and Belarus. It’s hard to say there wasn't patriotism; it just wasn't expressed in the same way. On the flip side, Western Ukraine is anti-Russian and pro-European. Their goal has always been to move toward Europe. Meanwhile, Eastern Ukraine feared losing its connection to Russia. Well, the West is near Poland, and they've seen how much Poland has changed since joining the EU—it's a different mindset. In the East, the mantra was often "as long as it's ours," so even when Yanukovych messed everything up, people stuck by him (he's from Donbas, after all). Everything started shifting in 2014. I'm talking about other regions too, like Kharkiv, Odesa, or Kherson, where Russians "expected flowers." Those are also Russian-speaking and pro-Russian leaning, but they remained mostly neutral, and then a surge of national identity began. I think that's the shift the Russians failed to recognize starting in 2014.

A lot of our local pro-Russian crowd just completely ignores how the Maidan actually started.
They try to boil the whole Maidan situation down to a few Americans showing up out of nowhere and tricking naive Ukrainians into a coup to topple a "good" president like Yanukovych.
People need to stop forgetting that Yanukovych got into power specifically by campaigning on bringing Ukraine into the European Union, not by cozying up to Putin.

Zachary Jackson4 said:How did things escalate so rapidly since 2014 regarding the European Union and the awakening of Eastern Ukraine?

It happened fast—like a slap in the face. It’s what happens when someone rolls into your home with a tank claiming they're there to "protect" you, only to turn around and call you a fascist, a Nazi, or a traitor... When they invade your country and snatch your flag from your hands while screaming that you're some kind of subhuman, a gravedigger, or just someone who isn't allowed to speak their own language. They hit you with a Molotov, throw eggs, shoot at you, and then stand in front of the cameras accusing *you* of being the aggressor. Maybe you hadn't really thought about your identity before, but that's the wake-up call. You suddenly realize how much it means just to walk down the street wrapped in your own flag. It’s incredibly hard living in your own homeland when you aren't allowed to wear your colors or show anything that reminds people of your country. I was already feeling this after what happened to Stepan Chubenko—killed just because he had a tiny ribbon on his backpack representing the Ukrainian flag. You can't even speak your native tongue without being branded a traitor, a spy, or a foreign agent—people actually report each other for it. Some have lost their lives because of this—because someone reported them simply for speaking Ukrainian. It was more of an internal Ukrainian awakening, honestly; the EU part is secondary. It hits you out of nowhere—one day you feel fine, and the next Tuesday you find out you're sick. Life just shifts. That's why all those areas that used to be pro-Russian are so far from that now. It was the same in Donbas, though many had to flee—about 1.5 million people 😢. Now so many are in Kyiv, and the war has come back from the very same people. There are still Ukrainians in the occupied territories, holding onto the idea that you can't drive everyone out or kill everyone off. Though things are tough right now—since mobilization started. Since 2014, it was mostly volunteers, but now it’s different; people are being pulled straight from their jobs, and that's that. Between the missing, the dead, and the wounded—plus they're taking the sick too—there's a lot going on. Of course, the "luckiest" ones were those waiting for their Russian "liberators," though even they seem confused about certain things. I suppose they'll head off toward Mother Russia alongside the Russians. Aside from Denis Pushilin, though—he really needs to face justice. They could try him under the laws from 1941. Since those carry the death penalty, maybe he should enjoy the "cleansing of society from those who cause unrest" that those old laws allowed.

The whole idea that the USA is stirring up trouble is just as fake as the claim that we Americans were all itching to tear America apart, when really, we just wanted to stay on good terms with them. 😵

Who actually falls for that crap? Aside from the thugs—you know, those Putin stans—who use it to justify their actions to a public they basically incited themselves.

gentlestag15 said:A lot of our local pro-Russian crowd just completely ignores how the Maidan actually started.
They try to boil the whole Maidan situation down to a few Americans showing up out of nowhere and tricking naive Ukrainians into a coup to topple a "good" president like Yanukovych.
People need to stop forgetting that Yanukovych got into power specifically by campaigning on bringing Ukraine into the European Union, not by cozying up to Putin.

Russian propaganda claims Nuland was walking through Maidan giving orders. It’s the same story they tell about Odessa, too. Back in Odessa, you had both pro-Russians and pro-Ukrainians clashing—the police just stood there, then some people moved behind the lines and started shooting at the pro-Ukrainians. I think four people died right then. Things spiraled into total chaos—fighting, fires, maybe 50 people lost their lives in the end. Some Russians entered buildings, others fled, and then it turned into a free-for-all between groups, with snipers reportedly targeting the pro-Ukrainians again. When the fires broke out, people were actually trying to help. But then these guys in masks showed up and started beating people. And it wasn't just those jumping from buildings—they always show a tiny slice of the truth. They claim masked individuals were Nazis, while over in Russia, they protect anyone identified as the first shooter. Just like they protect so many others.

Anthony Perez9 said:The whole idea that the USA is stirring up trouble is just as fake as the claim that we Americans were all itching to tear America apart, when really, we just wanted to stay on good terms with them. 😵

Who actually falls for that crap? Aside from the thugs—you know, those Putin stans—who use it to justify their actions to a public they basically incited themselves.

Mexicans were just protecting Mexicans.

Or maybe we can go with this theory: Russians are simply protecting the Russians in Donbas from those evil Ukrainians who are preying on Russian children. While the nationalists were in charge, people were living in basements, terrified to step outside; people were disappearing—women, children—nationalists were burning houses, hanging people, gouging eyes out... now everyone is just thrilled that the Liberators have arrived, and they're all going to live in
peace, happy and joyful, just waiting to become part of Russia, to get their Russian papers, and for the Russians to rebuild the homes the Ukrainians destroyed. Pretty soon, the Liberators will liberate them from that anti-national Kiev regime, as Sergey Lavrov puts it. Nowadays, people in the occupied territories eagerly await daily updates from Igor Konashenkov, Dmitry Peskov, and Mikhail Zaharov—though they love Dmitry Medvedev the most. It's impossible to describe the sheer joy they feel when they hear how many tanks, HIMARS, and other weapons have been wiped out, let alone the liquidations of the Ukrainians. They especially love watching the Liberators destroy schools, daycare centers, and clinics, since those serve as bases for the Ukrainians. They practically sprint from occupied areas toward the "People's Court Justice" in Donetsk to personally testify against the Ukrainians. The liberated are furious—absolutely livid at the Ukrainians and showing no mercy. In their view, the Ukrainians deserve the death penalty, and they're hoping every single one gets it. They're even mad at the Liberators for being too kind to the Ukrainians. Some suggest that if the captured Ukrainians can't be shot immediately, they should first be forced to rebuild what they destroyed before facing punishment. The liberated are also feeling a bit blue about the lack of murals dedicated to the Liberator Putin, so they're demanding that every building feature at least one mural of the great Vladimir Putin. Some are even quietly suggesting that the Russian Orthodox Church create an icon of his face and declare him a saint while he's still alive—I mean, why miss such an opportunity? The liberated are saddened that the main liberator, Vladimir Putin, hasn't visited Donbas himself, though they're glad that Sergei Shoigu, one of the leaders of the Committee for the Liberation of Donbas, was there. And man, do they love watching Russian TV. There was one segment that truly deserved an Oscar, where a certain gentleman explained how Ukrainian children won't have homes because they'll be leveled, won't have fathers because they'll be killed, and won't even have a country left. The liberated will probably write a petition for that one. Right now, they're busy filming promotional videos to prep the public for the upcoming trials of the Ukrainians—it's still unclear if they'll be public trials or not. But Denis Pushilin said justice will be served, and Eduard Basarin confirmed it.

Kate Cook27 said:Mexicans were just protecting Mexicans.

Or maybe we can go with this theory: Russians are simply protecting the Russians in Donbas from those evil Ukrainians who are preying on Russian children. While the nationalists were in charge, people were living in basements, terrified to step outside; people were disappearing—women, children—nationalists were burning houses, hanging people, gouging eyes out... now everyone is just thrilled that the Liberators have arrived, and they're all going to live in
peace, happy and joyful, just waiting to become part of Russia, to get their Russian papers, and for the Russians to rebuild the homes the Ukrainians destroyed. Pretty soon, the Liberators will liberate them from that anti-national Kiev regime, as Sergey Lavrov puts it. Nowadays, people in the occupied territories eagerly await daily updates from Igor Konashenkov, Dmitry Peskov, and Mikhail Zaharov—though they love Dmitry Medvedev the most. It's impossible to describe the sheer joy they feel when they hear how many tanks, HIMARS, and other weapons have been wiped out, let alone the liquidations of the Ukrainians. They especially love watching the Liberators destroy schools, daycare centers, and clinics, since those serve as bases for the Ukrainians. They practically sprint from occupied areas toward the "People's Court Justice" in Donetsk to personally testify against the Ukrainians. The liberated are furious—absolutely livid at the Ukrainians and showing no mercy. In their view, the Ukrainians deserve the death penalty, and they're hoping every single one gets it. They're even mad at the Liberators for being too kind to the Ukrainians. Some suggest that if the captured Ukrainians can't be shot immediately, they should first be forced to rebuild what they destroyed before facing punishment. The liberated are also feeling a bit blue about the lack of murals dedicated to the Liberator Putin, so they're demanding that every building feature at least one mural of the great Vladimir Putin. Some are even quietly suggesting that the Russian Orthodox Church create an icon of his face and declare him a saint while he's still alive—I mean, why miss such an opportunity? The liberated are saddened that the main liberator, Vladimir Putin, hasn't visited Donbas himself, though they're glad that Sergei Shoigu, one of the leaders of the Committee for the Liberation of Donbas, was there. And man, do they love watching Russian TV. There was one segment that truly deserved an Oscar, where a certain gentleman explained how Ukrainian children won't have homes because they'll be leveled, won't have fathers because they'll be killed, and won't even have a country left. The liberated will probably write a petition for that one. Right now, they're busy filming promotional videos to prep the public for the upcoming trials of the Ukrainians—it's still unclear if they'll be public trials or not. But Denis Pushilin said justice will be served, and Eduard Basarin confirmed it.

Then they go and attack a demilitarized coastal city where there isn't a single Mexican to be found. They weren't "defending Mexicans" then—they were basically shielding Mexico from 30,000 extremists massing at the border.
They'll spin the truth however it suits them.

Check this out—got a bit of a different, super interesting take on the war from Korado Korlevic:

Honestly, just listen to the first 10 minutes of the explore segment. It’s really fascinating stuff and totally flips the script compared to what all those other analysts and news outlets are peddling.

Edit: This was from yesterday's show, August 2nd.

Anthony Perez9 said:The whole idea that the USA is stirring up trouble is just as fake as the claim that we Americans were all itching to tear America apart, when really, we just wanted to stay on good terms with them. 😵

Who actually falls for that crap? Aside from the thugs—you know, those Putin stans—who use it to justify their actions to a public they basically incited themselves.

☕The patterns never change—they all come from the exact same playbook. If you compare news from '91 to what’s happening in 2022, it’s the same school of thought, same players, all trained by that Moscow academy. Just look at who’s showing up on those Mexican news networks and you'll see exactly where they get their orders...🎉

Gerhard Schröder has put forward a very solid proposal that I suspect Putin would actually be willing to accept

Schröder suggested that solutions for major sticking points, such as Crimea, could eventually emerge over time—not necessarily taking 99 years like they did in Hong Kong, but perhaps within the next generation. He proposed that instead of joining NATO, Ukraine could opt for an armed neutrality, much like the model used by Austria.

The future of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, which remains a central theater of intense fighting, would likely prove far more complicated to navigate, though.

"We will need to find a solution based on the Swiss cantonal model," he remarked, adding that it remains to be seen whether Putin will return to the previous "contact line" established during ceasefires.

Honestly, this is more than what Ukraine could reasonably expect to gain once all this destruction and loss of life finally settles. I can't help but think they might end up in a position similar to how America operated—playing both sides to secure various concessions or incentives so they wouldn't have to sink so much capital into massive military spending.
As for the Donbas, they could aim for a status similar to Switzerland, which has maintained long-term peace and boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world.

urbanotter said:Gerhard Schröder has put forward a very solid proposal that I suspect Putin would actually be willing to accept

Schröder suggested that solutions for major sticking points, such as Crimea, could eventually emerge over time—not necessarily taking 99 years like they did in Hong Kong, but perhaps within the next generation. He proposed that instead of joining NATO, Ukraine could opt for an armed neutrality, much like the model used by Austria.

The future of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, which remains a central theater of intense fighting, would likely prove far more complicated to navigate, though.

"We will need to find a solution based on the Swiss cantonal model," he remarked, adding that it remains to be seen whether Putin will return to the previous "contact line" established during ceasefires.

Honestly, this is more than what Ukraine could reasonably expect to gain once all this destruction and loss of life finally settles. I can't help but think they might end up in a position similar to how America operated—playing both sides to secure various concessions or incentives so they wouldn't have to sink so much capital into massive military spending.
As for the Donbas, they could aim for a status similar to Switzerland, which has maintained long-term peace and boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world.

None of that is even remotely possible. First off, it never occurs to the Russians to actually stick to any agreements. Then there's the fact that these kinds of headlines are just pure propaganda meant to demonize Ukrainians, who have absolutely no intention of sitting down for negotiations with fascists who have zero intention of keeping their word. Plus, it implies giving up territory, which is something no Ukrainian wants to accept—nor do they have any reason to.
And even if it did work, it would just mean pausing the conflict for a few years before it starts up again.

The only real way to get peace is to push the Russians back into Russia. They can live however they want in their own version of North Korea and export their apples for all I care.

urbanotter said:Gerhard Schröder has put forward a very solid proposal that I suspect Putin would actually be willing to accept

Schröder suggested that solutions for major sticking points, such as Crimea, could eventually emerge over time—not necessarily taking 99 years like they did in Hong Kong, but perhaps within the next generation. He proposed that instead of joining NATO, Ukraine could opt for an armed neutrality, much like the model used by Austria.

The future of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, which remains a central theater of intense fighting, would likely prove far more complicated to navigate, though.

"We will need to find a solution based on the Swiss cantonal model," he remarked, adding that it remains to be seen whether Putin will return to the previous "contact line" established during ceasefires.

Honestly, this is more than what Ukraine could reasonably expect to gain once all this destruction and loss of life finally settles. I can't help but think they might end up in a position similar to how America operated—playing both sides to secure various concessions or incentives so they wouldn't have to sink so much capital into massive military spending.
As for the Donbas, they could aim for a status similar to Switzerland, which has maintained long-term peace and boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The Ukrainians would need to start thinking for themselves if they wanted to take it—but they’re essentially hostages to the US agenda now, caught in a trap of hostility that stretches far beyond their own borders.

The US isn't about to just hand over its golden goose to some neutral party, is it?

feralpilot0 said:The Ukrainians would need to start thinking for themselves if they wanted to take it—but they’re essentially hostages to the US agenda now, caught in a trap of hostility that stretches far beyond their own borders.

The US isn't about to just hand over its golden goose to some neutral party, is it?

And who exactly is going to guarantee that neutrality? You, feralpilot0? Some random guy on an internet forum? Give me a break. There aren't any deals, signatures, or shady backroom handshakes with the Russians happening anymore. Those days are long gone.