Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

The goal was to force negotiations,

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kyiv direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kyiv if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.

---

So borders are to be static forever?

When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders

Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991

Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc

["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."

For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]

---

Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.

The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.



You try to change a border, you always get a war.

---

Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?

Would you consider this pro-war behavior?

---

What secession movements/border changes?

---

Kosovo from Serbia

East Timor from Indonesia

South Sudan from Sudan


Etc

---

Pretty weak examples for your thesis. .

---

No they are pretty accurate examples

Then you spend time defending them (which is fine….i support E. Timor and S.Sudan independence as well)

But their merits are not the point

DC has been a consistent supporter of border changes, secession moments, independence movements

White rock said this guarantees war

---

Which of those examples you cited did NOT involve war?

---

I didn't say Whiterock was wrong

But does that mean DC was promoting war by supporting secession movements and border changes?

---

you presume facts which are not in evidence.

What happened in E. Timor and S. Sudan was not fomented out of whole cloth by the USG (as you assume was the case in Ukraine.)

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Those were the BTGs I mentioned earlier. The BBC reported ten, so let's call it ten. Nowhere near enough to take a city of 3 million. Not even in the ballpark.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Those were the BTGs I mentioned earlier. The BBC reported ten, so let's call it ten. Nowhere near enough to take a city of 3 million. Not even in the ballpark.

---

BBC and many other outlets reported the convoy was 30 to 45 miles long and included ~ 1000 tanks and air support, with only enough supplies to last a few days. And two intel heads predicted it would take 2-3 days. Intel showed the same Russian expectation, and Putin fired the architect.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Those were the BTGs I mentioned earlier. The BBC reported ten, so let's call it ten. Nowhere near enough to take a city of 3 million. Not even in the ballpark.

---

BBC and many other outlets reported the convoy was 30 to 45 miles long and included ~ 1000 tanks and air support, with only enough supplies to last a few days. And two intel heads predicted it would take 2-3 days. Intel showed the same Russian expectation, and Putin fired the architect.

---

There are still countries in the world that negotiate, and that is what happened in this case. If regime change had been Putin's agenda, he would have mentioned it at some point.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Those were the BTGs I mentioned earlier. The BBC reported ten, so let's call it ten. Nowhere near enough to take a city of 3 million. Not even in the ballpark.

---

BBC and many other outlets reported the convoy was 30 to 45 miles long and included ~ 1000 tanks and air support, with only enough supplies to last a few days. And two intel heads predicted it would take 2-3 days. Intel showed the same Russian expectation, and Putin fired the architect.

---

And 10,000 personnel, which is only a couple thousand more than I estimated. They also reported that Russian forces were fanning out to other areas north of Kiev, with some deploying as far north as Chernihiv, over 140 kilometers away. So not all of them were bound for Kiev.

Who was it that Putin fired? I've never seen any reporting on who specifically was in charge of the Kiev operation.

In any event, sending troops to Kiev could suggest any number of objectives ranging from forced negotiation, to surrender, to regime change, to trial or execution of the head of state. Americans may have a hard time remembering that not all wars are about regime change. There are still countries in the world that negotiate, and that is what happened in this case. If regime change had been Putin's agenda, he would have mentioned it at some point.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:

- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025

---

This is a shockingly distorted history even by Ukrainian PR standards. Not a single one of those pre-war demands is accurate.

It is true that Zelensky was elected with a mandate to settle with the Russians, but his failure had nothing to do with Putin refusing to negotiate. It had to do with Zelensky's corrupt benefactors and the neo-Nazis who threatened to hang him from the highest tree in Kiev if he ever made a deal.

---

What specifically is inaccurate?

Sure, the guy spices it up a bit, but everything in there can be found in actual proposals.

---

Literally all of it. Ukraine ceasing to exist, exiling its government, replacing its president, completely dismantling its military, giving up its language and culture, breaking ties with the West, full Russian control of resources, concentration camps, mass graves, etc.

It's bizarre. Some of these things likely will happen now because of the war, but all Russia was demanding at the time was implementation of the Minsk Agreement and a pledge not to seek NATO membership.

---

I guess we can quibble over characterizations, but all of these were in the actual proposals before talks broke down:

Regime change
Russia stays in the east
Major reduction in military
Major reduction in weapons
Laundry list of prohibited weapons
No western military training
"De-Nazification"
Ban "fascism"
Ban "aggressive nationalism."
Revise history taught in schools, making it more pro-Russia
Russian national language
Russia right to review/approve even non-military relationships/agreements with other countries.
Mandatory energy/mining agreements

---

No, they were not. The Minsk proposals called for withdrawal of all forces from the east and limited autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. Only later did the demand change to independence for the two oblasts, with the presence of Russian forces to be negotiated. Never was there any talk of annexation or of regime change in Kiev.

Russian would have been an official language, not the official language. Ukraine would have ended discrimination and quotas against the Russian language in media. There were needed prohibitions on activities contrary to Ukraine's neutrality, including Western military training. There were also prohibitions on Nazi organizations and propaganda. Call it an affront to free speech, but Germany does the same thing (and their Nazi problem is nowhere near as bad as Ukraine's). Ukraine would have pledged to "refrain from using its own territory or the territories of other states to harm the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of other states," the major concern on the part of the Russians which I referred to earlier.

---

Wait, you're saying regime change was never pursued? How do you explain the hit squads and attempted taking of Kyiv? I mean, were they all just going there to negotiate with Zelensky?

---

Russia sent something like eight or nine battalion tactical groups to Kiev. In no way was it an attempt to take the city. The goal was to force negotiations, and it succeeded. They did in fact negotiate with the Zelensky government and came close to an agreement.

---

Then why did the highest levels of the Russian gov and military predict a quick taking of Kyiv? And why did Putin fire the architect of the Kyiv strategy? And what about the killed and captured hit squads all over Kyiv? And how about the taking of airfields and power plants and suburbs?

And I think you're understating the Russian force by about 90%.

Hundreds of destroyed tanks and other vehicles were left on the road to Kyiv.

---

Journalists may have predicted a quick taking of the city. Some legislators and other officials made general statements that Russia would be victorious or that things were going to plan. I don't recall officials at the highest levels commenting in detail. There were a number of Russian saboteurs killed or captured. I don't know about hit squads.

The operation seemed roughly analogous to Desert Storm in 1991. The Americans pushed deep into Iraq and took some steps that could potentially have toppled the regime, but that was never necessarily the goal. Most of the vehicles sent in the Kiev direction were military police and other unarmored vehicles, which tells you something about what the Russians expected. They were preparing to secure Kiev if and when the government collapsed. They tried to surround and blockade the city while cutting off power and TV broadcasts. But they had no intention of storming or holding it against significant resistance. The real meat of Russian operations was elsewhere--securing a land bridge to Crimea and capturing key points in the east.

All of this makes sense as a way to put pressure on Zelensky, and if it forces him out of power then maybe that's all the better. But it was never a demand of the Russians either before the invasion or during the negotiations that followed.

---

I mean, there are pictures of destroyed convoys many miles long, including hundreds of tanks.

REUTERS

19 Photos August 25, 20223:46 PM CDT

Ukraine puts destroyed Russian tanks on display in Kyiv

---

I mean, who said there were no pictures of tanks? No doubt Russian armored units were fanning out all across the country. I don't see a reason to conclude they had ten times as many troops as reported in Kiev.

---

They were convoys (and tanks) heading to Kyiv from the north.

---

Those were the BTGs I mentioned earlier. The BBC reported ten, so let's call it ten. Nowhere near enough to take a city of 3 million. Not even in the ballpark.

---

BBC and many other outlets reported the convoy was 30 to 45 miles long and included ~ 1000 tanks and air support, with only enough supplies to last a few days. And two intel heads predicted it would take 2-3 days. Intel showed the same Russian expectation, and Putin fired the architect.

---

And 10,000 personnel, which is only a couple thousand more than I estimated. They also reported that Russian forces were fanning out to other areas north of Kiev, with some deploying as far north as Chernihiv, over 140 kilometers away. So not all of them were bound for Kiev.

Who was it that Putin fired? I've never seen any reporting on who specifically was in charge of the Kiev operation.

In any event, sending troops to Kiev could suggest any number of objectives ranging from forced negotiation, to surrender, to regime change, to trial or execution of the head of state. Americans may have a hard time remembering that not all wars are about regime change. There are still countries in the world that negotiate, and that is what happened in this case. If regime change had been Putin's agenda, he would have mentioned it at some point.

---

He couldn't mention regime change b/c it would detract from his de-Nazification message . . . .

On a plane but will look for the names. Pretty sure one was his primary intel chief.

---

sombear said:

---

FSB chief Beseda. Then Putin replaced the entire FSB lead with the GRU. There were reports that some of the FSB were arrested for dereliction of duty based on the failed Kyiv takeover.

---