Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia must withdraw to its pre-invasion positions from February 24, 2022.
In an interview with Newsmax, he hoped that Donald Trump, with European backing, could end the war and influence Putin.
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine will not accept any negotiated settlement that excludes its involvement.
He also suggested that Trump needs a diplomatic success to differentiate his approach from Biden’s. However, there is no indication that Russia is willing to retreat.
How about to 2013 line?
Unfortunately unlikely, considering American support is now in the hands of Putin’s puppet.
I don’t think that Russia would be giving up Crimea in any case, regardless of who’s in the Whitehouse. The Donbas is a different question, they probably would’ve been prepared to give them back in whole or in part in negotiations, but I don’t think Crimea would’ve ever been up for negotiations.
In pre-2022 positions, Crimea could be strangled; it’s difficult to supply. Unfortunately, 2022 borders are only likely to be restored by negotiation, with US help unlikely, and not military success.
this was was always going to end with Russia taking a large chunk of Ukraine. there was some collective delusion for a while that it wasn’t because of strong state war propaganda
but Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than the US. It’s their neighbor who they have more or less controlled directly or indirectly for hundreds of years.
US support was always limited and self-interested. Just like every time US hypes up some international ally to inevitably discard them. Remember the Kurds? I’m guessing Taiwan is the next one going forward
That would be best. Definitely.
Removed by mod
[removed by mod] for an opinion. Wow.
It isn’t an opinion it is a straight lie.
Yeah, all of those “disgruntled citizens” starting a coup in eastern Ukraine with russian equipment were later confirmed to be Russian mercenaries.
In the end it all comes down to this: Russia will attack any country that was allied with them, but now wants to move away from that.
May also be fastest action I’ve seen from the mods here. What 9m after posting?
and in before they add an explicit no propaganda rule that is only used to remove non usa approved propaganda
Pretty easy to be quick when we’ve seen that bullshit lie posted more times than I can count.
Just they’re never that quick any other time
Factually true, looks like the turnaround time is about 1-3 hours. I guess we don’t have the data on submitted reports - that’d be a fun thing to add to the modlog for transparency purposes.
Based on downvotes people don’t like getting told it.
And it’s not a jab when true
I’m a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.
Edit: And to think Boris Johnson told Zelensky not to accept a peace agreement in 2022 when Russia was willing to let Zelensky sit at the table. Now the Ukrainians don’t even get to attend the peace talks, no doubt because the Russians know that it’s the British and the Americans who give Zelensky his orders. Blame whoever you want, the Ukrainians really did it to themselves.
No you’re just a russian tool for spewing that bullshit.
I wish.
We would much prefer you walk into the woods and scream where nobody can hear you.
It would be nice if that was true because in that case nobody could hear your bullshit
fuck putin!
The chessboard’s lines blur when leaders mistake desperation for strategy. Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
The subtext? Ukraine’s survival now hinges on American electoral drama, where “success” is just another campaign slogan. Europe’s support here feels like a stage prop, all optics and no spine. Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table? That’s not diplomacy—it’s surrender by committee.
One big reason why Ukraine can make terroritorial demands as part of its peace plan is because Europe has a huge interest in making sure Russia doesn’t keep any terroritory through conquest. It sets a precident for Europe that Europe is willing to go to war over to disprove.
Zelensky’s Peace Plan was actually really well thought out and affordable, Europeans and Americans were just too scared of “escalation” to give Ukraine the weapons they were requesting, and allow them into NATO.
The west has betrayed Ukraine.
The West didn’t just betray Ukraine—it betrayed its own supposed principles. The obsession with “escalation” is a coward’s excuse, a mask for the real fear: admitting that their posturing as defenders of freedom is hollow. Zelenskyy’s plan wasn’t just affordable; it was necessary. Instead, they left Ukraine to bleed while pretending to care, all for the sake of preserving their fragile illusion of stability.
Europe’s interest in territorial integrity is performative at best. If they truly believed in drawing a line against conquest, they wouldn’t have hesitated to arm Ukraine fully or fast-track NATO membership. What we’re watching isn’t diplomacy or strategy—it’s a slow-motion capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
The West’s spine is as absent as its moral compass.
I think many of Ukraine’s partners have seen this as a cheap opportunity to see the Kremlin destroy its military… at the cost of Ukrainiane lives.
In other words, part of the equation for them is balancing support so it keeps Russia engaged but mostly static. So this lowers the Kremlin’s ability to repeat this kind of barbaric land grab because their Soviet stockpiles are gone and the people are left wary of starting a new war.
Surprising to me that the war in Afghanistan cost 20,000 Russian lives over ten years and was a major factor in the dissolution of the USSR. This war in Ukraine absolutely dwarfs those numbers and its in its third year, yet the Russian people are too scared or brainwashed to act.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
The idea that Ukraine’s partners are playing some 4D chess to bleed Russia dry at the expense of Ukrainian lives is a convenient narrative for apathy. It frames this as a calculated sacrifice rather than what it really is: moral cowardice dressed up as strategy. Let’s not pretend this is about “balancing support”—it’s about avoiding responsibility while posturing as virtuous.
Comparing this to Afghanistan is disingenuous. That war dragged on for decades, and its toll on Russian lives was a factor in the USSR’s collapse. But today, Ukraine fights for survival in real time, while Russians remain too scared or indifferent to act. Apathy isn’t brainwashing—it’s complicity.
I suspect they don’t go all in because, as I said, they want to keep the Kremlin engaged. If you look at the cost and amount of military equipment destroyed its staggering, and the Kremlin won’t be able to replace it any time soon.
You misunderstood my comparison to Afghanistan, but no need to be rude about it. Russians are brainwashed, many actually believe “the West” wants to invade and destroy them, and they’ve been taught lies about their history of brutally oppressing people.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
I see your point about Afghanistan, and I apologize if my earlier tone came off as dismissive or rude. You’re right that there are parallels worth exploring, but I think the situations diverge in key ways. Ukraine’s fight is immediate and existential, whereas Afghanistan’s impact on the USSR was a long-term grind.
As for Russians, I still believe apathy is a choice, but I appreciate your perspective.
Fair enough, differing perspectives with a lot of truth mixed in. Anyway, seems we can both agree “the West” is really failing by providing such weak support for a large democracy being brutally invaded right on their doorstep. If not for ideals, then because it’s the most rational thing to do when faced with such barbaric aggression.
Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism
Trump brokering a deal is not negotiable, he’s going to do it for the simple reason that he sees himself as the best deal-maker, the best negotiator, the best. It would be futile to try to stop him, and it doesn’t hurt Ukraine’s position that he try, so why the hell would they attempt to stop him.
There’s basically two outcomes, here: Trump thinks Putin is nuts when it comes to demands, Trump still wants to look good domestically, so he’s doubling down on Ukraine support. Then, Trump thinks Putin is in a strong position, he tries to dictate terms to Ukraine, but will fail. US support may or may not stop after that, depending on how he can spin it domestically, in any case Europe is there to have Ukraine’s back.
This decision point – is Trump going to squeeze a deal that’s acceptable for Ukraine out of Putin – has to be awaited before Ukraine can move, because otherwise you’re pissing Trump off and making the US pull out instead of double down more likely.
tl;dr: It’s strategically opportune to hold Trump’s beer right now, you might not believe he can get anything out of Putin but you got to let him try, and fail, on his own.
Trump’s self-image as the “best deal-maker” is precisely the problem. His deals are transactional theater, not strategy. He doesn’t broker peace; he brokers leverage—for himself. Ukraine’s survival isn’t a stage for his ego or America’s domestic optics; it’s existential. Betting on Trump isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.
Your two outcomes ignore a third: Trump undermines Ukraine to curry favor with Putin, framing it as “peace.” Europe might have Ukraine’s back, but Trump’s America-first rhetoric would leave Kyiv holding the bag. The US pulling out isn’t a threat—it’s a gift to Russia.
Strategic opportunism? No, it’s capitulation dressed as pragmatism. Letting Trump “try and fail” risks lives, sovereignty, and global stability. Ukraine can’t afford to be someone’s PR stunt.
How, in your mind, would Ukraine go about stopping Trump from doing whatever he’s going to do in Saudi Arabia, and what would be the costs?
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else—it’s not about controlling his actions but surviving the fallout. If Trump cozies up to Saudi Arabia or Russia, Ukraine’s best move is to double down on alliances with Europe and any U.S. factions still committed to its sovereignty.
The cost? Likely higher dependence on European support and a brutal recalibration of strategy to counteract waning American backing. But the alternative—appeasing Trump’s whims—is worse. It risks turning Ukraine into a bargaining chip in his transactional games, where sovereignty is just another line item on a deal sheet.
Ukraine’s survival hinges on resilience, not waiting for foreign leaders to act rationally. Betting otherwise is playing Russian roulette—literally.
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else
So why would they try? Why are you characterising them not attempting the impossible as “banking on Trump”?
Noone but MAGA has Trump as Plan A, B, and C.
Ukraine’s Plan A here is dictated by happenstance: Gotta wait for Trump because he’s gotta have his try. Plan B is going it alone with Europe. Plan C is their own military production. Plan D is partisan warfare. Ukraine is prepared for all of them.
They should have a plan E, which should actually be plan A, and dust off those old nuclear designs and build a bomb.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump? That’s not strategy—it’s survival instinct. They’re not playing a chess game where every piece moves in perfect order; they’re scrambling to keep the board from flipping entirely.
Your “Plan A, B, C” framework assumes Ukraine has the luxury of options. They don’t. Every “plan” you outlined depends on external powers acting in good faith, which history shows is a laughable gamble. Europe might step up, but only after dragging its feet through bureaucratic sludge. The U.S.? A partisan circus.
Ukraine isn’t waiting for Trump or anyone else to save them—they’re hedging against betrayal while clinging to sovereignty. Pretending otherwise oversimplifies a geopolitical nightmare into a bad flowchart.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump?
I don’t. You implied they do:
Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
If you did not want to be interpreted that way, may I suggest not using language such as “reeks of tactical nihilism” right after criticising Zelensky’s approach.
What he’s actually doing here is framing what “success” and “failure” means for Trump’s initiative, “If Trump can’t get this then it was a failure”. The point itself (pre-Feb-2022 lines) is rather unlikely in practical terms, it’s chosen so that a) Putin will not accept it, he wants way more and b) It is not Ukraine’s maximum position, either, so that afterwards it cannot be said “Ukraine could have had peace if they were only reasonable and realistic”.
There’s also a reason Zelensky only talked about “Russia must withdraw to”, not “Russia can keep”. Sounds more like “If Russia withdraws there, we can start talking about exchanging the rest for Kursk”. They’re establishing the desired framing of the Trump negotiations without giving up anything, even if Trump should succeed in pressuring Putin.
Now I don’t want to imply that Zelensky is running circles around both Trump and Putin when it comes to 4D chess. It’s not the man, it’s his whole administration. They’ve gobsmacked me more than once.
A prop? Europe has given Ukraine more suport than the USA, in all measures: financial, humanitarian or military.
Wow! 2 dozen countries gave more support than one. The EU’s commitment per capita is far less than the states.
I’m sure you have numbers and an argument for the importance of the metric, right? Right?
132bn Euro divided by 450m Europeans == 296 Euro per capita. Not including already decided on money which has yet to be paid out, that’d nearly be double. Also not including refugee costs.
114bn Euro divided by 335m USians == 340 Euro per capita. Vastly exaggerated as they’re valuing ancient Bradleys they would have to pay to decommission at the price of buying a new, modern one, same with old ammunition. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the US are saving money by giving Ukraine weapons, there’s also shipping and refurbishment costs, but it’s definitely exaggerated.
Also not including refugee costs.
To put that into perspective: Germany alone pays 5.5 - 6 billion € annually to support the 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees currently residing in the country, that’s additionally at least 65€ per capita in Germany annually.
E: I just noticed that your source lists refugee costs as well. The top four countries alone (Germany, Poland, Croatia, and Spain) spend over 80 bio. while the US contributed nothing. It’s pretty clear, that European support for Ukraine is bigger than American support, even per capita.
I’m sorry, could you please clarify the intent of your comment? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
deleted by creator
Europe may have written bigger checks, but let’s not confuse quantity with quality. Dollars and euros are meaningless without decisive action. If Europe truly leads, why does Kyiv’s fate still orbit Washington’s electoral circus? Aid without autonomy is charity, not strategy.
And let’s not pretend transactional support equals solidarity. Europe’s fragmented policies scream self-interest louder than unity. Numbers don’t matter when the spine to confront Moscow is missing.
Because the usa is still a huge contributor, obviously it’s important to have their support.
Quality? Leopards and challengers hold their own VS Abrahams. All F16 are provided by European countries. Storm shadows. Gepards. Iris-T.
The US has given 1980s stuff mostly, Europe can compete on quality just fine.
Europe may have better optics, but quality without leadership is like a sword without a hand to wield it. Leopards and Gepards are impressive hardware, sure, but they don’t command strategy. The US might be sending “1980s stuff,” but it’s the backbone of the logistics, coordination, and intelligence that make Europe’s shiny toys effective.
And let’s not kid ourselves—Europe’s fragmented approach is a feature, not a bug. You can’t compare unity of purpose when one side still debates whether to turn the gas back on. Numbers and tech are meaningless without resolve. Europe competes on quality? Only if they stop outsourcing their backbone to Washington.
I’m pretty sure Poland is the backbone of logistics this time. We are not bombing Afghanistan from north Carolina, we are moving artillery shells a few hundred kilometers, maybe a thousand. We don’t need to deploy a burger King in the desert, when that need arises we do know who to call.
Ukraine is coordinating fine it seems, and intelligence is a joint NATO effort where the USA plays an important role but is by no means the only one.
And are you really trying to teach Europe about resolve, all while Trump and Vance and kneeling before Putin (again)?
Poland is the backbone? Cute. Moving shells a few hundred kilometers isn’t a logistical masterpiece; it’s a bare minimum. Let’s not confuse proximity with strategy. The US doesn’t need to “deploy a burger king” because it built the global infrastructure Europe still leans on.
Ukraine coordinating intel? Sure, but NATO’s brain remains American. Europe’s fragmented approach isn’t just inefficient—it’s a liability. Coordination without leadership is chaos waiting to happen.
And resolve? Spare me. Europe debates gas bills while outsourcing its defense to Washington. Teaching Europe about resolve isn’t hypocrisy—it’s irony. The continent that birthed empires now struggles to fund its own security while pointing fingers at others.
That’s my point, as good as usa is at logistics, you are applying the argument wholesale without considering the needs of this conflict. This is happening at Europe’s doorstep, this time the logistics are easy, especially if you compare it to invading the middle east from north America.
Ukraine coordinating Intel? Sure? Well, there goes your original argument, leave to goalpost where it was.
Tell me more about American resolve, but maybe wait until Vance comes back home from selling Ukraine to Russia while trump threatens to invade Canada. Meanwhile Europe was able to replace 60% of its energy sourcing in two years and remain united. Usa left and joined the Paris accord 3 times in a decade and now is threatening to leave NATO. America lost its resolve a while ago.
Clearly, Putin should just be allowed to take whatever he wants. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table?
Really makes one question the narrative of the defensive war in favour of the proxy war between Russia and US doesn’t it?
deleted by creator
Why do I write like this? Because the world is drowning in oversimplified soundbites and hollow platitudes, and someone has to cut through the noise. If you think clarity or depth is pretentious, that says more about your expectations than my delivery.
Intelligence isn’t a performance—it’s a tool to dissect the absurdity of geopolitics, propaganda, and transactional leaders who treat diplomacy like a poker game. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask why mediocrity feels so familiar.
For someone that demanded the 2014 borders for the past few years, this is a concession. Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine even if Russia has to stop where they are for a few years and repeat the 2014 playbook. It’s very surprising Russia hasn’t been able to push past the current positions. However, they are close to taking certain important cities and the highways.
Another possibility is if Ukraine has elections and chooses another pro Russian president. Then you would have the largest army in Europe equipped with Western weapons potentially switch sides and on to other former USSR states.
There is zero chance that after the last 11 years (and especially the last 3)ukraine will elect a pro Russian president in the next 3 generations. The pro Russian oblasts (the ones in the east) have either been annexed or obliterated, there’s little sympathy left for Russia. If before the war there was a 45-45 split, I’m pretty sure it’s 85-10 now.
Didn’t take that long for Vietnam US relationship to settle down.
I think the circumstances are different. The US didn’t rape and pillage at the scale of Russia. And when something criminal was discovered, the rapists didn’t receive medals on TV. And the Vietnamese haven’t voted for an openly Pro-US government, to the extent of their voting ability.
Haha. Are you serious? I swear to God, propaganda makes people so dumb it’s unbelievable.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I’m afraid ad hominem is all you got.
Russia is not that strong
Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine
That doesn’t make any sense. Russia knows it can’t control Ukrainian-majority areas in any meaningful way. This war isn’t a war of annexation and expansionism, it’s a proxy war between Russia and the US in which Russia is showing its neighbouring countries that it won’t simply allow its influence sphere to disintegrate.
Not according to Putin, who has stated multiple times that Ukraine isn’t really a country and Russia owns it.
“Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference."
Zelenskyy giving interviews to propaganda outlets like Newsmax, especially in giving in to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in peace talk negotiation, is just dealing into Russia’s hand. Trump’s odd pandering to Putin means that Zelenskyy should be spending his time wheeling and dealing with as many European politicians as possible, since Trump will take Russian bribes in a minute over recognizing the illegality, authoritarianism, and ethnic cleansing associated with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the countless war crimes that it has perpetuated in the process.
Zelenskyy knows that Europe does not have the money or political will to see this through if the US backs off. Realistically this is a discussion between the US and Russia, with Europe and Ukraine being a peanut gallery. Without Russia, no war. Without the US, no Ukraine.
