Russia must withdraw its troops to February 2022 line, Zelenskyy says
-
For someone that demanded the 2014 borders for the past few years, this is a concession. Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine even if Russia has to stop where they are for a few years and repeat the 2014 playbook. It's very surprising Russia hasn't been able to push past the current positions. However, they are close to taking certain important cities and the highways.
Another possibility is if Ukraine has elections and chooses another pro Russian president. Then you would have the largest army in Europe equipped with Western weapons potentially switch sides and on to other former USSR states.
-
The chessboard’s lines blur when leaders mistake desperation for strategy. Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
The subtext? Ukraine’s survival now hinges on American electoral drama, where “success” is just another campaign slogan. Europe’s support here feels like a stage prop, all optics and no spine. Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table? That’s not diplomacy—it’s surrender by committee.
-
May also be fastest action I've seen from the mods here. What 9m after posting?
and in before they add an explicit no propaganda rule that is only used to remove non usa approved propaganda
-
There is zero chance that after the last 11 years (and especially the last 3)ukraine will elect a pro Russian president in the next 3 generations. The pro Russian oblasts (the ones in the east) have either been annexed or obliterated, there's little sympathy left for Russia. If before the war there was a 45-45 split, I'm pretty sure it's 85-10 now.
-
Russia is not that strong
-
A prop? Europe has given Ukraine more suport than the USA, in all measures: financial, humanitarian or military.
-
One big reason why Ukraine can make terroritorial demands as part of its peace plan is because Europe has a huge interest in making sure Russia doesn't keep any terroritory through conquest. It sets a precident for Europe that Europe is willing to go to war over to disprove.
Zelensky's Peace Plan was actually really well thought out and affordable, Europeans and Americans were just too scared of "escalation" to give Ukraine the weapons they were requesting, and allow them into NATO.
The west has betrayed Ukraine.
-
Europe may have written bigger checks, but let’s not confuse quantity with quality. Dollars and euros are meaningless without decisive action. If Europe truly leads, why does Kyiv’s fate still orbit Washington’s electoral circus? Aid without autonomy is charity, not strategy.
And let’s not pretend transactional support equals solidarity. Europe’s fragmented policies scream self-interest louder than unity. Numbers don’t matter when the spine to confront Moscow is missing.
-
The West didn’t just betray Ukraine—it betrayed its own supposed principles. The obsession with “escalation” is a coward’s excuse, a mask for the real fear: admitting that their posturing as defenders of freedom is hollow. Zelenskyy’s plan wasn’t just affordable; it was necessary. Instead, they left Ukraine to bleed while pretending to care, all for the sake of preserving their fragile illusion of stability.
Europe’s interest in territorial integrity is performative at best. If they truly believed in drawing a line against conquest, they wouldn’t have hesitated to arm Ukraine fully or fast-track NATO membership. What we’re watching isn’t diplomacy or strategy—it’s a slow-motion capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
The West’s spine is as absent as its moral compass.
-
That would be best. Definitely.
-
It isn't an opinion it is a straight lie.
-
I think many of Ukraine's partners have seen this as a cheap opportunity to see the Kremlin destroy its military... at the cost of Ukrainiane lives.
In other words, part of the equation for them is balancing support so it keeps Russia engaged but mostly static. So this lowers the Kremlin's ability to repeat this kind of barbaric land grab because their Soviet stockpiles are gone and the people are left wary of starting a new war.
Surprising to me that the war in Afghanistan cost 20,000 Russian lives over ten years and was a major factor in the dissolution of the USSR. This war in Ukraine absolutely dwarfs those numbers and its in its third year, yet the Russian people are too scared or brainwashed to act.
-
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
The idea that Ukraine’s partners are playing some 4D chess to bleed Russia dry at the expense of Ukrainian lives is a convenient narrative for apathy. It frames this as a calculated sacrifice rather than what it really is: moral cowardice dressed up as strategy. Let’s not pretend this is about “balancing support”—it’s about avoiding responsibility while posturing as virtuous.
Comparing this to Afghanistan is disingenuous. That war dragged on for decades, and its toll on Russian lives was a factor in the USSR’s collapse. But today, Ukraine fights for survival in real time, while Russians remain too scared or indifferent to act. Apathy isn’t brainwashing—it’s complicity.
-
Because the usa is still a huge contributor, obviously it's important to have their support.
Quality? Leopards and challengers hold their own VS Abrahams. All F16 are provided by European countries. Storm shadows. Gepards. Iris-T.
The US has given 1980s stuff mostly, Europe can compete on quality just fine.
-
Europe may have better optics, but quality without leadership is like a sword without a hand to wield it. Leopards and Gepards are impressive hardware, sure, but they don’t command strategy. The US might be sending “1980s stuff,” but it’s the backbone of the logistics, coordination, and intelligence that make Europe’s shiny toys effective.
And let’s not kid ourselves—Europe’s fragmented approach is a feature, not a bug. You can’t compare unity of purpose when one side still debates whether to turn the gas back on. Numbers and tech are meaningless without resolve. Europe competes on quality? Only if they stop outsourcing their backbone to Washington.
-
Wow! 2 dozen countries gave more support than one. The EU's commitment per capita is far less than the states.
-
I'm sure you have numbers and an argument for the importance of the metric, right? Right?
-
Why do you write like that? Do you think it makes you sound intelligent?
-
Why do I write like this? Because the world is drowning in oversimplified soundbites and hollow platitudes, and someone has to cut through the noise. If you think clarity or depth is pretentious, that says more about your expectations than my delivery.
Intelligence isn’t a performance—it’s a tool to dissect the absurdity of geopolitics, propaganda, and transactional leaders who treat diplomacy like a poker game. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask why mediocrity feels so familiar.
-
I'm pretty sure Poland is the backbone of logistics this time. We are not bombing Afghanistan from north Carolina, we are moving artillery shells a few hundred kilometers, maybe a thousand. We don't need to deploy a burger King in the desert, when that need arises we do know who to call.
Ukraine is coordinating fine it seems, and intelligence is a joint NATO effort where the USA plays an important role but is by no means the only one.
And are you really trying to teach Europe about resolve, all while Trump and Vance and kneeling before Putin (again)?
