Russia-Ukraine War

[felter]

So where do we go from here?

Trump has already backed down, saying his plan is not the final offer to Ukraine. You have to remember Trump is a fish out of water flapping around all over the place, not got a clue what to do or where he is, and his plans change like the Scottish weather and depends on what side of the bed he has got out of or who the last person he talked to was.

[fiksal]

I missed that Russian/US plan includes Ukraine leaving the territory it still controls. Of course it does

While the draft of the US-backed plan has not been published in full, major details have leaked in recent days.

Controversial provisions include Ukraine agreeing to withdraw troops from parts of the eastern Donetsk region that they currently control, and international recognition of de facto Russian control of Donetsk, the neighbouring Luhansk region and the southern Crimea peninsula, which was annexed by Russia in 2014.

The plan also includes freezing the borders of Ukraine's southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions along the current battle lines, and would see Ukraine agreeing to limit the size of its military to 600,000 personnel, down from about 880,000 now.

The draft crucially includes a pledge for Ukraine not to seek membership of Nato. Instead, Kyiv would receive "reliable security guarantees", about which no details have been given.

The document says "it is expected" that Russia will not invade its neighbours and that Nato will not expand further.

The draft also suggests Russia will be "reintegrated into the global economy", through the lifting of sanctions and by inviting Russia to rejoin the G7 group of the world's most powerful countries - making it the G8 again.

Trump previously gave Ukraine until this coming Thursday to agree to the proposals, though later said the draft did not amount to a "final offer" after Ukraine's allies voiced their concerns.

And Rubio told reporters on Sunday he was "very optimistic that we're going to get there in a very reasonable period of time very soon", whether it was Thursday, other days, or Monday the following week.

Before the talks began in Geneva, Rubio and the State Department insisted the widely-leaked plan had been authored by the US.

That came after a bipartisan group of US senators claimed the secretary of state had told them the draft was a Russian proposal and did not represent the Trump administration's position.

Rubio rebutted that account and said it had been authored by the US with "input" from Moscow and Kyiv, while a State Department spokesperson described the senators' account of their conversation with Rubio as "blatantly false".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3zwy808dpo


as it was mentioned, there must be no recognition of the annexation. And no reward for it

[Observe]

I missed that Russian/US plan includes Ukraine leaving the territory it still controls. Of course it does...as it was mentioned, there must be no recognition of the annexation. And no reward for it

We discussed the need for Ukraine to surrender over year ago on this forum. Things have become worse for Ukraine since then.

In spite of bravado and cheers over explosions in Russia, Ukraine continues to lose ground, the moral among the population is in the mud, soldiers are deserting in droves, people have left the country by the millions, divorce rates are skyrocketing, births are below replacement, economy is in shreds and corruption remains a major issue. Ukraine is not fit for NATO, so they might as well forget about that.

Europe is too bogged down in their own weapons supply and economic woes to be of much help moving forward. In short, they've lost their united appetite for this war. Ukraine would need to be able to slog on more or less alone. They are unable to do that.

Holding out hope that Russia will collapse or Putin will die, is unrealistic. Ukraine must surrender now even more than a year ago.

At least if Ukraine surrenders (or whatever they call it in the peace plan), they have a chance of keeping what remains of their country, with hopefully solid protection plans in place. Hopefully, we won't be talking about this another year from now.

[alt3rn1ty]

Holding out hope that Russia will collapse or Putin will die, is unrealistic.

But still, very much wished for by the whole of Europe. He's like Trump, an overgrown playground bully, we all hope will be assasinated/taken over.

Love Russians, and Americans, just wish the people of both countries could get rid of their relative leaders.

[notaterran]

We discussed the need for Ukraine to surrender over year ago on this forum. Things have become worse for Ukraine since then.

Things have become worse for Russia too; look what happened to their stockpiles of tanks and armored vehicles in general. Russia is objectively weakened now; they couldn't help Syria, they couldn't help Iran and they can't help Venezuela. Russia's economy is not exactly great and, if the West gives Ukraine more help, the Russian Federation will fall just like the Soviet Union fell shortly after their failed invasion of Afghanistan. Russia is now bleeding, this is a golden opportunity.

If the last four years are any indication, the path to a Russian defeat is clear: give enough weapons to the Ukrainians and the Russians will retreat from Ukraine just like they retreated from Afghanistan.

[mr.WHO]

Observers surrender speech sounds like Russia already took half of Ukraine along entire Dnieper river.

Yet the reality is Russia struggle to take small cities like Pokrovsk for months.
Hell, did you know Ukraine still control a few streets at Chasiv Yar?
That was Previous famous strongpoint, that Russia struggled to take and declared captured...few months ago.

I guess they don't understand the term "Phyrric victory".


Is Russia winning at the moment? Yes.
Lets see if Russia can keep "winning" like that for a year or two more.

Russian economy is not a juggernaut - it's as dysfunctional as it's army - Excel sheet don't magically turn raw resources into tanks, fuel and supplies.
At this very moment biggest Russian tank factory is firing personel and downsizing...during 3rd year of a war - let that sink in.

Before any trolls starts "tanks are redundant already" - then why not switch to IFVs, assault golf carts or buhankas?

[fiksal]

I missed that Russian/US plan includes Ukraine leaving the territory it still controls. Of course it does...as it was mentioned, there must be no recognition of the annexation. And no reward for it

We discussed the need for Ukraine to surrender over year ago on this forum. Things have become worse for Ukraine since then.

Maybe we should look back, but I don't remember we discussed a surrender.

I do recall you mentioning that Ukraine should keep governing yourself, joining EU, continue speaking Ukrainian. None of which are possible in the surrender.

The only benefit to surrender is that less Russians die in the fight. Amount of Ukrainians that die in the surrender vs those that fight for eventual freedom is the same. Russian history usually shows that surrendering can be much worse for the conquered nation, as its next step is erasing.

Are you sure you are aware of what you are suggesting? Do you even listen to Kremlin?

mid post EDIT: this is a good moment for self reflection - you propose surrender on terms that you would never accept for your own country / US, would you? Would you freely give up Alaska, Oregon with the same conditions dictated by Russians to you?

...

Whose history do you want to compare to, Chechnya, recent events like Donbass, Butcha, Crimean Tatars, the law of discrediting army, or go back to WW2 prisoners, maybe all of Eastern countries after WW2, Afghanistan, Gulag, Stalin's repressions? I just listed all proud moments of Russian history.

Speaking of progress, Russia didn't move in last three years. Other than Mariupol in the first year, there hasn't been anything taken.

...

What Europe needs to do is hard but simple
- stop asking US for input, US is okay with destruction of Ukraine. US is irrelevant as far as diplomacy goes.
- sign defense pacts with Ukraine
- deploy
- control air space
- force Russia to accept immediate cease fire or risk global war. Russia wants to but isn't ready for it now.


there was an article last week hinting that apparently Europe is discussing something like that with Ukraine already. Details are not however public info. I can find it again...

[matthewfarmery]

Besides Trump can't be trusted, There was recently a leaked phone call of a top US aide talking to a Russian. Basically, how to curry favour with Trump. How to get him to agree with a proposal. Basically, make it appear that any peace deal was American, but in fact Russia would be the ones who made the deal in the first place. In hat regard, Whatever America comes up with, will have Russian influence behind it.

[fiksal]

I have a proposition for sanity of this thread. While it's good to keep tabs on US, I suggest we place less importance to news coming from US. The topic here is Russian - Ukrainian war. The primary topic is not what US thinks should happen, but how this war is developing and being dealt with.

for example, lets change the direction of our discussions to
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2025 ... ne-defense

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday met France's Emmanuel Macron at an air base outside Paris to seal a major deal to acquire French air defence hardware including Rafale fighter jets, France's flagship combat aircraft.

The two leaders signed a letter of intent for Kyiv to purchase up to 100 Rafale fighter jets "with their associated weapons", Macron told reporters.

In a boost for Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion, the accord also paves the way for Kyiv to acquire the new generation SAMP-T air defence system under development, as well as radar systems and drones.

in the speech Macro mentioned development of weapons for Ukraine and on territory of Ukraine. Including bombs and drones. That agreement is for 3 years

[Chips]

As admirable as it seems, don't lose sight that France is going to be profiting from these deals. Paid for by the rest of Europe (Rafale being one of the most expensive options, but Ukraine's options are limited to start with).

The aim was to finance it with EU programmes and the planned use of frozen Russian assets, which the EU still has to agree.
It covered new material rather than transfers from French stocks, the Elysee added.
"We're planning Rafales, 100 Rafales - that’s huge. That’s what’s needed for the regeneration of the Ukrainian military," Macron told LCI TV.

So until then, it's moderately useless compared to the current scenario. It's stealing a march on the rest, of course, nothing wrong with that - planning for the future. If that's your concern anyway. There's no idea how to pay for it to start with, so who knows where it'll actually end up. Most countries/manufacturers will be attempting do to the same.

But lets not pretend that the actual motivation is helping the Ukraine at present, but actually getting ahead of the competition in ensuring some French companies have an income stream from a 30 year old jet over the next decade. It'll be end of life by then as well...

Additionally, at this rate, they'll have F16 trained pilots, Gripen trained pilots, Russian era aircraft trained pilots and Rafale trained pilots. Different parts, different weapons (unless fully integrated NATO standards). Could be interesting.

[fiksal]

Do you specifically think the main motivation of the government of France is not to help Ukraine but to make money or modernize the military?

[Chips]

Do you specifically think the main motivation of the government of France is not to help Ukraine but to make money or modernize the military?

Well, put it this way. I think I read that they're supposed to be the newest F4 variant, so *newly* built planes; not old ones flogged on.

The current order production queue for the Rafale is 9 years. The current price tag is 225 million euros a pop (from Serbia's order), but usually listed around 130 million dollars per unit (minus all support, just the frame), making it the most expensive jet plane option to buy in the world at present.

As there's no contract whatsoever at present, there's no obligation to proceed. I'd imagine several nations are cursing themselves for not moving faster
Lastly, no, when it comes to flogging defence equipment, the primary motivation is supporting your own industry. Ukraine's unlikely to be able to afford the planes, hence why it's conditional on many factors; 1) peace, 2) captured Russian funds, 3) European bankroll.

The same goes for the air defence; it's an in development system. These are all future deals, not in the now. If Russia's in a position to allegedly start a war with Europe in another 5 years, Ukraine will be unlikely have received anything by that point.

Should point out this'd be the same for anyone signing contracts; okay the Swedish Gripen is a bit more fleshed out - older planes in 2026, newer planes for most of the deal, ability for Ukraine to build on their own territory by 2033. Dassault (Rafale) build exclusively in France.

Vultures have been circling Ukraine for a while; there's a huge amount of money to be made from rebuilding and re-arming Ukraine. They'll all be getting an oar in.

[Chips]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Culf7iLOcEE

Steve Rosenberg; the BBC's Russia Correspondent - giving one of his regular "What the Russian papers say"

As the title of the video says "Nearly 60% of Russian regions have a hole in their budgets over 600 billion roubles" - sub heading, 11x greater than in 2022. Meaning, the media in Russia is reporting to the population about how things are getting worse, financially, but aren't directly saying due to the war. Just comparisons with 2022... probably so they don't fall out any windows.

[fiksal]

Help is on the way!
In the major push to save Russia from a slow death, US ally steps up its demands and the enemy is willing to accept article 5 without NATO

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/u ... rcna249106

Ukraine has relinquished its ambition of joining the NATO military alliance in exchange for Western security guarantees as a compromise to end the war with Russia, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said ahead of talks with U.S. envoys in Berlin.

The move marks a major shift for Ukraine, which has fought to join NATO as a safeguard against Russian attacks and has such an aspiration included in its constitution. It also meets one of Russia's war aims, although Kyiv has so far held firm against ceding territory to Moscow.

...

"From the very beginning, Ukraine's desire was to join NATO, these are real security guarantees. Some partners from the U.S. and Europe did not support this direction," he said in answer to questions from reporters in a WhatsApp chat.

"Thus, today, bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the U.S., Article 5-like guarantees for us from the U.S., and security guarantees from European colleagues, as well as other countries — Canada, Japan — are an opportunity to prevent another Russian invasion," Zelenskyy said.

"And it is already a compromise from our part," he said, adding that the security guarantees should be legally binding.

but an American Russian supporter may not watch Russian news and forget - that's not what Russia is asking. Russia needs to be able to walk its troops in Kyiv for May 9th, and to be able to purge all "confused" Ukrainians that are against Russian rule.

If Russia doesn't get that, then people at the top and at the bottom may start asking - what is this war for?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demanded that Ukraine officially renounce its NATO ambitions and withdraw troops from the about 10% of Donbas which Kyiv still controls. Moscow has also said that Ukraine must be a neutral country and that no NATO troops can be stationed in Ukraine.

Russian sources said earlier this year that Putin wants a "written" pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the U.S.-led NATO alliance eastwards - shorthand for formally ruling out membership to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other former Soviet republics.

Work harder, MAGA, do I need to explain this every time

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/12/ ... ion-a91421

In the mean time, the enemy is taking hard yearned ground. It's a secret among Russian supporters, don't tell anyone

Ukraine on Friday said it had retaken two settlements in the northern Kharkiv region and pushed Russian troops back in Kupiansk, a key railway hub that Russia claimed to have seized last month.

"Kindrashivka, Radkivka and their outskirts have been liberated, as well as a number of neighborhoods in northern Kupiansk," the Khartia army corps said on social media.

The Russian army claimed at the end of November to have again captured the city of Kupiansk, which it first seized in 2022 before Ukrainian forces retook it in the fall that year.

Russia has in recent months touted advances on the battlefield, where Ukrainian forces are on the back foot.

[mr.WHO]

One submarine down:
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/20 ... 0644887791

Edit:

Possibly two?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz51KDlbFcQ

Holy, molly, there is a third one, next to the first explosion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B1WQPyi2Aw

[clakclak]

I have a question a question that simply does not leave my mind. It isn't a new question. It isn't a question that hasn't been ask before, but it is a question that still never stops bothering me.

What is the purpose of all this? What does Russia hope to gain that makes it so willing to take on these massive human, economic and diplomatic sacrifices?

[Alan Phipps]

The answer to your question really has two sides: the side for Russian public consumption is that it provides Russia with a better security buffer against NATO expansion and threat, and the side that is in-house and private is that the leadership can save face and stay in power after their decision to invade without regard to the costs to Russia. (Oh and Ukraine's access routes, resources and production would have been nice to have too.)

[fiksal]

I have a question a question that simply does not leave my mind. It isn't a new question. It isn't a question that hasn't been ask before, but it is a question that still never stops bothering me.

What is the purpose of all this? What does Russia hope to gain that makes it so willing to take on these massive human, economic and diplomatic sacrifices?

The war was supposed to be three days. Ukraine was supposed to surrender and join Russia.

The benefit is assembling back the Soviet Union that Putin repeatedly said was the biggest tragedy / injustice of the 20th century.

I didn't learn of the "Russian world" / "Z" element until after the second invasion. Though it was already there when Russia took Crimea and Donbass. Recall that the war is actually on its 11th year.

The Russian World benefit is that Russia must take its rightful and historic place as the main super power in Europe. Every country that is smaller must either be within Russia, have governments that are pro Russian or respect its wishes. Dugin, one who maybe inspires Putin with Russia's ultimate purpose places Russian border around Berlin. This leaves a nice buffer between reduced NATO border and Moscow. Phrases like - all Slavic people must live under Russia - are common among Russian "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

How they plan to accomplish all of this, is somewhat a mystery to me. But they can't go back, there's no stopping the war until it is won, to them. Ukraine is a step, not the goal, they repeat that on TV.

[fiksal]

To balance Trump's "let Russia take what it wants plan" here's the one from Europe and Ukraine:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/24/europe/u ... sions-intl

• An affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and a non-aggression agreement between Russia and Ukraine;

• Security guarantees provided to Ukraine by the United States, NATO, and European states that Zelensky said would “mirror Article 5” – NATO’s cornerstone principle of mutual self-defense. The plan would call for a military response and reinstatement of sanctions on Moscow if Russia invades Ukraine, but the guarantees would be rescinded if Ukraine launches an attack on Russia or opens fire on Russian territory without provocation;

• A development package to support Ukraine’s postwar economic recovery, including establishment of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence as well as investment in Ukraine’s natural gas sector by US companies. Zelensky estimated the overall economic losses caused by the war to be $800 billion;

• A compromise proposal for the operation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, currently held by Russia. Zelensky said Ukraine proposes the plant would be operated by a joint enterprise between the US and Ukraine, with 50% of the electricity output going to Ukraine and the remainder allocated by the US;

• The withdrawal of Russian troops from the Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions of Ukraine;

• A legally binding agreement, with implementation monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council chaired by US President Donald Trump; and

• A full ceasefire taking effect immediately once all parties agree to the deal.

Control of territory is the most complex point of any deal, along with the potential sequencing of events. Zelensky also spoke at length about a potential nationwide referendum in Ukraine that would formalize the end of the war.

“People could then choose: does this ending suit us, or does it not?” he said. “That would be the referendum. A referendum requires at least 60 days. And we need a real ceasefire for 60 days; otherwise, we cannot hold it. In other words, the referendum would not be legitimate.

People living in territories controlled by Russia, Zelensky said, cannot be expected to cast a fair vote.

“But in the territory we control, where a legal and fair referendum can actually be conducted, the voting and preparation process – just as, by the way, with the potential elections our partners talk about – must take place under secure conditions,” he said. “Without security, legitimacy is in question as well. We explain all of this to our partners.”

A missed opportunity to let Russia take Alaska and Oregon, the historic Russian lands, as part of this plan, eh?


plus Canada reminds that Ukraine is a free country, and Russia is not a member of NATO. (Shocking, I know, USA seems to forget those parts)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article ... vereignty/

OTTAWA — Europe is watching for a possible breakthrough in U.S.-led talks for a ceasefire in Ukraine, as Canada has repeatedly said it’s up to Ukrainians to decide how the war ends.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has told reporters he would be willing to withdraw troops from the country’s eastern industrial heartland as part of a plan to end Russia’s invasion, if Moscow also pulls back.

The proposal would involve creating a demilitarized, free economic zone monitored by international forces, as peace talks have focused intensely on control of the region.


Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand’s office did not have an immediate comment on the proposal. But she has repeatedly said that democracies like Ukraine must be the ones deciding what their own interests are for territorial integrity and sovereignty.

At a talk earlier this month held by the Canadian Club in Toronto, Anand said it’s not up to Ottawa to decide what peace formula works for Ukraine.

“Canada is not going to tell President Zelenskyy what geographical boundaries he should be adopting. That is a decision for Ukraine and President Zelenskyy,” she said at the Dec. 12 event.

“What Anita Anand thinks is not relevant. It’s what President Zelenskyy wants at the end of the day, with his government on behalf of the Ukrainian people as a democratic state. That’s what we are trying to support here.”


She similarly said the question of NATO membership for Ukraine is up to the military alliance to decide, and shouldn’t be something that a peace agreement bars from happening.

In November, the U.S. proposed a deal widely seen as supporting Russia’s objectives, which called on Ukraine to be barred from joining the military alliance.

“That’s for NATO countries to decide. It’s not a negotiated point as to a potential ceasefire,” she said.

And what about funding, have you noticed Russia is now attached to the loan?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e025vyppeo

European Union leaders have struck a late-night deal to lend Ukraine €90bn (£79bn; $105bn) over the next two years, after failing to agree on using frozen Russian assets.
...
A bid to use €210bn in Russian cash frozen in the EU, mainly in Belgium, ultimately failed as leaders could not convince Belgium's prime minister his country would be protected from Russian retaliation.

The bulk of the cash is held by Brussels-based Euroclear and interest from the frozen assets is already being paid to Ukraine. Russia has already launched legal action against the clearing house.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/ ... ian-assets

Kyiv will only repay the EU loan based on joint borrowing once it receives war reparations from Moscow

It'd be pointless for me to point out that Russia will never agree to any point above as all of them are against its delusions, what maybe not pointless to remember, is that this plan can work if Europe moves forward or forces Russia into this. Ukraine is doing its part as Russian factories from Moscow to Siberia appear to be mostly producing smoke and fire. But I can only imagine Europe forcing the hand through its troops on the ground and planes in the air. Perhaps there are other ways I cant think of?

[Usenko Temporary]

The big problem is that it would require a certain Russian leader to consider priorities beyond his own imagined legacy.

And it's always hard to deal with imagined things.

Putin thinks he's likely to be remembered as a great leader if he continues this war. He's not, but since he thinks he is, it's really difficult to convince him to pull back.