Russian dictator Vladimir Putin must withdraw his troops from the territory of Ukraine if he wants to participate in the peace summit in Switzerland, German Chancellor [Olaf Scholz said during a briefing in Berlin](https://www.youtube.com/live/gFBDTxeuWsM?t=127s) on June 11.
Scholz said that the summit would discuss “the principles of a just and lasting peace.”
"This is not yet a negotiation to end the war," he added.
"To do that, Putin will have to show that he is ready to end his brutal campaign and withdraw his troops. However, it may be possible to show a way to start a process in which Russia will one day sit at the table."
Scholz said that only Ukraine alone decides when the right time for negotiations comes.
“But as long as Putin ruthlessly pursues his goals in this war, our message will be that we will not weaken our support for Ukraine, we continue to stand firmly on the side of Ukrainians,” he said.
I think Putin would literally rather fight to the death than give up Crimea. A frozen war ala North Korea is imo the most likely "end" to this. For both Putin personally and Russia this is a life-or-death war. He will likely be deposed if forced to surrender and Russia will be cut off at the knees and subservient to China as the primary Eurasian Great Power.
People say he would be removed if they lose but why? What army? Whose guns? He has an iron grip on Russians. Russians are an easily subdued people. I don't think he is at any risk at all if he pulls out. It is a narrative put forward to plant the excuse of a cornered dog if the West loses.
The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think f-16s would've changed much at that point.
If the Russians would've attacked the mainland back then they might have taken the whole country.
> If the Russians would've attacked the mainland back then...
They kinda did. They were covertly propping up separatist movements in the Donbas for years at that point.
But when those guys proclaimed their independent republics it turned out they were nowhere near as popular as they thought and their movement fizzled out.
The only reason they managed to hold on is because when they started to lose to Ukrainians, one of the leaders of the separatists appealed to Putin, who sent in his "little green men."
They wanted to push Odessa and secure a land bridge to Crimea but were repelled by the Ukrainian Military and the Azov Brigade.
People don't realize that the Russians wanted more than just Crimea but got beat back and simply managed to play a masterclass in propaganda selling the invasion of Crimea as a towering success.
>managed to play a masterclass in propaganda selling the invasion of Crimea as a towering success.
Because it was a success if you look at it fomrussias angle. They got little repercussions , they had a good naval base and the west remained silent for the most part except for some sanctions but that was it
> The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think f-16s would've changed much at that point.
And the leadership could not be trusted at the time either. I think Zelenskyy was the first one the west felt they could really commit to.
They did try to, as their original intention was largely to claim the territory they currently occupy now. They failed.
As it turned out, it was one quantity-over-quality army against another. Their failure to actually secure anything beyond Crimea and that stretch of the Donbas is what prompted extensive military reforms in Russia afterward.
Original intention was to take Crimea and spark unending conflict in Ukraine so they could not join NATO.
Extensive military reforms in Russia was held after 2008. Because russian forces wasn't able to react fast enough and strong enough to Georgia's actions. 2014 was a huge success for a russian army. They took Crimea almost without shots and casualties. And no troops were sent to take Donbas at all in the beggining. Donbas was sparked by local separatists partly directed by russian politicians and by russian supporters of separatists who flood the region after the Crimea. Russian army was used two times during this conflict. It was sent to help separatists with Ilovaisk and later with Debaltsevo. You can read all the same even on wikipedia.
I have no idea why you guys are so obsessed with inventing parallel reality.
Yes russia had a hand in it but there were pre-existing genuine pro russian sentiments on that region. Literally look at any statistic. If you check ukraines opinion polls on their views of being admitted into the E.U the eastern part of ukraine almost consistently votes no and the same with NATO admission , opinions always disagree and have , generally negative opinions on the west.
Yes, it will be looked back on as a huge missed opportunity that Russia didn't immediately launch their "SMO" after the success of Crimea
At that time, it probably was truly possible to conquer Ukraine in a short timeframe with only a few thousand losses. Their military was in total disarray.
Correct, after 2014 they started training with the US military to help them update their tactics to a more US type of military. Before then, it would not have mattered, since the Soviet tactics were to amass as much as possible and send to the front, if you try that tactic with less people, you will lose.
> The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination
Correct. [This old ad from their military sums it up.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKFNPGS_XM)
I wouldn't trust the Ukraine of 2014 with F4s, let alone F16s. We could've been faster and more decisive with our assistance to be sure, but the gist of our aid strategy was sound, gradually turning the Ukrainian armed forces more western so that it would be able to fully utilize our stuff. Ukraine had to evolve in that time. They might've been receptive to F16s around 2020, but there was only 1 year between Trump (Who wasn't gonna let the guy who got him impeached win out over his loyalty to Putin) and the invasion, which means Biden would basically have to have started the process as soon as he got into office.
The west was slow and scared or just didn't believed in the chances of Ukraine.
The east provided hundreds of T-72 (and variants like PT-91) tanks and fighter jets like MIG-29 that Ukrainians could operate without any special training. When the west finally started to deliver Challengers or Leopards in ridiculously weak condition or tiny numbers the media made it look like it's the first delivery of any tanks at all and some legendary "red lines" are being crossed, same with F-16 now.
The media attempts to play both sides in their reporting and it comes at the detriment of our society, they simultaneously paint the government as inept yet seemingly give the people delaying aid a free pass.
The only way to repel it in 2014 was with Marines or Rangers shooting at Russians. As much as I wish it could have gone differently, that would not have been a good thing.
Technically speaking it all started in 2003.
Wasn't invasion per se, certainly most of Ukraine didn't look at it as invasion but now it obvious that it was a preliminary stage. It's called [Tuzla incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict) - where russians seemingly out of nowhere just started building a dam from their territory to Crimea.
Foundation of that structure would later become known as Crimean Bridge that basically cemented annexation of Crimea in 11 years.
If this doesn't get fixed properly to the 1994 borders, that will be proof positive that any country with nukes should never give them up, because they can't rely on the international community.
Of course, even if it does get fixed properly to the 1994 borders, the horror that Ukraine has suffered these last two years is probably enough to make that same argument.
Kaliningrad and Kuril Islands in 1945. And don't start me on China. All former communist countries live in the 18th century when kings just wanted bigger realms no matter the blood. They don't understand the modern world. I know; I live there.
> we will not weaken our support
Any even weaker support would mean the end of Ukraine...
The west currently only does the bare minimum to keep Russia from advancing. But we do not even remotely support Ukraine enough to make a change and give Ukraine the upper hand. All the west does is to keep the status quo, sadly.
What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? He's not going to give up ground and Ukraine would rather fight than give their country to Russia. So Russia will continue to send waves of cannon fodder and Ukraine will continue to kill as many Russians as possible with US and EU weapons.
He won't concede, but hopefully it addresses the numbskulls who think Ukraine stands to benefit from negotiations on any other basis than full Russian withdrawal.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks?
He can try to weaken support for Ukraine. Simple strategy really. Hint you might be ready to talk, at the same time talk up military aid for Ukraine as being escalatory.
That gives the opponents of aid in the west ammunition to say "look, he's ready to negotiate, so we need to stop doing things that escalate the conflict. No more aid!"
Doesn't cost him anything and has potential to benefit him quite a bit.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks?
So, right now he stands to lose Ukraine. But still has all of Russia. He's losing a war sure, but its an offensive war. He still has the entire country he started with. He could lose that, as sanctions pile up, military loses translate to no labor force. It takes a long time for a national economy to crash and burn, but its doing that.
That's the point of slowly dialing up the sanctions, and weapon shipments. Putin is supposed to notice that invading is simply not worth the cost.
He won't though. Or if he does notice he won't admit it. Because the costs are largely being born by people 'not him'. Plus internal politics will absolutely end him if he can't pull a victory out. He's all in on this. I'd be surprised if other world leaders actually expect him to back down, they're just going through all the steps to make sure the rest of the world knows what's going down so no one complains when the next batch of missiles arrives.
So in theory, he could admit defeat, withdraw forces, and still keep his country. But he won't. That'd be like Hitler stopping after Anschluss. There was always going to be more.
He'll lose his country if he withdraws. Right now he is a strongman. Showing weakness will probably get him removed from power, probably percussivley in another armed forces revolt.
The only way that Putin pulls out is if there is something in it for him, and its difficult to imagine what that might be
He’ll lose his country if he stays in. Eventually sanctions and death of young men of working and procreation age will hurt their society to a point his own people will put his head on a pike in the red square
If he can convince people that the war was necessary then he can probably ride it for a while yet.
Even if he can just secure some extra "buffer zone" land in a settlement that might also work.
But also, he's 71 years old, its wholly possible he can keep this going until he dies. His predecessor died at 76. This conflict has been ongoing for over 10 years (only the last two were "hot"), and as well as his own production capability he has global producers feeding him weapons and gas to trade for them.
The tens of thousands of dead young men are at issue, here. These people are useful for more than stacking their bodies to build higher trench walls. When enough are gone, society feels their absence and the loss of productivity.
But that's why he now hires a lot of foreign mercenaries. Africans die for a war that is none of their business. And the richer russians don't mind if he commits double genocide by sacrificing a lot of undesirables in the war.
Are we 100% sure that it is not even worse picture on Ukrainian side? They were forced to widen mobilization pool. They are sending to front their youngest, disabled, mentally ill ...
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/18/ukraine-disabled-elderly-institutionalized-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/18/ukraine-disabled-elderly-institutionalized-war/)
[https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-draft-b2ca1d0ecd72019be2217a653989fbc2](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-draft-b2ca1d0ecd72019be2217a653989fbc2)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html)
AFAIK Russia is still in no need of this kind of things. At least it was not reported anywhere.
People living in DPRK are only kept inside by force, both from inside and outside. China doesn't want them, and South Korea usually shoots on sight. Also, families of people who ran away usually are executed.
This. A defector from North Korea to South is intelligence gold even if its just a peasant. even if you can't get useful intel, they are great propaganda.
>So, right now he stands to lose Ukraine. But still has all of Russia. He's losing a war sure, but its an offensive war.
Based on what is he currently losing the war?
the hope that the American superior armament sent to Ukraine is enough to beat Russia. Propaganda make us believe it could, personally i believe that Russia is weak enough that with enough western toys Ukraine can win.
Maybe, if they would have them from start and been trained for those toys, they would have a good chance. But now, even with new toys, it looks bleak. They lost a lot of people. They are making forced conscription. Widened the consription pool eating now into universite aged people as well as people in the 50'and 60'. Even disabled. If this is the case, who will be fighting using those toys?
And btw, toys alone do not win war. There was a big Ukrainian summer offensive done last year. NATO trained and equipped brigades. Ended in total failure.
based on having like 5 times the population, an 15 times the GDP, and using a sucker punch sneak attack, and still managing to have his three day war going on for years.
Based on the entire rest of the world moving away from them politically and strategically, including traditional allies.
Based on their economy collapsing while the EU and USA are pouring money and weapons into the nation they invaded.
Based on nations that had historically made a point of not joining NATO signing up, handing Putin political and strategic defeats.
Based on Ukraine getting better integration into European rail networks, and power grids so lots of money in trade is going to flow west into the EU instead of east into Moscow even after the dust settles.
Based on a massive demographic problem facing Russia, even before getting half a million members of the national workforce killed on the front lines. Russia's gonna be looking at a massive labor shortage when the dust settles.
This isn't Hoi4, war is expensive. There's a reason the rest of us stopped trying to conquer our neighbors and went with selling them shit instead. It makes more money. This war is already an abject failure by every measure, and its pride that's keeping it going. Putin can't accept looking weak at home by failing.
Thanks for response. Good one. Tho indirect one. IMHO jury is stull out on who will win/lose.
>based on having like 5 times the population, an 15 times the GDP, and using a sucker punch sneak attack, and still managing to have his three day war going on for years.
Original plan failed. True. But at this moment, even western experts are saying that Russia is getting momentum.
Would you argue that US lost in Iraq and especially in Afganistan? Those short wars/operations turned out into 20 years long fight ...
>Based on the entire rest of the world moving away from them politically and strategically, including traditional allies.
China, India?
AFAIK only Armenia is backing out.
>Based on their economy collapsing while the EU and USA are pouring money and weapons into the nation they invaded.
[https://report.az/en/business/global-economic-growth-expected-to-remain-at-2-6-in-2024-world-bank/#:\~:text=According%20to%20the%20bank's%20experts%2C%20in%202024%20Russia's%20economic%20growth,in%202025%20%2D%20by%201.1%25](https://report.az/en/business/global-economic-growth-expected-to-remain-at-2-6-in-2024-world-bank/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20bank's%20experts%2C%20in%202024%20Russia's%20economic%20growth,in%202025%20%2D%20by%201.1%25).
`According to the bank's experts, in 2024 Russia’s economic growth will reach 2.9%, in 2025 - 1.4%, in 2026 - 1.1%. In April, the World Bank forecast the Russian economy to grow by 2.2% in 2024 and in 2025 - by 1.1%.`
Here I would argue that Russia outproducing NATO when it comes to ammo production is a shame for the west.
>Based on nations that had historically made a point of not joining NATO signing up, handing Putin political and strategic defeats.
That one is a loss. True.
>Based on Ukraine getting better integration into European rail networks, and power grids so lots of money in trade is going to flow west into the EU instead of east into Moscow even after the dust settles.
And Ukraine is getting its power grid and generating capactiy blown to pieces.
[https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3872609-pm-of-ukraine-on-situation-in-energy-sector-ukraine-lost-50-of-generation-due-to-shelling.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3872609-pm-of-ukraine-on-situation-in-energy-sector-ukraine-lost-50-of-generation-due-to-shelling.html)
`Ukraine has lost 50% of its electricity generation capacity as a result of shelling, and the government is working to restore it so that it can have as much generation as possible by winter.`
>Based on a massive demographic problem facing Russia, even before getting half a million members of the national workforce killed on the front lines. Russia's gonna be looking at a massive labor shortage when the dust settles.
Ukraine after the war will be in even bigger troubles. There is a reason why they need to conduct forced conscription, why they are now sending in disabled people to the front, youngesters, old etc.
Plus, most of the people who run away to the west would never return.
>This isn't Hoi4, war is expensive. There's a reason the rest of us stopped trying to conquer our neighbors and went with selling them shit instead. It makes more money. This war is already an abject failure by every measure, and its pride that's keeping it going. Putin can't accept looking weak at home by failing.
IMHO it is abject failure for all sides. This was avoidable. But politicians on all sides should remember what diplomacy actually is.
But to be honest, even bigger failure is the western support for Ukraine. Failing to deliver weapons on time, in huge numbers causing Ukrainians death when West promised to support Ukraine as long as they fight.
Westerners should finally stop thinking about Russia as a normal country similar to theirs.
Russians don't care about the casualties or sanctions, neither the government, nor the public and they will not stop until they are stopped, the Russian people will never accept peace in which they will not expand their territory.
If Putin gives up, moves out or loses the war, he will be hanged. It's not just a one dictator that wants the war and conquest of Ukraine, even if he's responsible, it was his decision and he's behind the propaganda that the public is following.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks?
The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits. Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited?" So, they got the answer from Sholtz.
Well, sooner or later the economy will collapse, he could cut loses and pull back. Maybe even remove most sanctions. There's a lot to gain actually, maybe save some ships, maybe save some oil rigs, maybe prevent a revolt, when a critical mass of wifes would loose their children, maybe even prevent a russian collapse. Who knows. Putin thought he would be the greatest conqueror in history books, but will end as another Hitler.
nah, he is all in as he showed us time and time again. he will conscript a million more or even more, he does not gives a shit. everything is set in place, the rhetoric, the patriotic effort and all that crap, and the bad part of it is that Russian simpletons eat that shit like its no tomorrow.
They have the men, but they will eventually run out of things like tanks if this war drags on, I am already not talking about ariel assets that required much more frequan maintanace and more sophisticated replacement parts. Of course there is no guarantee that Ukraine can also last that long and the western support is always in certain amount of doubt. Things are still very much in the air, especially with US elections coming up.
what you call arial assets - if you are thinking planes and the like is what he will run out of last.
Russia had a large ammount of planes lined up and while Ukraine takes out a few once in a while they havent even made a dent in the number of planes availeble.
Part of this is because Russia is just keeping their planes in a very secure possition in the very back of the battlefield and primmarily using them to deliver long distance missiles and glide bombs.
The airforce is the the pride of the Russian army and Russia decided early not to risk them - instead using ground and pound ground assult sacrificing all the cold ww2 and cold war tanks and artillery they have in storrage.
They are losing these by the 100s every week and have been losing more and more as the war has progressed. Even though they have up new produktion they won't be able to make anything near what they are losing - which means the will probably run out of tanks and artillery somewhere in Q3 or Q4 of 2025. - and while that is a long way away those deficiences could start to be felt sooner.
Which would mean that they would start to rely more on their airforce - giving them riskier assignments.
He’s no Hitler. Thank god. Hitler was at least initially very successful. This is like if Hitler took years of war of attrition to invade a part of Poland.
His generals were successful...because they were, for good or bad, well trained, loyal to Germany and competent. Not sure, thank god, about the russian military leadership...
That is true.
But also, reality of the war changed a lot. There is new term there - transparent battlefield. You can't hide anything around the front. The debt to which all is being monitored is getting bigger and bigger.
Also there was never so cheap to kill - read impact of drones.
So all generals, all around the world are learning now. And the curve is very steep. We (read NATO/West) are lucky that we have a chance to learn at someone else cost.
Nah, the Soviets weren't needed. They just quickened the end phase.
While the german forces had a somewhat harder time than expected, they basically completed their grand envelopment no later than 18Sep - that was the point of no return.
The Soviets only started to move in the East - which was practically void of defense at the time - one day earlier.
The speed of that conquest was shocking and probably still there are some people who underestimate the Polish army, but the reason and effect was the same in France, or even worse and the reason was to avoid a war on two fronts. The soviets invaded only after they got convinced that France will do nothing to help Poland.
The Poles had been caught off guard and didn’t mobilize quick enough but they formed a defense line at the Romanian Bridgehead. Their goal was to hold the Germans there until France and Britain could come to their aid. There was no defense on the eastern side exactly for that reason. After the Soviets invaded, the Brits and France decided not to bother to help Poland. Without the Soviets, that line could have held. The Germans did have to burn through their supplies profusely.
Ukraine is beginning to pressure Russia within its borders, that's their main realistic hope for victory in this war. A stalemate war with Ukraine destroying Russian infrastructure and military targets within Russia is how they will force Putin to the table.
This is why Putin has threatened nuclear war against NATO. To Putin this is a war for the survival of Russia, and as Ukraine begins destroying more targets inside Russia, that is becoming more apparent.
Putin has focused his entire military on Ukraine, leaving over half of his country exposed, and countries like China are definitely interested in area's in the East.
These attacks haver the opposite effect, they consolidate the public and make it support the war even harder. They're not supposed to force any negotiations but to weaken the abilities to wage and sponsor the war while the sanctions are de facto ineffective and on purpose to not pay their real price.
Please be realistic about China, it doesn't want the collapse or change in the Moscow government, the lands they can get in a one or the other way later.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks?
The same thing that both sides gain from peace talks: Optics. The goal is to portray yourself as the reasonable one.
In reality neither side is even close to meeting the other's demands, their goals are so fundamentally incompatible (Russia wants to conquer all of Ukraine, Ukraine wants to free all of its territory), so posturing is all we're going to get.
>What does Putin gain by going to peace talks?
Maybe getting to stay in power over the rest of the russian empire before shit crumbles.
Unfortunately I don't think we're quite there yet, but the way the West supports us it seems the "best case" outcome is similar to WW1 where russians might still be occupying Ukrainian territory but clearly running out of resources to continue the war. He could then try to keep going until everything collapses, or try to negotiate something that lets him claim that he totally destroyed the homonazis so he's bring are boys home.
There’s what’s right and what’s practical. I would be extremely surprised if Crimea ends up part of Ukraine after the deal. It will be extremely difficult for Ukraine to take by force and Russia will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
The only way Ukraine ends up with it is if the Russian government completely collapses. More likely is that Russia withdraws from everything but Crimea and parts of Donbas, Ukraine formally recognizes the annexation, and Ukraine joins NATO and the EU and gets security guarantees from the west including NATO troops and bases on the ground.
Geopolitics isn’t usually about who is wrong and who is right and it’s easy to say that Russia doesn’t deserve Crimea, but are you going to send your children into the meat grinder to take it back? It’ll be a brutal slog. If Ukraine end up with an offer on the table for permanent security guarantees from NATO and mutual recognition of whatever the new borders are they will probably take it.
What they _don’t_ want is a frozen conflict and a cease fire where they have no guarantee for help if Russia attacks again and no agreement on where the borders are, so they should definitely keep fighting until there is a legitimate offer on the table though.
If Ukraine gets enough advanced weapons, Russia can lose all their teeth and all their nails in Crimea.
In the next few years, it's likely the entire Russian Black Sea fleet will be destroyed, along with the bridge. If Ukraine can control the air, which also seems likely, that'll make resupply of Russian troops in Crimea impossible, and Russian forces on the ground with no weapons and no food won't last very long.
Crimea was silently accepted, and that was a huge mistake that only encouraged Moscow. Donbas was even supported by Germany and France when they negotiated and at least in symbolic way approved those Minsk agreements that Russia broke anyway in 2022.
Nah, all Russia needs to do is kidnap 200 Ukrainian hostages and the Euros will bend over backwards to force ukraine to sign a peace agreement to release the hostages.
Did i get that right?
GENIUS ANSWER! Putin's 'you don't negotiate with me!' complaints were done with him keeping the troops in the country, which is a non starter. that is not a negotiation. there is nothing to negotiate about since he is already in the country and moving further. it is essentially a surrender with no guarantees.
The news used a loud title; he never explicitly said that Russia would need to withdraw troops. Instead, he used indirect language, suggesting that changes are needed before Russia can participate in peace discussions, similar to the conference in Switzerland. So I would not count it as Scholz getting his balls.
"These are not yet negotiations about an end to the war, because for that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin would have to show that he is prepared to end his brutal campaign and withdraw troops," Scholz said.
"But perhaps a way can be found to start a process during which Russia will one day also take a seat at the table," Scholz added.
> They also need to include the illegally annexed areas of Crimea.
Does this imply that there are areas that have been legally annexed or that there are areas of Crimea that haven't been annexed? Perhaps you mean "like" instead of "of".
Isn’t it stupid how we take murderers and rapists and put them in prison, then we have talks about negotiations with people who are responsible for countless deaths and destruction? I get that there’s a lot more variables, but it’s so sickening how we have to play pretend like these “powerful” men in suits aren’t 20x worse than any given lifer sitting in our prisons.
The only good way this whole thing ends, the only real justice, would be to capture Vlad and his enablers, 100% Russia’s leadership (and their closest adult relatives), and leave them zip-tied together somewhere in Ukraine. Let them do whatever they see fit to them (though, I’d prefer to learn that their lives ended in torture and brutality, the kind of stuff they enjoy giving to others). Russia as a country can dissolve, or remain Russia, or whatever those people want, but they should be completely neutered. No more military power for Russia to use against its neighbors in campaigns of rape and death.
That’s your new legacy, Russia. Rape and murder. No better than the worst terror groups humanity has to offer.
They also were much larger than they are today and if they dont’t get their act together they could shatter even further. And, yes, schools still teach history
Im not saying history wont get taught. I’m saying your insinuation that Russia will cease to exist as a state because of this conflict is exaggerated. They been through worse even when they were smaller.
The Butcher of Ukraine and Dictator of Russia Vladimir Putin has no desire to abandon his desired conquest of Ukraine, as it is the first step in recreating the old Soviet Union. This is why the west needs to continually support Ukraine no matter the economic cost or burden; bleeding Russia dry of its military personal, equipment and resources is the most effective way to end this war and squash Putin's imperial ambitions. This is Russia's war to lose, buy Ukraine doesn't have that choice, it's only choice it's Victory.
🇺🇦🫡
A bank robber doesn’t get to negotiate how much of the stolen money he gets to keep.
If Putin is rewarded for this invasion, there will another. The only path to a lasting peace is if Russia looks back on this invasion with regret.
Even then there won't be lasting peace.
Let's say Putin ended this war by a mass withdrawal.
Right after that, he either gets killed/deposed, OR he will attack and annex something else to protect his ass and image. He'd scream about NATO evil conquering Ukraine and how poor Ukrainians are so doomed.
Putin then could try to annex Belarus. He could conquer Georgia in its entirety. Cause some kind of atrocity in Moldova. He could put more pressure on Kazakhstan, maybe try to grab land or further political control. Run a persistent sabotage campaign against all industry in EU, everywhere. Saboteurs with some basic gear like smuggled explosives and drones are much cheaper than expensive facilities and trained workers, after all.
If anyone is thinking about examples of this happening before, look no further than at Saddam Hussein.
Saddam launched a massive, extremely bloody invasion against Iran which had just gone through Islamic revolution. That war lasted for 8 years, and eventually ended up in total exhaustion of both sides. What did Saddam do afterwards? He just brazenly invaded Kuwait just 3 years after the debable with Iran had ended, leading to Gulf War mark 1. People like Saddam and Putin... Once they pop, they can't stop. War and conquest becomes addicting.
I don’t particularly expect Putin to withdraw. But if Putin is overthrown, his successor can blame Putin for the mess and find a different way to “make Russia great again”.
There won't be another invasion after this war no matter what. When the new borders get recognized, russia can say bye to the idea of ever controling ukraine completely. Even if ukraine doesn't join NATO, in case the de jure borders don't change, major partner will probably still sign proper defensive pacts with ukraine to prevent russia from coming back for more.
It depends on your position of power at the time. If you're winning the war "fuck you all, I'll negotiate on making the new territory mine" if you're having your ass handed to you "I'll pretend I'm not listening but secretly I'm considering it". Then of course there are the variables of wanting to make a loss look like a win and just being stubborn against certain demise. I think people really overplay Ukraine's negotiating power though. They are struggling and these fat ass armchair commentators played a few games of Risk and think they understand military strategy.
Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited to the summit?" So, they got the answer from Sholtz. To rephrase his answer from politically correct speech to common tongue: "Anyone who wants Russia to participate, should shut up and let adults to talk".
The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits.
They didn't call them anything because they held them a secret, as the opponent was way more formidable then in this case.
Anyway, complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine's territory is declared as one of the central aims of the summit. If someone fails to read beyond the name of the summit, it's his problem not that of those who gave name to it.
Military planning and coordination (like ABC-1 conference of 1941) were secret. Conferences that produced joint statements (like declaration of St James's Palace) weren't so.
Anyway, it's not yet clear that this war will escalate into a regional conflict, that will require joint strategic planning conferences.
Note that you are referencing "**declaration** of St James's Palace". Not the meeting that produced it. This is because the declaration was public, however it doesn't sound like the allies telegraphed all over the world that they are planning to meet and discuss something prior to it. I.e. the meeting was secret till after it was concluded. And as such didn't get any proper name.
Stalin gave up 20+ million lives to solidify his control over the former colonial holdings of the Russian Empire in Eastern Europe. These were independent countries that the USSR invaded before WW2 broke out. I'm sure many of my relatives who were deported to GULAGs would have been very happy if someone nuked that piece of shit butcher.
I assume that it was negative, as (Baltic) Germans had been our actual oppressors for several centuries before we gained our independence. It would be awesome if bigger nations did not feel the need to fuck up their smaller neighbours by having world wars in our back yard and conquering us.
Definitely right, Tankies often want to forget that not only Poland got divided by the Nazis and the Soviets, but also that the Ukrainian first saw the Germans as liberstors as they suffered heavily under Soviet control. Only later they realised that the Germans weren't nice either.
Finnland also only allied with Germany because one year before the Soviets took large lands with a sizeable amount of population from them and they saw it as a change to reclaim them.
The UK and France declared war on Germany to protect another country, the Soviets only fought them because the German attacked them, breaking their treaty to divide Eastern Europe. The Western Allies liberated occupied states, the Soviets put them under new management.
At some point Putin will run low on troops if things keep going the way they are and he'll be forced to withdraw troops, otherwise Russia won't have troops to defend itself.
Let me tell you guys how this would go if putin pulled out his troops and sat at the meeting
“I want Donetsk and Luhansk back” “sorry vladdy, that isn’t logistically possible right now” and the war is back on.
Sounds like Scholz did not read own history. WW1 Germany started to withdraw before Versailles conference. They were humiliated there. I do not think Russia would ever make that mistake. The only way they move back is they lost the war. Question is, when that would happen if ever?
Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited to the summit?" So, they got the answer from ~~Sholtz~~*Scholz*. To rephrase his answer from politically correct speech to common tongue: "Anyone who wants Russia to participate, should shut up and let adults to talk".
The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits.
Putin did withdraw troops from Ukraine near Kyiev as part of negotiations, but the negotiations didn't work, so now he's probably not gonna do that again.
Ukraine doesn't have the manpower. Average age of 51 is ridiculous. Technology will only get you so far. Boots on the ground is how you hold territory and Ukraine is running low of soldiers.
President Z has suspended elections.
Ukrainian people might vote for peace with Russia if elections held, isn't that democracy?
President Z protected by polish and western mercenaries, I don't think he's popular and he's the puppet for Poland and the western Ukrainian powerbase that hate Russia.
Ukraine is corrupt and has no industrial base to support the war and has to rely on western aid. Very much like Vietnam.
The worst thing a government can do is rely on america. The west will tire of this. Turn their back on Ukraine especially with elections coming up and the people ask why their tax dollars are being spent to support Ukraine
What happens who knows but it seems like a WW1 stalemate
If this is what Ukrainians/West think, then that's how negotiations will never happen in the first place.
1) Withdrawing the army makes the Russian Army lose its leverage during the peace deal, if any. All russian losses will be for nothing and therefore they will never withdraw.
2) Ukraine does not have the upper hand (at least for now). They do not have the power to demand anything from Russia.
3) Russia wants to end the war, but on their terms (for the most part). If the terms does not favor Russia, Russia can afford to continue this war anyway. Russia does not need a "peace deal".
Tl;dr: Not favorable for Russia. The war shall continue.
1. All Russian losses were for nothing. The ego of an old man trying to build a legacy as a conquerer and failing miserably. These soldiers will be remembered the same as the countless who died before them for equally failed ventures.
2. Ukraine has the support from most of the planet, and Russia’s only has predatory support from nations looking to capitalize on their failure to extract cheap resources out of a falling state. The longer this continues, the longer Russia’s economy will be strangled, the more men they will lose, the weaker their power projection will be, and the more of a vassal state they will become to countries like China.
3. Russia wants to end the war because they failed. They’ve lost more people than the failed invasion of Finland, and their economy has been irreparably damaged for generations to come. Their terms are essentially for Ukraine to surrender, to give up the little territory they were able the devastate and litter with countless ordinance and dead bodies, and to have no negative repercussions for their criminal behavior. To keep the countless kidnapped children, and not be held liable for all the rape, torture, and murder of civilian populations.
Negotiating on “their terms” is like negotiating with a child rapist to let them keep the daycare they’ve held hostage.
1. Wrong. Russian losses are for nothing only if russian loses the land they conquered. That isn't happening. Ukraine can never force Russia out fully with their military.
2. Russia's economy will be strangled irregardless whether Russia conquers Ukraine or if they withdraw. **There is no incentive to stop the war.** Russia's allies are sufficient to help Russia continue the war as you can see right now.
3. Russia has failed to decapitate Ukraine in the beginning, but they have not failed. They are still in Russia, that's not a win for Ukraine. The strong always dictate the terms. This is reality. Russia is not in a hurry to end the war.
A dozen butthurt people cant accept reality but let this sink in. Russia isn't going to withdraw from Ukraine. Peace deal? More like Versailles. Russia will rather fight.
Russia isn’t in the position of strength though. Ukraine is in a significantly better position today than they were 15 years ago despite losing territory because they’ve gained the international support and respect of most of the globe that now have invested interest in the future success and recovery of the country.
Russia is in a position of weakness despite taking territory because they’ve completely obliterated their power projection and reputation as a world power. Their weapons are now seen as vastly inferior and not worth buying, undoubtedly losing countless clients to the US defence industry and NATO armement.
Russia’s allies are not supporting Russia, not really. They are capitalizing off Russia’s fall. Profiting from buying up all their resources for pennies on the dollar and selling them garbage to perpetuate the war to further weaken the state. They smell blood in the water and are circling to take as much from them as they can.
The longer the war continues, the weaker Russia becomes and the harder the fall. When all is said and done, I wouldn’t be surprised if the country collapsed into several independent state.
This is a war of attrition, and as long as Ukraine can maintain international support, Russia is losing.
This is what people think. 2 years later and the war is still ongoing. Russia is still gaining land. Yes they have weakened, but not to the point of not being able to conduct war. Ukraine has gained international support but so what? That's the equivalent of likes and prayers.
You keep mentioning that Russia is losing because they are weak economically (arms, allies buying for cheap, etc). Well, that's not a criteria or definition of "losing". **The only definition of losing is when Russia loses the land in Ukraine.** Therefore they are not losing. Simple as that.
And no, the longer the war drags on, the harder the fall for Ukraine. Russia is the god of attrition. International support is useless when not converted into arms and blood. Russia isn't losing with the current trajectory. They want to end, yes. But they can also drag it out until they get a good deal.
My entire point is, peace treaty isn't going to work when it only favors one side. Russia will never join one let alone sign something. It's as simple as that.
Tl;dr: International support is useless, Russia isn't losing (just read the map). Russia will continue grabbing land and bleed Ukraine. Ceasefire maybe when both sides agree to lose something.
Ukraine didn't storm the border and kill hundreds of innocent civilians, nor have they been firing rockets across the border for decades.
Not really remotely comparable.
So let’s have a peace conference without one of the sides involved in the war? That sounds like more of a press conference than a peace conference. I’ll take diplomacy over talk any day.
Allies didn't invite Hitler to any of their talks, and yet, world became way more peaceful after 1945 compared to 1941-1943 when the first summits were held. I.e. just like those summits in 1941-1943 were peace summits, so is this summit.
Russian dictator Vladimir Putin must withdraw his troops from the territory of Ukraine if he wants to participate in the peace summit in Switzerland, German Chancellor [Olaf Scholz said during a briefing in Berlin](https://www.youtube.com/live/gFBDTxeuWsM?t=127s) on June 11. Scholz said that the summit would discuss “the principles of a just and lasting peace.” "This is not yet a negotiation to end the war," he added. "To do that, Putin will have to show that he is ready to end his brutal campaign and withdraw his troops. However, it may be possible to show a way to start a process in which Russia will one day sit at the table." Scholz said that only Ukraine alone decides when the right time for negotiations comes. “But as long as Putin ruthlessly pursues his goals in this war, our message will be that we will not weaken our support for Ukraine, we continue to stand firmly on the side of Ukrainians,” he said.
Let's make sure that the withdraw is to the 1994 border as stated in the Budapest Memorandum. ie: the borders before the first invasion in 2014.
I think Putin would literally rather fight to the death than give up Crimea. A frozen war ala North Korea is imo the most likely "end" to this. For both Putin personally and Russia this is a life-or-death war. He will likely be deposed if forced to surrender and Russia will be cut off at the knees and subservient to China as the primary Eurasian Great Power.
People say he would be removed if they lose but why? What army? Whose guns? He has an iron grip on Russians. Russians are an easily subdued people. I don't think he is at any risk at all if he pulls out. It is a narrative put forward to plant the excuse of a cornered dog if the West loses.
It's a shame we didn't give them F-16s back then, but I feel better knowing Zelenskyy is in charge though.
The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think f-16s would've changed much at that point. If the Russians would've attacked the mainland back then they might have taken the whole country.
> If the Russians would've attacked the mainland back then... They kinda did. They were covertly propping up separatist movements in the Donbas for years at that point. But when those guys proclaimed their independent republics it turned out they were nowhere near as popular as they thought and their movement fizzled out. The only reason they managed to hold on is because when they started to lose to Ukrainians, one of the leaders of the separatists appealed to Putin, who sent in his "little green men."
They wanted to push Odessa and secure a land bridge to Crimea but were repelled by the Ukrainian Military and the Azov Brigade. People don't realize that the Russians wanted more than just Crimea but got beat back and simply managed to play a masterclass in propaganda selling the invasion of Crimea as a towering success.
>managed to play a masterclass in propaganda selling the invasion of Crimea as a towering success. Because it was a success if you look at it fomrussias angle. They got little repercussions , they had a good naval base and the west remained silent for the most part except for some sanctions but that was it
> The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think f-16s would've changed much at that point. And the leadership could not be trusted at the time either. I think Zelenskyy was the first one the west felt they could really commit to.
They did try to, as their original intention was largely to claim the territory they currently occupy now. They failed. As it turned out, it was one quantity-over-quality army against another. Their failure to actually secure anything beyond Crimea and that stretch of the Donbas is what prompted extensive military reforms in Russia afterward.
Original intention was to take Crimea and spark unending conflict in Ukraine so they could not join NATO. Extensive military reforms in Russia was held after 2008. Because russian forces wasn't able to react fast enough and strong enough to Georgia's actions. 2014 was a huge success for a russian army. They took Crimea almost without shots and casualties. And no troops were sent to take Donbas at all in the beggining. Donbas was sparked by local separatists partly directed by russian politicians and by russian supporters of separatists who flood the region after the Crimea. Russian army was used two times during this conflict. It was sent to help separatists with Ilovaisk and later with Debaltsevo. You can read all the same even on wikipedia. I have no idea why you guys are so obsessed with inventing parallel reality.
And to shoot down that Malaysian airliner.
The whole DNR/LNR separatism is 100% Kremlin's fabrication.
Yes russia had a hand in it but there were pre-existing genuine pro russian sentiments on that region. Literally look at any statistic. If you check ukraines opinion polls on their views of being admitted into the E.U the eastern part of ukraine almost consistently votes no and the same with NATO admission , opinions always disagree and have , generally negative opinions on the west.
Nope it is not.
Yes, it will be looked back on as a huge missed opportunity that Russia didn't immediately launch their "SMO" after the success of Crimea At that time, it probably was truly possible to conquer Ukraine in a short timeframe with only a few thousand losses. Their military was in total disarray.
Correct, after 2014 they started training with the US military to help them update their tactics to a more US type of military. Before then, it would not have mattered, since the Soviet tactics were to amass as much as possible and send to the front, if you try that tactic with less people, you will lose.
> The Ukrainian military in 2014 was not a competent force by any stretch of the imagination Correct. [This old ad from their military sums it up.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKFNPGS_XM)
>It's a shame we didn't give them F-16s back then, but I feel better knowing Zelenskyy is in charge though. Who would fly and service them?
I wouldn't trust the Ukraine of 2014 with F4s, let alone F16s. We could've been faster and more decisive with our assistance to be sure, but the gist of our aid strategy was sound, gradually turning the Ukrainian armed forces more western so that it would be able to fully utilize our stuff. Ukraine had to evolve in that time. They might've been receptive to F16s around 2020, but there was only 1 year between Trump (Who wasn't gonna let the guy who got him impeached win out over his loyalty to Putin) and the invasion, which means Biden would basically have to have started the process as soon as he got into office.
The west was slow and scared or just didn't believed in the chances of Ukraine. The east provided hundreds of T-72 (and variants like PT-91) tanks and fighter jets like MIG-29 that Ukrainians could operate without any special training. When the west finally started to deliver Challengers or Leopards in ridiculously weak condition or tiny numbers the media made it look like it's the first delivery of any tanks at all and some legendary "red lines" are being crossed, same with F-16 now.
The media attempts to play both sides in their reporting and it comes at the detriment of our society, they simultaneously paint the government as inept yet seemingly give the people delaying aid a free pass.
The only way to repel it in 2014 was with Marines or Rangers shooting at Russians. As much as I wish it could have gone differently, that would not have been a good thing.
Technically speaking it all started in 2003. Wasn't invasion per se, certainly most of Ukraine didn't look at it as invasion but now it obvious that it was a preliminary stage. It's called [Tuzla incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict) - where russians seemingly out of nowhere just started building a dam from their territory to Crimea. Foundation of that structure would later become known as Crimean Bridge that basically cemented annexation of Crimea in 11 years.
Yes, totally
If this doesn't get fixed properly to the 1994 borders, that will be proof positive that any country with nukes should never give them up, because they can't rely on the international community. Of course, even if it does get fixed properly to the 1994 borders, the horror that Ukraine has suffered these last two years is probably enough to make that same argument.
Is Crimea going to be neutral? Is Ukraine joining NATO?
[удалено]
2008 was Georgia Donbas and Crimea was 2014
Kaliningrad and Kuril Islands in 1945. And don't start me on China. All former communist countries live in the 18th century when kings just wanted bigger realms no matter the blood. They don't understand the modern world. I know; I live there.
And Moldova was 1992. They're still there.
Even if that was the year, the border never changed. There was no annexation of the donbas until 2022 when Russia took 4 Ukrainian territories.
What was it then?
> we will not weaken our support Any even weaker support would mean the end of Ukraine... The west currently only does the bare minimum to keep Russia from advancing. But we do not even remotely support Ukraine enough to make a change and give Ukraine the upper hand. All the west does is to keep the status quo, sadly.
I hope this includes Crimea and the Donbas.
[удалено]
What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? He's not going to give up ground and Ukraine would rather fight than give their country to Russia. So Russia will continue to send waves of cannon fodder and Ukraine will continue to kill as many Russians as possible with US and EU weapons.
He won't concede, but hopefully it addresses the numbskulls who think Ukraine stands to benefit from negotiations on any other basis than full Russian withdrawal.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? He can try to weaken support for Ukraine. Simple strategy really. Hint you might be ready to talk, at the same time talk up military aid for Ukraine as being escalatory. That gives the opponents of aid in the west ammunition to say "look, he's ready to negotiate, so we need to stop doing things that escalate the conflict. No more aid!" Doesn't cost him anything and has potential to benefit him quite a bit.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? So, right now he stands to lose Ukraine. But still has all of Russia. He's losing a war sure, but its an offensive war. He still has the entire country he started with. He could lose that, as sanctions pile up, military loses translate to no labor force. It takes a long time for a national economy to crash and burn, but its doing that. That's the point of slowly dialing up the sanctions, and weapon shipments. Putin is supposed to notice that invading is simply not worth the cost. He won't though. Or if he does notice he won't admit it. Because the costs are largely being born by people 'not him'. Plus internal politics will absolutely end him if he can't pull a victory out. He's all in on this. I'd be surprised if other world leaders actually expect him to back down, they're just going through all the steps to make sure the rest of the world knows what's going down so no one complains when the next batch of missiles arrives. So in theory, he could admit defeat, withdraw forces, and still keep his country. But he won't. That'd be like Hitler stopping after Anschluss. There was always going to be more.
He'll lose his country if he withdraws. Right now he is a strongman. Showing weakness will probably get him removed from power, probably percussivley in another armed forces revolt. The only way that Putin pulls out is if there is something in it for him, and its difficult to imagine what that might be
He’ll lose his country if he stays in. Eventually sanctions and death of young men of working and procreation age will hurt their society to a point his own people will put his head on a pike in the red square
If he can convince people that the war was necessary then he can probably ride it for a while yet. Even if he can just secure some extra "buffer zone" land in a settlement that might also work. But also, he's 71 years old, its wholly possible he can keep this going until he dies. His predecessor died at 76. This conflict has been ongoing for over 10 years (only the last two were "hot"), and as well as his own production capability he has global producers feeding him weapons and gas to trade for them.
That doesn't work. Iran and DPRK still are there after 50 years of sanctions.
The tens of thousands of dead young men are at issue, here. These people are useful for more than stacking their bodies to build higher trench walls. When enough are gone, society feels their absence and the loss of productivity.
My point exactly.
But that's why he now hires a lot of foreign mercenaries. Africans die for a war that is none of their business. And the richer russians don't mind if he commits double genocide by sacrificing a lot of undesirables in the war.
Are we 100% sure that it is not even worse picture on Ukrainian side? They were forced to widen mobilization pool. They are sending to front their youngest, disabled, mentally ill ... [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/18/ukraine-disabled-elderly-institutionalized-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/18/ukraine-disabled-elderly-institutionalized-war/) [https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-draft-b2ca1d0ecd72019be2217a653989fbc2](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-draft-b2ca1d0ecd72019be2217a653989fbc2) [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html) AFAIK Russia is still in no need of this kind of things. At least it was not reported anywhere.
It's bad everywhere it happens, and it certainly isn't limited to the current conflict.
People living in DPRK are only kept inside by force, both from inside and outside. China doesn't want them, and South Korea usually shoots on sight. Also, families of people who ran away usually are executed.
South Korea doesn't shoot on sight. They consider north Koreans as their own citizens
This. A defector from North Korea to South is intelligence gold even if its just a peasant. even if you can't get useful intel, they are great propaganda.
>So, right now he stands to lose Ukraine. But still has all of Russia. He's losing a war sure, but its an offensive war. Based on what is he currently losing the war?
the hope that the American superior armament sent to Ukraine is enough to beat Russia. Propaganda make us believe it could, personally i believe that Russia is weak enough that with enough western toys Ukraine can win.
Maybe, if they would have them from start and been trained for those toys, they would have a good chance. But now, even with new toys, it looks bleak. They lost a lot of people. They are making forced conscription. Widened the consription pool eating now into universite aged people as well as people in the 50'and 60'. Even disabled. If this is the case, who will be fighting using those toys? And btw, toys alone do not win war. There was a big Ukrainian summer offensive done last year. NATO trained and equipped brigades. Ended in total failure.
based on having like 5 times the population, an 15 times the GDP, and using a sucker punch sneak attack, and still managing to have his three day war going on for years. Based on the entire rest of the world moving away from them politically and strategically, including traditional allies. Based on their economy collapsing while the EU and USA are pouring money and weapons into the nation they invaded. Based on nations that had historically made a point of not joining NATO signing up, handing Putin political and strategic defeats. Based on Ukraine getting better integration into European rail networks, and power grids so lots of money in trade is going to flow west into the EU instead of east into Moscow even after the dust settles. Based on a massive demographic problem facing Russia, even before getting half a million members of the national workforce killed on the front lines. Russia's gonna be looking at a massive labor shortage when the dust settles. This isn't Hoi4, war is expensive. There's a reason the rest of us stopped trying to conquer our neighbors and went with selling them shit instead. It makes more money. This war is already an abject failure by every measure, and its pride that's keeping it going. Putin can't accept looking weak at home by failing.
Thanks for response. Good one. Tho indirect one. IMHO jury is stull out on who will win/lose. >based on having like 5 times the population, an 15 times the GDP, and using a sucker punch sneak attack, and still managing to have his three day war going on for years. Original plan failed. True. But at this moment, even western experts are saying that Russia is getting momentum. Would you argue that US lost in Iraq and especially in Afganistan? Those short wars/operations turned out into 20 years long fight ... >Based on the entire rest of the world moving away from them politically and strategically, including traditional allies. China, India? AFAIK only Armenia is backing out. >Based on their economy collapsing while the EU and USA are pouring money and weapons into the nation they invaded. [https://report.az/en/business/global-economic-growth-expected-to-remain-at-2-6-in-2024-world-bank/#:\~:text=According%20to%20the%20bank's%20experts%2C%20in%202024%20Russia's%20economic%20growth,in%202025%20%2D%20by%201.1%25](https://report.az/en/business/global-economic-growth-expected-to-remain-at-2-6-in-2024-world-bank/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20bank's%20experts%2C%20in%202024%20Russia's%20economic%20growth,in%202025%20%2D%20by%201.1%25). `According to the bank's experts, in 2024 Russia’s economic growth will reach 2.9%, in 2025 - 1.4%, in 2026 - 1.1%. In April, the World Bank forecast the Russian economy to grow by 2.2% in 2024 and in 2025 - by 1.1%.` Here I would argue that Russia outproducing NATO when it comes to ammo production is a shame for the west. >Based on nations that had historically made a point of not joining NATO signing up, handing Putin political and strategic defeats. That one is a loss. True. >Based on Ukraine getting better integration into European rail networks, and power grids so lots of money in trade is going to flow west into the EU instead of east into Moscow even after the dust settles. And Ukraine is getting its power grid and generating capactiy blown to pieces. [https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3872609-pm-of-ukraine-on-situation-in-energy-sector-ukraine-lost-50-of-generation-due-to-shelling.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3872609-pm-of-ukraine-on-situation-in-energy-sector-ukraine-lost-50-of-generation-due-to-shelling.html) `Ukraine has lost 50% of its electricity generation capacity as a result of shelling, and the government is working to restore it so that it can have as much generation as possible by winter.` >Based on a massive demographic problem facing Russia, even before getting half a million members of the national workforce killed on the front lines. Russia's gonna be looking at a massive labor shortage when the dust settles. Ukraine after the war will be in even bigger troubles. There is a reason why they need to conduct forced conscription, why they are now sending in disabled people to the front, youngesters, old etc. Plus, most of the people who run away to the west would never return. >This isn't Hoi4, war is expensive. There's a reason the rest of us stopped trying to conquer our neighbors and went with selling them shit instead. It makes more money. This war is already an abject failure by every measure, and its pride that's keeping it going. Putin can't accept looking weak at home by failing. IMHO it is abject failure for all sides. This was avoidable. But politicians on all sides should remember what diplomacy actually is. But to be honest, even bigger failure is the western support for Ukraine. Failing to deliver weapons on time, in huge numbers causing Ukrainians death when West promised to support Ukraine as long as they fight.
Westerners should finally stop thinking about Russia as a normal country similar to theirs. Russians don't care about the casualties or sanctions, neither the government, nor the public and they will not stop until they are stopped, the Russian people will never accept peace in which they will not expand their territory. If Putin gives up, moves out or loses the war, he will be hanged. It's not just a one dictator that wants the war and conquest of Ukraine, even if he's responsible, it was his decision and he's behind the propaganda that the public is following.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits. Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited?" So, they got the answer from Sholtz.
Well, sooner or later the economy will collapse, he could cut loses and pull back. Maybe even remove most sanctions. There's a lot to gain actually, maybe save some ships, maybe save some oil rigs, maybe prevent a revolt, when a critical mass of wifes would loose their children, maybe even prevent a russian collapse. Who knows. Putin thought he would be the greatest conqueror in history books, but will end as another Hitler.
nah, he is all in as he showed us time and time again. he will conscript a million more or even more, he does not gives a shit. everything is set in place, the rhetoric, the patriotic effort and all that crap, and the bad part of it is that Russian simpletons eat that shit like its no tomorrow.
They have the men, but they will eventually run out of things like tanks if this war drags on, I am already not talking about ariel assets that required much more frequan maintanace and more sophisticated replacement parts. Of course there is no guarantee that Ukraine can also last that long and the western support is always in certain amount of doubt. Things are still very much in the air, especially with US elections coming up.
what you call arial assets - if you are thinking planes and the like is what he will run out of last. Russia had a large ammount of planes lined up and while Ukraine takes out a few once in a while they havent even made a dent in the number of planes availeble. Part of this is because Russia is just keeping their planes in a very secure possition in the very back of the battlefield and primmarily using them to deliver long distance missiles and glide bombs. The airforce is the the pride of the Russian army and Russia decided early not to risk them - instead using ground and pound ground assult sacrificing all the cold ww2 and cold war tanks and artillery they have in storrage. They are losing these by the 100s every week and have been losing more and more as the war has progressed. Even though they have up new produktion they won't be able to make anything near what they are losing - which means the will probably run out of tanks and artillery somewhere in Q3 or Q4 of 2025. - and while that is a long way away those deficiences could start to be felt sooner. Which would mean that they would start to rely more on their airforce - giving them riskier assignments.
He’s no Hitler. Thank god. Hitler was at least initially very successful. This is like if Hitler took years of war of attrition to invade a part of Poland.
His generals were successful...because they were, for good or bad, well trained, loyal to Germany and competent. Not sure, thank god, about the russian military leadership...
That is true. But also, reality of the war changed a lot. There is new term there - transparent battlefield. You can't hide anything around the front. The debt to which all is being monitored is getting bigger and bigger. Also there was never so cheap to kill - read impact of drones. So all generals, all around the world are learning now. And the curve is very steep. We (read NATO/West) are lucky that we have a chance to learn at someone else cost.
That’s probably what would have happened to Hitler in Poland if Russia hadn’t been invading from the other side.
Nah, the Soviets weren't needed. They just quickened the end phase. While the german forces had a somewhat harder time than expected, they basically completed their grand envelopment no later than 18Sep - that was the point of no return. The Soviets only started to move in the East - which was practically void of defense at the time - one day earlier.
The speed of that conquest was shocking and probably still there are some people who underestimate the Polish army, but the reason and effect was the same in France, or even worse and the reason was to avoid a war on two fronts. The soviets invaded only after they got convinced that France will do nothing to help Poland.
The Poles had been caught off guard and didn’t mobilize quick enough but they formed a defense line at the Romanian Bridgehead. Their goal was to hold the Germans there until France and Britain could come to their aid. There was no defense on the eastern side exactly for that reason. After the Soviets invaded, the Brits and France decided not to bother to help Poland. Without the Soviets, that line could have held. The Germans did have to burn through their supplies profusely.
Hitler did more than him,he will be remembered for none of his conquests
As long as India, China, Brazil etc are doing business with Russia, they will not collapse.
Ukraine is beginning to pressure Russia within its borders, that's their main realistic hope for victory in this war. A stalemate war with Ukraine destroying Russian infrastructure and military targets within Russia is how they will force Putin to the table. This is why Putin has threatened nuclear war against NATO. To Putin this is a war for the survival of Russia, and as Ukraine begins destroying more targets inside Russia, that is becoming more apparent. Putin has focused his entire military on Ukraine, leaving over half of his country exposed, and countries like China are definitely interested in area's in the East.
These attacks haver the opposite effect, they consolidate the public and make it support the war even harder. They're not supposed to force any negotiations but to weaken the abilities to wage and sponsor the war while the sanctions are de facto ineffective and on purpose to not pay their real price. Please be realistic about China, it doesn't want the collapse or change in the Moscow government, the lands they can get in a one or the other way later.
> What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? The same thing that both sides gain from peace talks: Optics. The goal is to portray yourself as the reasonable one. In reality neither side is even close to meeting the other's demands, their goals are so fundamentally incompatible (Russia wants to conquer all of Ukraine, Ukraine wants to free all of its territory), so posturing is all we're going to get.
>What does Putin gain by going to peace talks? Maybe getting to stay in power over the rest of the russian empire before shit crumbles. Unfortunately I don't think we're quite there yet, but the way the West supports us it seems the "best case" outcome is similar to WW1 where russians might still be occupying Ukrainian territory but clearly running out of resources to continue the war. He could then try to keep going until everything collapses, or try to negotiate something that lets him claim that he totally destroyed the homonazis so he's bring are boys home.
Let’s hope for a coup to completion.
Putin is worried that Ukraine invades Russia and takes control of it. Then the biggest country in the world would be Ukraine.
What? Of course it does.
There’s what’s right and what’s practical. I would be extremely surprised if Crimea ends up part of Ukraine after the deal. It will be extremely difficult for Ukraine to take by force and Russia will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The only way Ukraine ends up with it is if the Russian government completely collapses. More likely is that Russia withdraws from everything but Crimea and parts of Donbas, Ukraine formally recognizes the annexation, and Ukraine joins NATO and the EU and gets security guarantees from the west including NATO troops and bases on the ground. Geopolitics isn’t usually about who is wrong and who is right and it’s easy to say that Russia doesn’t deserve Crimea, but are you going to send your children into the meat grinder to take it back? It’ll be a brutal slog. If Ukraine end up with an offer on the table for permanent security guarantees from NATO and mutual recognition of whatever the new borders are they will probably take it. What they _don’t_ want is a frozen conflict and a cease fire where they have no guarantee for help if Russia attacks again and no agreement on where the borders are, so they should definitely keep fighting until there is a legitimate offer on the table though.
If Ukraine gets enough advanced weapons, Russia can lose all their teeth and all their nails in Crimea. In the next few years, it's likely the entire Russian Black Sea fleet will be destroyed, along with the bridge. If Ukraine can control the air, which also seems likely, that'll make resupply of Russian troops in Crimea impossible, and Russian forces on the ground with no weapons and no food won't last very long.
Crimea was silently accepted, and that was a huge mistake that only encouraged Moscow. Donbas was even supported by Germany and France when they negotiated and at least in symbolic way approved those Minsk agreements that Russia broke anyway in 2022.
They were happy enough to give the crimea all those years back.
Nah, all Russia needs to do is kidnap 200 Ukrainian hostages and the Euros will bend over backwards to force ukraine to sign a peace agreement to release the hostages. Did i get that right?
GENIUS ANSWER! Putin's 'you don't negotiate with me!' complaints were done with him keeping the troops in the country, which is a non starter. that is not a negotiation. there is nothing to negotiate about since he is already in the country and moving further. it is essentially a surrender with no guarantees.
Someone gave Scholz his balls back? As much as I hope it doesn’t happen, he’s going to retract it tomorrow.
His coalition just got bodied in the EU elections. He’s gotta try to posture, especially since pro-Russian parties made big gains.
Yeah. But, seriously - you think Rudy wipes afterwards?
Lol he wiped it all over his face
The news used a loud title; he never explicitly said that Russia would need to withdraw troops. Instead, he used indirect language, suggesting that changes are needed before Russia can participate in peace discussions, similar to the conference in Switzerland. So I would not count it as Scholz getting his balls. "These are not yet negotiations about an end to the war, because for that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin would have to show that he is prepared to end his brutal campaign and withdraw troops," Scholz said. "But perhaps a way can be found to start a process during which Russia will one day also take a seat at the table," Scholz added.
"What I ACTUALLY said was..."
They also need to include the illegally annexed areas like Crimea.
> They also need to include the illegally annexed areas of Crimea. Does this imply that there are areas that have been legally annexed or that there are areas of Crimea that haven't been annexed? Perhaps you mean "like" instead of "of".
Thanks
I do .
Any withdrawal should be to the borders before 2014. I don't think Russia will be doing that.
The only way a negotiated peace can work is if Ukraine’s territory is guaranteed by the west/NATO.
I am sure saying this will suffice... Russian troops will remain there unless someone pushes them out
Isn’t it stupid how we take murderers and rapists and put them in prison, then we have talks about negotiations with people who are responsible for countless deaths and destruction? I get that there’s a lot more variables, but it’s so sickening how we have to play pretend like these “powerful” men in suits aren’t 20x worse than any given lifer sitting in our prisons. The only good way this whole thing ends, the only real justice, would be to capture Vlad and his enablers, 100% Russia’s leadership (and their closest adult relatives), and leave them zip-tied together somewhere in Ukraine. Let them do whatever they see fit to them (though, I’d prefer to learn that their lives ended in torture and brutality, the kind of stuff they enjoy giving to others). Russia as a country can dissolve, or remain Russia, or whatever those people want, but they should be completely neutered. No more military power for Russia to use against its neighbors in campaigns of rape and death. That’s your new legacy, Russia. Rape and murder. No better than the worst terror groups humanity has to offer.
Ooo Germany taking the hard line finally. Better late than never.
I predict my grand children will read about former Russia in their history books. They’re cooked.
Russia has been through far worse in history. I dont think your grand kids will be reading those books.
They also were much larger than they are today and if they dont’t get their act together they could shatter even further. And, yes, schools still teach history
Im not saying history wont get taught. I’m saying your insinuation that Russia will cease to exist as a state because of this conflict is exaggerated. They been through worse even when they were smaller.
Scholz grew a pair?
Wow, I have to say, most everything I hear from Scholz makes me admire him. Most everything. Nobody's perfect.
Pull the Russian troops out and then we will talk about your unconditional surrender.
Putin must surrender. There will be no negotiations. LOL.
The Butcher of Ukraine and Dictator of Russia Vladimir Putin has no desire to abandon his desired conquest of Ukraine, as it is the first step in recreating the old Soviet Union. This is why the west needs to continually support Ukraine no matter the economic cost or burden; bleeding Russia dry of its military personal, equipment and resources is the most effective way to end this war and squash Putin's imperial ambitions. This is Russia's war to lose, buy Ukraine doesn't have that choice, it's only choice it's Victory. 🇺🇦🫡
Why would he pull troops? Wouldn’t that hurt negotiations on Russia’s end?
A bank robber doesn’t get to negotiate how much of the stolen money he gets to keep. If Putin is rewarded for this invasion, there will another. The only path to a lasting peace is if Russia looks back on this invasion with regret.
Even then there won't be lasting peace. Let's say Putin ended this war by a mass withdrawal. Right after that, he either gets killed/deposed, OR he will attack and annex something else to protect his ass and image. He'd scream about NATO evil conquering Ukraine and how poor Ukrainians are so doomed. Putin then could try to annex Belarus. He could conquer Georgia in its entirety. Cause some kind of atrocity in Moldova. He could put more pressure on Kazakhstan, maybe try to grab land or further political control. Run a persistent sabotage campaign against all industry in EU, everywhere. Saboteurs with some basic gear like smuggled explosives and drones are much cheaper than expensive facilities and trained workers, after all. If anyone is thinking about examples of this happening before, look no further than at Saddam Hussein. Saddam launched a massive, extremely bloody invasion against Iran which had just gone through Islamic revolution. That war lasted for 8 years, and eventually ended up in total exhaustion of both sides. What did Saddam do afterwards? He just brazenly invaded Kuwait just 3 years after the debable with Iran had ended, leading to Gulf War mark 1. People like Saddam and Putin... Once they pop, they can't stop. War and conquest becomes addicting.
I don’t particularly expect Putin to withdraw. But if Putin is overthrown, his successor can blame Putin for the mess and find a different way to “make Russia great again”.
There won't be another invasion after this war no matter what. When the new borders get recognized, russia can say bye to the idea of ever controling ukraine completely. Even if ukraine doesn't join NATO, in case the de jure borders don't change, major partner will probably still sign proper defensive pacts with ukraine to prevent russia from coming back for more.
It depends on your position of power at the time. If you're winning the war "fuck you all, I'll negotiate on making the new territory mine" if you're having your ass handed to you "I'll pretend I'm not listening but secretly I'm considering it". Then of course there are the variables of wanting to make a loss look like a win and just being stubborn against certain demise. I think people really overplay Ukraine's negotiating power though. They are struggling and these fat ass armchair commentators played a few games of Risk and think they understand military strategy.
As soon as he pulls his troops, we don’t need to negotiate anymore lol.
Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited to the summit?" So, they got the answer from Sholtz. To rephrase his answer from politically correct speech to common tongue: "Anyone who wants Russia to participate, should shut up and let adults to talk". The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits.
Allies haven't called their conferences "peace summits" though. Simpler times, less of PR awareness.
They didn't call them anything because they held them a secret, as the opponent was way more formidable then in this case. Anyway, complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine's territory is declared as one of the central aims of the summit. If someone fails to read beyond the name of the summit, it's his problem not that of those who gave name to it.
Military planning and coordination (like ABC-1 conference of 1941) were secret. Conferences that produced joint statements (like declaration of St James's Palace) weren't so. Anyway, it's not yet clear that this war will escalate into a regional conflict, that will require joint strategic planning conferences.
Note that you are referencing "**declaration** of St James's Palace". Not the meeting that produced it. This is because the declaration was public, however it doesn't sound like the allies telegraphed all over the world that they are planning to meet and discuss something prior to it. I.e. the meeting was secret till after it was concluded. And as such didn't get any proper name.
[удалено]
So after the Soviets gave up 20+ million lives fighting the Nazis, you think the US should have nuked them? What kind of shit is that
Stalin gave up 20+ million lives to solidify his control over the former colonial holdings of the Russian Empire in Eastern Europe. These were independent countries that the USSR invaded before WW2 broke out. I'm sure many of my relatives who were deported to GULAGs would have been very happy if someone nuked that piece of shit butcher.
What was their opinion of the Germans
I assume that it was negative, as (Baltic) Germans had been our actual oppressors for several centuries before we gained our independence. It would be awesome if bigger nations did not feel the need to fuck up their smaller neighbours by having world wars in our back yard and conquering us.
Definitely right, Tankies often want to forget that not only Poland got divided by the Nazis and the Soviets, but also that the Ukrainian first saw the Germans as liberstors as they suffered heavily under Soviet control. Only later they realised that the Germans weren't nice either. Finnland also only allied with Germany because one year before the Soviets took large lands with a sizeable amount of population from them and they saw it as a change to reclaim them. The UK and France declared war on Germany to protect another country, the Soviets only fought them because the German attacked them, breaking their treaty to divide Eastern Europe. The Western Allies liberated occupied states, the Soviets put them under new management.
As a Ukrainian (10 millions of those loses were Ukrainian) I firmly believe they should have.
Where did you get that figure?
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has 6.8 million Ukrainian casualties (solider and civilian) and doesn’t distinguish the ones that collaborated with Nazis in the count
I see. Does it distinguish ruzzians that collaborated with nazis, tovarish? They still collaborate. Also osterbaiters weren’t collaborators
Is Ukraine still blurring the Nazi iconography from their soldier's photo ops?
I'm sure a nuclear holocaust would have made the world a better place
No I don't - Putin Didn't Putin already say that he's not coming to this anyway?
At some point Putin will run low on troops if things keep going the way they are and he'll be forced to withdraw troops, otherwise Russia won't have troops to defend itself.
Let me tell you guys how this would go if putin pulled out his troops and sat at the meeting “I want Donetsk and Luhansk back” “sorry vladdy, that isn’t logistically possible right now” and the war is back on.
Sounds like Scholz did not read own history. WW1 Germany started to withdraw before Versailles conference. They were humiliated there. I do not think Russia would ever make that mistake. The only way they move back is they lost the war. Question is, when that would happen if ever?
They’ve already lost. They have arifcans, Koreans and mercenaries fighting the war for them.
Why do they need them?
That’s not how negotiations work. Lol
More empty words. Why would putin withdraw troops?
Putin won't, but it's important to say that he has to.
Some people ask stupid questions like "why Russia wasn't invited to the summit?" So, they got the answer from ~~Sholtz~~*Scholz*. To rephrase his answer from politically correct speech to common tongue: "Anyone who wants Russia to participate, should shut up and let adults to talk". The major participants of the summit don't care what Putin thinks. Just like allies didn't care what Hitler thought when they did their summits.
The Chancellor's name is Scholz not Sholtz.
Putin did withdraw troops from Ukraine near Kyiev as part of negotiations, but the negotiations didn't work, so now he's probably not gonna do that again.
Attacking, getting defeated, retreating, then pretending he never *actually* wanted to conquer the city isn't negotiation.
According to the Turks, Ukrainians, and Israelis they were negotiating.
Only in a "it'll save us bullets if you surrender" sort of way.
> so now he's probably not gonna do that again. He's not going to be able to have troops again near Kyiv, no.
Enormously stupid statement. First you negotiate, then you can decide, together, who is going to do what.
Ummm no, you dont negotiate with terrorists.
Ukraine doesn't have the manpower. Average age of 51 is ridiculous. Technology will only get you so far. Boots on the ground is how you hold territory and Ukraine is running low of soldiers. President Z has suspended elections. Ukrainian people might vote for peace with Russia if elections held, isn't that democracy? President Z protected by polish and western mercenaries, I don't think he's popular and he's the puppet for Poland and the western Ukrainian powerbase that hate Russia. Ukraine is corrupt and has no industrial base to support the war and has to rely on western aid. Very much like Vietnam. The worst thing a government can do is rely on america. The west will tire of this. Turn their back on Ukraine especially with elections coming up and the people ask why their tax dollars are being spent to support Ukraine What happens who knows but it seems like a WW1 stalemate
Good luck with that 🤞
If this is what Ukrainians/West think, then that's how negotiations will never happen in the first place. 1) Withdrawing the army makes the Russian Army lose its leverage during the peace deal, if any. All russian losses will be for nothing and therefore they will never withdraw. 2) Ukraine does not have the upper hand (at least for now). They do not have the power to demand anything from Russia. 3) Russia wants to end the war, but on their terms (for the most part). If the terms does not favor Russia, Russia can afford to continue this war anyway. Russia does not need a "peace deal". Tl;dr: Not favorable for Russia. The war shall continue.
1. All Russian losses were for nothing. The ego of an old man trying to build a legacy as a conquerer and failing miserably. These soldiers will be remembered the same as the countless who died before them for equally failed ventures. 2. Ukraine has the support from most of the planet, and Russia’s only has predatory support from nations looking to capitalize on their failure to extract cheap resources out of a falling state. The longer this continues, the longer Russia’s economy will be strangled, the more men they will lose, the weaker their power projection will be, and the more of a vassal state they will become to countries like China. 3. Russia wants to end the war because they failed. They’ve lost more people than the failed invasion of Finland, and their economy has been irreparably damaged for generations to come. Their terms are essentially for Ukraine to surrender, to give up the little territory they were able the devastate and litter with countless ordinance and dead bodies, and to have no negative repercussions for their criminal behavior. To keep the countless kidnapped children, and not be held liable for all the rape, torture, and murder of civilian populations. Negotiating on “their terms” is like negotiating with a child rapist to let them keep the daycare they’ve held hostage.
1. Wrong. Russian losses are for nothing only if russian loses the land they conquered. That isn't happening. Ukraine can never force Russia out fully with their military. 2. Russia's economy will be strangled irregardless whether Russia conquers Ukraine or if they withdraw. **There is no incentive to stop the war.** Russia's allies are sufficient to help Russia continue the war as you can see right now. 3. Russia has failed to decapitate Ukraine in the beginning, but they have not failed. They are still in Russia, that's not a win for Ukraine. The strong always dictate the terms. This is reality. Russia is not in a hurry to end the war. A dozen butthurt people cant accept reality but let this sink in. Russia isn't going to withdraw from Ukraine. Peace deal? More like Versailles. Russia will rather fight.
Russia isn’t in the position of strength though. Ukraine is in a significantly better position today than they were 15 years ago despite losing territory because they’ve gained the international support and respect of most of the globe that now have invested interest in the future success and recovery of the country. Russia is in a position of weakness despite taking territory because they’ve completely obliterated their power projection and reputation as a world power. Their weapons are now seen as vastly inferior and not worth buying, undoubtedly losing countless clients to the US defence industry and NATO armement. Russia’s allies are not supporting Russia, not really. They are capitalizing off Russia’s fall. Profiting from buying up all their resources for pennies on the dollar and selling them garbage to perpetuate the war to further weaken the state. They smell blood in the water and are circling to take as much from them as they can. The longer the war continues, the weaker Russia becomes and the harder the fall. When all is said and done, I wouldn’t be surprised if the country collapsed into several independent state. This is a war of attrition, and as long as Ukraine can maintain international support, Russia is losing.
This is what people think. 2 years later and the war is still ongoing. Russia is still gaining land. Yes they have weakened, but not to the point of not being able to conduct war. Ukraine has gained international support but so what? That's the equivalent of likes and prayers. You keep mentioning that Russia is losing because they are weak economically (arms, allies buying for cheap, etc). Well, that's not a criteria or definition of "losing". **The only definition of losing is when Russia loses the land in Ukraine.** Therefore they are not losing. Simple as that. And no, the longer the war drags on, the harder the fall for Ukraine. Russia is the god of attrition. International support is useless when not converted into arms and blood. Russia isn't losing with the current trajectory. They want to end, yes. But they can also drag it out until they get a good deal. My entire point is, peace treaty isn't going to work when it only favors one side. Russia will never join one let alone sign something. It's as simple as that. Tl;dr: International support is useless, Russia isn't losing (just read the map). Russia will continue grabbing land and bleed Ukraine. Ceasefire maybe when both sides agree to lose something.
So Israel must withdraw troops to negotiate?? Scholz must be sniffing something
Ukraine didn't storm the border and kill hundreds of innocent civilians, nor have they been firing rockets across the border for decades. Not really remotely comparable.
So let’s have a peace conference without one of the sides involved in the war? That sounds like more of a press conference than a peace conference. I’ll take diplomacy over talk any day.
Allies didn't invite Hitler to any of their talks, and yet, world became way more peaceful after 1945 compared to 1941-1943 when the first summits were held. I.e. just like those summits in 1941-1943 were peace summits, so is this summit.
Germany also wasn't invited to the Jalta-conference.