The Ukraine ‘peace deal’ is proving to be a scam

This 30 day ceasefire idea was Europe's, not Russia's.
Actually, trump's idea, not Europe's or Russia's.

I had heard somewhere that Europe may have been involved, but when looking just now to see exactly where it originated, it seems I was mistaken. Here's what I was able to find out, courtesy of Wikipedia:
**
Retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg and Frederick H. Fleitz, who both served in Trump's National Security Council staff, had presented Trump with a detailed peace plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine. The plan aims to force the two sides into peace talks and a ceasefire based on the current frontlines. If Ukraine refused to enter peace talks, weapons supplies would be stopped; if Russia refused peace talks, weapons supplies to Ukraine would be increased.

[snip]

On March 11, 2025, Ukraine agreed to a U.S.-proposed 30-day ceasefire with Russia, pending Moscow's acceptance. The announcement followed negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where U.S. and Ukrainian officials reaffirmed their commitment to diplomacy. As part of the agreement, the Trump administration lifted its suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
**

Source:

So it appears that this idea was one that 2 of his staff members came up with and he decided to go with it.
 
I think he was copying Biden's confidence building idea in Gaza, but it made little sense in Ukraine. Whatever else you say about trump, he does not understand the basics.

He's certainly not a master diplomat, but I applaud the fact that he seems to be seriously trying, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
 
Russia wants a permanent peace.
Russia wants the permanent peace of the grave for Ukraine.

I think that's far too negative a view. I believe tried to achieve a diplomatic solution to the civil war that raged in Ukraine for 8 years to no avail. He even brought this up on the speech that aired on the day that he began his military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it:
**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

**

Full speech:

Now, I haven't seen evidence that Ukraine had designs on what we can call "old Russia", but there's certainly plenty of evidence that Ukraine wanted to retake the rebel Donbas republics, as well as Crimea. This, despite the fact that Ukraine twice made agreements to work out a lasting peace with the Donbass republics, called the Minsk agreements.
 
[A] real peace agreement would start with a ceasefire without preconditions or expiration, and then allow negotiations toward a peace agreement. The combat could end whenever Putin wants it to end.

That would only benefit Ukraine, as it's currently on the backfoot. Russia knows only too well how Ukraine has used such temporary ceasefires in the past, specifically the 2 Minsk agreements. German Chancellor Angela Merkel even admitted that they were only done to give Ukraine time to rebuild:
 
Putin may want many things, but it seems that the only hard lines he's really put out is that he's not giving back most if not all of the territory that Russia currently holds. Seeing as how Russia is gaining territory every day, I strongly believe that Ukraine's best option is to get to the negotiating sooner rather than later.
Putin demands the territory that he could not win in combat, for a 30 day end to the invasion... Followed by a continuation. That would put Russian forces on the right hand side of the Dneiper, which would make them almost impossible to stop.

I think we can agree that if Ukraine were to cede any land that Russia hasn't yet taken, it would only make cense if it were part of a -permanent- peace agreement. I certainly haven't seen Putin say that he would expect any ceding of Ukrainian territory solely so that Ukraine could get a temporary ceasefire.
 
Russia may have made some initial attempts, but from what I've heard, the real thing is coming soon. Simplicius, a substacker with extensive knowledge of the situation in Ukraine, had this to say today in regards to Odessa:
We should remind ourselves what got us here.

Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. Before the Ukrainians put up a defense, the Russian Army was already on the other side of the Dnieper River, had captured Kherson, and was most of the way towards Odesa. The Russians Navy was attacking Odesa by sea, and had captured Snake Island just off the coast of Odesa.

It seemed pretty hopeless.

Then the Ukrainians started fighting back. They drove the Russian Army back across the Dnieper River, liberating Kherson. This was an amazing feat, because crossing a river while fighting is tough. It turns out that NATO tech and strategies for crossing a rive in combat works very well. When the Ukrainians ran into the mines on the left side of the river, everything started falling apart. NATO tech and strategies do not work well against the combination of mines, drones, and artillery. And of course, Ukraine devastated the Russian Navy, so now rather than attack Odesa, they cower at the far end of the Black Sea.

When Russians do press back against the Ukrainians and capture the Ukrainians beachheads on the left side of the Dnieper River, they are unable to cross the defended Dnieper. While NATO can cross rivers like they are barely there, Russians simply cannot.

And the Russians need to cross the Dnieper to get to Odesa. Putin is demanding the "four Donbas Provinces", which would include areas on the right side of the Dnieper, to give Ukraine a 30 day truce. That would put the Russian Army across the Dnieper, and much of the way towards Odesa at the end of the 30 day truce. It seems Putin's only hope for victory.
 
I think we can agree that if Ukraine were to cede any land that Russia hasn't yet taken, it would only make cense if it were part of a -permanent- peace agreement.
It would only make sense if a permanent peace could be proven to the Ukrainians. In the past, Russia has promised peace, only to immediately break the promise. So we would need to promise NATO and EU membership to get Ukraine to give up land.
 
Russia may have made some initial attempts, but from what I've heard, the real thing is coming soon. Simplicius, a substacker with extensive knowledge of the situation in Ukraine, had this to say today in regards to Odessa:
We should remind ourselves what got us here.

Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that he started a military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The reason I think that's more accurate is because Putin has always stated that his decision to start this operation had nothing to do with conquest, which is what invasions are generally about, and everything to do with protecting Russia's interests. Furthermore, he only started his military operation almost a week -after- Ukraine had begun its assault on the Donbass Republics. I suspect you already know this, so I'll just include a link to an article that explains all of this from former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud:

Before the Ukrainians put up a defense, the Russian Army was already on the other side of the Dnieper River, had captured Kherson, and was most of the way towards Odesa. The Russians Navy was attacking Odesa by sea, and had captured Snake Island just off the coast of Odesa.

It seemed pretty hopeless.

Then the Ukrainians started fighting back. They drove the Russian Army back across the Dnieper River, liberating Kherson. This was an amazing feat, because crossing a river while fighting is tough. It turns out that NATO tech and strategies for crossing a rive in combat works very well. When the Ukrainians ran into the mines on the left side of the river, everything started falling apart. NATO tech and strategies do not work well against the combination of mines, drones, and artillery. And of course, Ukraine devastated the Russian Navy, so now rather than attack Odesa, they cower at the far end of the Black Sea.

When Russians do press back against the Ukrainians and capture the Ukrainians beachheads on the left side of the Dnieper River, they are unable to cross the defended Dnieper. While NATO can cross rivers like they are barely there, Russians simply cannot.

And the Russians need to cross the Dnieper to get to Odesa.

Yes, they do. I already quoted Simplicius extensively in the post you're responding to with a Ukrainian General explaining how the Russians plan to do it. Naturally, the Ukrainian General thinks they may not succeed, but he also left open the possibility that they might. Keep in mind that this all comes from a Ukrainian news organization. I'll quote direct from the source and link to it below. Keep in mind that the original source is in Ukrainian, so you'll need a browser like chrome to translate it to English:
**
The Russians do not intend to end military operations in Ukraine until they have achieved their goals. Among them is the occupation of at least four major cities – Zaporizhia, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa. This was stated by Major of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Prozapas.

It was noted that the strategic goal of the rashists is to connect the captured Crimean corridor with Transnistria.

"The Russians are preparing bridgeheads for an offensive, including in Zaporizhia. This must be clearly understood. Zaporizhia is one of the strategic cities for them, although, of course, not as much of a priority as the Odessa direction. Because their main strategic task is to connect the occupied Crimean corridor with Transnistria, capturing Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa," Prozapas said on the air of the Espresso TV channel.

It is stated that Zaporozhye is needed as an outpost, having captured which it will be possible to advance to the south, conveniently forcing the Dnieper. However, this does not mean that the enemy will be able to realize their intentions. According to the analyst, one must be prepared for the worst and not expect a miracle. And then the invaders will not be able to achieve the desired result.

[snip]

It was emphasized that the Russians are preparing offensive operations.

"We must prepare for the worst, then we will not be disappointed," the military expert explained.
**

Full article:

Putin is demanding the "four Donbas Provinces", which would include areas on the right side of the Dnieper, to give Ukraine a 30 day truce. That would put the Russian Army across the Dnieper, and much of the way towards Odesa at the end of the 30 day truce. It seems Putin's only hope for victory.

I haven't seen Putin demand the four Donbass Provinces in exchange for a truce. I -suspect- that you are mistaken, and that Putin said that this could be part of a -permanent- peace. Regardless, I think we can agree that Ukraine wouldn't give them up for such a paltry reward as a 30 day truce. At this point, I don't even see Ukraine giving them up for a permanent peace. Which means that we'll probably find out if Russia is able to take them by force in the coming months or not.
 
He's certainly not a master diplomat, but I applaud the fact that he seems to be seriously trying, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
I see nothing serious in trump. Putin plays him like a fiddle.
I don't see things the way you do here. If Putin was really playing him the way you suggest, I seriously doubt that Trump would have resumed giving support to Ukraine, for starters. I think Trump doesn't want to escalate things with Russia, at least not to the point of nuclear war, which I think is wise.
 
That would only benefit Ukraine, as it's currently on the backfoot. Russia knows only too well how Ukraine has used such temporary ceasefires in the past, specifically the 2 Minsk agreements. German Chancellor Angela Merkel even admitted that they were only done to give Ukraine time to rebuild:
If peace only benefits one side, there will be no peace.

I completely agree with you there.
 
I think we can agree that if Ukraine were to cede any land that Russia hasn't yet taken, it would only make cense if it were part of a -permanent- peace agreement.
It would only make sense if a permanent peace could be proven to the Ukrainians. In the past, Russia has promised peace, only to immediately break the promise.

Can you give me an example where you believe this has happened? From my perspective, it's the Ukrainians who have broken deals in the past, notably the Minsk agreements.

So we would need to promise NATO and EU membership to get Ukraine to give up land.

EU membership maybe, but the promise of NATO membership played a large part in Russia going to war in Ukraine to begin with. American Professor John Mearsheimer explained 10 years ago that these promises of NATO membership would get Ukraine wrecked. Business Today wrote a good article on this in March:
 
Can you give me an example where you believe this has happened? From my perspective, it's the Ukrainians who have broken deals in the past, notably the Minsk agreements.



EU membership maybe, but the promise of NATO membership played a large part in Russia going to war in Ukraine to begin with. American Professor John Mearsheimer explained 10 years ago that these promises of NATO membership would get Ukraine wrecked. Business Today wrote a good article on this in March:
Almost Never Right WALT is here to waste your energy.

I encourage U 2 Resist.
 
Can you give me an example where you believe this has happened? From my perspective, it's the Ukrainians who have broken deals in the past, notably the Minsk agreements.

EU membership maybe, but the promise of NATO membership played a large part in Russia going to war in Ukraine to begin with. American Professor John Mearsheimer explained 10 years ago that these promises of NATO membership would get Ukraine wrecked. Business Today wrote a good article on this in March:
Almost Never Right WALT is here to waste your energy.

I encourage U 2 Resist.

Walt seems to be quite polite, unlike some of the other posters here. We clearly don't always agree, but that can lead to good discussions.
 
Back
Top