sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

Get ready for more twisting of the truth and RU propaganda. See above.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

And Putin wanted to meet Zelensky, as both the Russians and the Ukrainians confirmed. I've yet to see any article stating otherwise, or stating that Putin wanted to take Zelensky out.

There's probably no point in debating casualty numbers except to say that Western outlets tend to repeat Ukrainian estimates uncritically and that those estimates are manifestly suspect, to put it in the kindest way possible. The Russians performed successful fighting retreats at the various points of contact and inflicted high casualties on the Ukrainians, as usual, so by no means was it the rout that was trumpeted in Western media.

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:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

And Putin wanted to meet Zelensky, as both the Russians and the Ukrainians confirmed. I've yet to see any article stating otherwise, or stating that Putin wanted to take Zelensky out.

There's probably no point in debating casualty numbers except to say that Western outlets tend to repeat Ukrainian estimates uncritically and that those estimates are manifestly suspect, to put it in the kindest way possible. The Russians performed successful fighting retreats at the various points of contact and inflicted high casualties on the Ukrainians, as usual, so by no means was it the rout that was trumpeted in Western media.

---

Like I said.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

"The Financial Times said a 15-point draft deal had been prepared wherein Kyiv would give up its NATO ambitions in return for security guarantees outside NATO. Ukraine detected a softening of Russia's demands which Ukrainian presidential advisor Mykhailo Podolyak attributed to a reflection of how badly Putin's "blitzkrieg" invasion was going which left him with "no chances whatsoever to move further into Ukraine territory."

By the time of the sixth round of negotiations on March 21, the air of optimism was beginning to wane. Zelensky requested a face-to-face meeting with Putin which was rejected as it "should happen once the two sides are closer to agreeing on key issues."

Zelensky insists 'meeting' with Putin needed to end war
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks from Kyiv, Ukraine, early Monday, March 21, 2022. (Image from video, Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)
President Volodymyr Zelensky insists that a meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin "in any format" is needed to end the war in Ukraine.
"I believe that without this meeting it is impossible to fully understand what they are ready for in order to stop the war," Zelensky says in an interview with the Ukraine regional media outlet Suspilne.
Zelensky has previously said that "without negotiations, we cannot end the war" and called for a summit with Putin, but his comments on Monday were particularly insistent.

CNN
Russian foreign minister: Putin-Zelensky meeting not necessary until key issues clarified

CNN
WashingtonCNN
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that he's "ready for negotiations" with Russian President Vladimir Putin but warned that if they fail "that would mean that this is a third World War."
"I'm ready for negotiations with him. I was ready for the last two years. And I think that without negotiations we cannot end this war," he told CNN's Fareed Zakaria.
"I think that we have to use any format, any chance in order to have a possibility of negotiating, possibility of talking to Putin.

Putin Reportedly Agreed to Meeting in Spring of 2022 With Scholz, Macron - But Refused Zelensky

19:13 GMT 28.08.2023

Bear8084 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:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

And Putin wanted to meet Zelensky, as both the Russians and the Ukrainians confirmed. I've yet to see any article stating otherwise, or stating that Putin wanted to take Zelensky out.

There's probably no point in debating casualty numbers except to say that Western outlets tend to repeat Ukrainian estimates uncritically and that those estimates are manifestly suspect, to put it in the kindest way possible. The Russians performed successful fighting retreats at the various points of contact and inflicted high casualties on the Ukrainians, as usual, so by no means was it the rout that was trumpeted in Western media.

---

Like I said. And obituaries and actual facts say you are lying, just like you always do.

---

The most detailed analysis of obituaries comes from Mediazona, a BBC-affiliated outlet based in Russia. As of now they count 88K deaths, about one-tenth of the ridiculous 800K+ numbers you hear coming from Ukraine.

It goes without saying that you do literally nothing here but post propaganda, with no independent thought or regard for accuracy whatsoever, so obviously you're in no position to accuse anyone of lying.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 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:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

And Putin wanted to meet Zelensky, as both the Russians and the Ukrainians confirmed. I've yet to see any article stating otherwise, or stating that Putin wanted to take Zelensky out.

There's probably no point in debating casualty numbers except to say that Western outlets tend to repeat Ukrainian estimates uncritically and that those estimates are manifestly suspect, to put it in the kindest way possible. The Russians performed successful fighting retreats at the various points of contact and inflicted high casualties on the Ukrainians, as usual, so by no means was it the rout that was trumpeted in Western media.

---

Like I said. And obituaries and actual facts say you are lying, just like you always do.

---

The most detailed analysis of obituaries comes from Mediazona, a BBC-affiliated outlet based in Russia. As of now they count 88K deaths, about one-tenth of the ridiculous 800K+ numbers you hear coming from Ukraine.

It goes without saying that you do literally nothing here but post propaganda, with no independent thought or regard for accuracy whatsoever, so obviously you're in no position to accuse anyone of lying.

---

Oh please, you've been caught multiple times lying. Even now. And really comical you would have the audacity to call out "propaganda" when that's all you do. A Russian liar and anti-American is all you are who constantly gets clowned here and in other threads.

Ukraine President Zelenskyy proposes to meet with Putin as tensions with Russia grow

By Deepa Shivaram
Published February 19, 2022 at 8:50 AM CST
Michael Probst
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks during the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Saturday. He proposed a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin amid heightened tensions between their two countries.

Updated February 19, 2022 at 8:02 PM ET
As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelensky said "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"
The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.
"All we care about is peace," Zelenskyy said.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 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:

---

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.

---

That sounds like an intelligence failure rather than a military one. If Beseda underestimated Ukrainian resistance to the extent he was accused of doing, it would be consistent with what I've seen. Putin was criticized for making one last attempt to force negotiations instead of fully committing his army at the outset. He was trying to avoid a protracted war if at all possible, even if the chances were slim. If the FSB had been right, perhaps Zelensky wouldn't have been emboldened to take Boris Johnson's advice and abandon talks. It's no wonder Putin was angry.

---

Massive intel failure for sure.

On the regime change issue, Putin has called Zelensky illegitimate numerous times, and has refused to meet with him from day 1. Also, I rarely use as source material what Ukraine or Russia say, but Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have stated that Russia repeatedly told them early on that Zelensky had to go and be replaced by a guy whose name escapes me.

---

Putin met with Zelensky in 2019 as part of his ongoing effort to implement the Minsk Agreement. They were working toward another meeting in 2022 when the Ukrainians abruptly walked out of negotiations. Zelensky issued a decree later that year prohibiting talks with Russia. Putin only started calling Zelensky illegitimate after his term expired and no elections were held. These facts present a real obstacle, as they would make it easy for Ukraine to repudiate later any agreement that Zelensky signed today. Prior to and during the early part of the war, it would absolutely have been possible for them to meet.

---

No, numerous outlets, including Russian, reported Putin refused to meet with Zelensky in early 2022.

---

No, he did not. It may have been reported that Putin was waiting to meet until more details were worked out and a first draft of the agreement was completed, but there was never a refusal in principle. On the contrary, the Istanbul Communique (drafted by the Ukrainians) clearly shows that a meeting was planned:

Quote:

---

The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on ... ... 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.

---

---

Kyiv Post, Foreign Affairs, NPR, CNN, and others - reporting based on actual documents and emails:

In Feb and March 2022, Putin refused to meet directly with Zelensky despite multiple public and private Zelensky requests.

Yes, Ukraine drafted that, because Ukraine always wanted the direct meetings.

---

A search for that statement brings up the following results.

Foreign Affairs:

Quote:

---

In remarks he made on March 29, immediately after the conclusion of the talks, Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, sounded decidedly upbeat, explaining that the discussions of the treaty on Ukraine's neutrality were entering the practical phase and that--allowing for all the complexities presented by the treaty's having many potential guarantors--it was possible that Putin and Zelensky would sign it at a summit in the foreseeable future.

---

NPR:

Quote:

---

As fears grow of a Russian invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is proposing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I don't know what the president of the Russian Federation wants, that's why I proposed to meet," Zelenskyy said at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

"We are ready to sit down and speak. Pick the platform that you like," Zelenskyy said. "What is the point of us shooting and proposing diplomacy at the same time?"

The Kremlin does not yet appear to have responded to Zelenskyy's proposal as of Saturday evening ET.

---

CNN:

Quote:

---

In a press conference held in a Kyiv subway, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is willing to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war.

---

Kyiv Post didn't turn up anything, but since you mentioned Russian sources I will include TASS for good measure:

Quote:

---

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never refused in principle to hold a meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, but a document must be drafted before such meeting can be arranged, Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

---

Note that Medinsky concurred with the plan stated in the Communique. So it wasn't just wishful thinking on the Ukrainians' part.

As for the leaked email, we're on a bit of a tangent here for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The fact that Putin invaded Ukraine after years of trying to resolve the issue diplomatically hardly proves that he wanted regime change or that he was unwilling to negotiate.

But I did look up the original article in The Sun. I won't get into the question of how reliable Osechkin is or whether the leaks are genuine, given his long history of exaggerated claims and absurd propaganda (this is the same guy who once reported that Prigozhin served Putin a dinner of human brains).

More to the point, I see no reason to believe Putin swallowed these predictions hook, line, and sinker based on some emails from one or a handful of FSB officers. The article reflects the Western euphoria of the war's first year, premised on the assumption of Russian incompetence and ineptitude, with all the predictions of Ukrainian victory in the coming counter-offensive. We now know these premises and predictions were wildly erroneous. That should be kept in mind when revisiting old claims about how unprepared Putin and the Russians were. Moreover, the whole depiction of Putin as naive and ideologically driven is at odds with his statements, actions, and personality. In hindsight, it looks more than anything else like some projection on the part of British journalists.

---

I really don't understand your argument. These just confirm that Zelensky wanted to meet with Putin.

And the last one just says "in principal."

The fact remains Zelensky requested multiple meetings, and Putin refused.

As for "Kyiv in 3 days," we might never know what exactly what is in Putin's head. That's not my point. My point is all these articles show they wanted to take Kyiv and Zelensky out. Whether Putin thought it would take 2 days, 3 days, 3 weeks or 2 months is immaterial. He sent his best generals and special forces on that mission, and half of them were killed. It was an epic intel failure.

---

And Putin wanted to meet Zelensky, as both the Russians and the Ukrainians confirmed. I've yet to see any article stating otherwise, or stating that Putin wanted to take Zelensky out.

There's probably no point in debating casualty numbers except to say that Western outlets tend to repeat Ukrainian estimates uncritically and that those estimates are manifestly suspect, to put it in the kindest way possible. The Russians performed successful fighting retreats at the various points of contact and inflicted high casualties on the Ukrainians, as usual, so by no means was it the rout that was trumpeted in Western media.

---

Like I said. And obituaries and actual facts say you are lying, just like you always do.

---

It goes without saying that you do literally nothing here but post propaganda, with no independent thought or regard for accuracy whatsoever, so obviously you're in no position to accuse anyone of lying.

---

Might want to look in that mirror again.

sombear said:

---

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

---

I've explained this several times. If you're saying Putin wanted the broad outlines of an agreement before he and Zelensky met to finalize the details, there's no question about that. If you're saying he simply "has refused to meet with Zelensky from day one," that is false according to the above article (which I quoted earlier) and everything else we've seen here. Negotiating teams typically work together well in advance of a summit meeting in order to draft agreements and resolve as many differences as possible beforehand.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

---

I've explained this several times. If you're saying Putin wanted the broad outlines of an agreement before he and Zelensky met to finalize the details, there's no question about that. If you're saying he simply "has refused to meet with Zelensky from day one," that is false according to the above article (which I quoted earlier) and everything else we've seen here. Negotiating teams typically work together well in advance of a summit meeting in order to draft agreements and resolve as many differences as possible beforehand.

---

Putin meeting with Zelensky would be akin to the "I'll quit one day" guy going to AA meetings 3 days/week with no intentions of ever quitting. His mind was made up. He may well have sat in a meeting with Zelensky and sent the invasion force during the meeting. Dude's mind was well made at that point.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

---

I've explained this several times. If you're saying Putin wanted the broad outlines of an agreement before he and Zelensky met to finalize the details, there's no question about that. If you're saying he simply "has refused to meet with Zelensky from day one," that is false according to the above article (which I quoted earlier) and everything else we've seen here. Negotiating teams typically work together well in advance of a summit meeting in order to draft agreements and resolve as many differences as possible beforehand.

---

Putin meeting with Zelensky would be akin to the "I'll quit one day" guy going to AA meetings 3 days/week with no intentions of ever quitting. His mind was made up. He may well have sat in a meeting with Zelensky and sent the invasion force during the meeting. Dude's mind was well made at that point.

---

Sure, if you ignore everything Putin actually says and does, you can believe anything you want to believe. Then you can tell us all how we need to "just listen to Putin." Funny how that works.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

---

I've explained this several times. If you're saying Putin wanted the broad outlines of an agreement before he and Zelensky met to finalize the details, there's no question about that. If you're saying he simply "has refused to meet with Zelensky from day one," that is false according to the above article (which I quoted earlier) and everything else we've seen here. Negotiating teams typically work together well in advance of a summit meeting in order to draft agreements and resolve as many differences as possible beforehand.

---

Putin meeting with Zelensky would be akin to the "I'll quit one day" guy going to AA meetings 3 days/week with no intentions of ever quitting. His mind was made up. He may well have sat in a meeting with Zelensky and sent the invasion force during the meeting. Dude's mind was well made at that point.

---

Sure, if you ignore everything Putin actually says and does, you can believe anything you want to believe. Then you can tell us all how we need to "just listen to Putin." Funny how that works.

---

You ignore everything he says and was. You ignore what the Russian TV networks say even though they are directly fed what to say by Vlad via Margarita Simonyan. So, you can either say "he didn't exactly say that" like you always do or you can look at what his mouthpieces have been and continue to say and know that he didn't have to open his mouth to say it loud and clear.


Or you can be an ostrich...

Realitybites said:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Democrats and neocons are making the argument that we really shouldn't be that concerned about Ukraine's Nazi problem so that they can continue to have a corrupt black box to launder money, conduct biowarfare experiments, make money for the MIC, and advance the borders of LGBTQstan.

Does that even sound rational?

Ukraine is ruled by a dictator who has cancelled one election and stands poised to cancel a second one. That's why he is every bit as illegitimate a ruler as if Biden were still infesting the White House on January 21st.

He's created an environment where fascism rules. So basically Hitler.

Cut them off. This war was as bad as our wag the dog war on Serbia.

---

Rarely is anything you post rational. Digging deep with a dated op-ed from a first year Tufts student I guess.

Is it appropriate for me to ask about the coincidence between billions in aid to the Ukraine and Hunter Biden's position with the Ukraine's largest state owned oil company.?

I'm not saying it's part of political influence, but it is. The Ukraine had a price and we paid out part of the deal.

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.

---

you both are partly correct.

There was a small airborne force that jumped/helo'ed in to seize the airport in Kyiv, to establish an air bridge, thru which more & heavier forces could be brought in via air cargo into expand & hold the bridgehead. Then the main force from Belarus would punch thru and arrive the next day to consolidate. Very conventional strategy, but in this particular case it was "a bridge too far." the Russian plan clearly presumed Ukraine would fold under such an assault, and crumpled when it met such sustained resistance. The paratroopers were able to capture the airport, but were unable to secure it for incoming cargo flights. And the resistance met by the main column left the paratroopers exposed unsupported for too long, and they lost the air bridge. Once that happened, there was no point in the main column continuing on, and it collapsed into a disorderly flight back to Belarus.

That was an intelligence failure as much as anything else. Severe miscalculation by Russian leadership about the will and ability of their opponent.

The CIA funded Islamists in Syria

Im sure they would never fund neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Tulsi calling out Obama’s funding and arming of Al-Qaeda to overthrow the Assad regime through CIA’s ‘Timber sycamore’ program https://t.co/KJfp2CYlLG

— Blockchain Rock (@blockchainrock) January 30, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

The CIA USG funded Islamists in Syria

Im sure they would never fund neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Tulsi calling out Obama’s funding and arming of Al-Qaeda to overthrow the Assad regime through CIA’s ‘Timber sycamore’ program https://t.co/KJfp2CYlLG

— Blockchain Rock (@blockchainrock) January 30, 2025

---

FIFY

It took Ukrainian propagandists three years and a lot of money to build a narrative portraying Ukraine as a beacon of "democracy" and "freedom," and Tucker Carlson just demolished it all in a minute.

You gotta love this man!
pic.twitter.com/E2BgEJrGrS

— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) February 1, 2025

Quote:

---

Rarely is anything you post rational. Digging deep with a dated op-ed from a first year Tufts student I guess.

---

I don't shoot messengers. Particularly when in hindsight they are proven to be correct.

But yes, you do have to dig deep about the truth in Ukraine, because you certainly haven't heard any on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or NBC for four years.

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

It took Ukrainian propagandists three years and a lot of money to build a narrative portraying Ukraine as a beacon of "democracy" and "freedom," and Tucker Carlson just demolished it all in a minute.

You gotta love this man!
pic.twitter.com/E2BgEJrGrS

— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) February 1, 2025

---

Some people actually listen to TC?

---

Primetime (8-11) ratings last night:

CNN: 569,000
Fox News: 1.73 million
MSNBC: 1.86 million

The first episode of Tucker Carlson on Twitter: 63 million (so far)

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 7, 2023

Some realism from Secretary of State Rubio:

Quote:

---

The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what's in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what's in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what's in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what's in the best interest of the United States. Where our interests align, that's where you have partnerships and alliances; where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict while still furthering our national interests and understanding they're going to further theirs. And that's been lost.

And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem. And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritize those again. So it's not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not -- that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.

So now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so, to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly. They're celebrating the 80th anniversary this year of the end of the Second World War. That -- I think if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now. It may end life on the planet. And it sounds like hyperbole, but that's -- you have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth. And so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that's the tricky balance.

So I think returning us to that, now you can have a framework by which you analyze not just diplomacy but foreign aid and who we would line up with and the return of pragmatism. And that's not an abandonment of our principles. I'm not a fan or a giddy supporter of some horrifying human rights violator somewhere in the world. By the same token, diplomacy has always required us and foreign policy has always required us to work in the national interest, sometimes in cooperation with people who we wouldn't invite over for dinner or people who we wouldn't necessarily ever want to be led by. And so that's a balance, but it's the sort of pragmatic and mature balance we have to have in foreign policy.

---

Quote:

---

First, let me say this. We think what Putin did was terrible: invading a country, the atrocities he's committed. He did horrible things. But what the dishonesty that has existed is that we somehow led people to believe that Ukraine would be able not just to defeat Russia but destroy them, push them all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014, before the Russians took Crimea and the like. And then the result, what they've been asking for the last year and a half, is to fund a stalemate, a protracted stalemate, in which human suffering continues. Meanwhile Ukraine is being set back 100 years; their energy grid is being wiped out. I mean, someone's going to have to pay for all this reconstruction after the fact. And how many Ukrainians have left Ukraine, living in other countries now? They may never return. I mean, that's their future, and it's in danger in that regard.

So the President's point of view is this a protracted conflict and it needs to end. Now, it needs to end through a negotiation. In any negotiation, both sides are going to have to give something up. I'm not going to pre-negotiate that. I mean, that's going to be the work of hard diplomacy, which is what we used to do in the world in the past, and we were realistic about it. But both sides in a negotiation have to give something. And that's going to take time, but at least we have a President that recognizes that our objective is this conflict needs to end, and it needs to end in a way that's enduring, because it's an unsustainable -- on all sides, it's ultimately unsustainable. Russia's paying a big price for this in their own economy, their inflation rate and the like.

But at the end, that's the President's position, and it's the truth. And I think even a growing number of Democrats would now acknowledge that what we have been funding is a stalemate, a protracted conflict, and maybe even worse than a stalemate, one in which incrementally Ukraine is being destroyed and losing more and more territory. So this conflict needs to end.

---

Oleksiy Arestovych, former advisor to Zelensky:

Quote:

---

Almost 90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to grants. Actually this is called intellectual occupation. Domestic humanitarians and media were intercepted and put under control back in the 90s. And this is the secret of why, instead of a large Multicultural Symphony of Ukraine, our Ukraine "humanitarians" began to dig a dugout, a Ukrainian Army dugout here the size of the largest European country. This is one of the main reasons for the start of the war. Because when the Biden administration needed to buy Ukraine to contain Russia, it didn't have to try very hard--everything had been bought long ago.

---

Ukraine's Defence Intelligence chief: Ukraine will face existential threat if negotiations don't start by summer
Roman Romaniuk, Yehven Kizilov
MONDAY, 27 JANUARY 2025

Kyrylo Budanov, Head of Ukraine's Defence Intelligence, has warned that unless serious negotiations to end the war take place by the summer, Ukraine could face dangerous developments.

Ukrainska Pravda sources reported that a closed meeting was recently held in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) with the parliamentary leadership, leaders of the party factions, and officials from the defence forces command. The MPs had asked for an update on the actual situation regarding the war.

One of the attendees, speaking anonymously, shared their thoughts with a UP journalist.

"First the General Staff representatives spoke at length, in a rather complex manner, but it was very insightful. Then there were other reports. But what stood out the most was Budanov's response. Someone asked him how much time we have left. Kyrylo, with his calm smile, replied: 'If there are no serious negotiations by the summer, dangerous processes could unfold, threatening Ukraine's very existence…'

Everyone exchanged uneasy glances and fell silent. It seems like everything depends on things going right."

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/01/27/7495459/

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukraine's Defence Intelligence chief: Ukraine will face existential threat if negotiations don't start by summer
Roman Romaniuk, Yehven Kizilov
MONDAY, 27 JANUARY 2025

Kyrylo Budanov, Head of Ukraine's Defence Intelligence, has warned that unless serious negotiations to end the war take place by the summer, Ukraine could face dangerous developments.

Ukrainska Pravda sources reported that a closed meeting was recently held in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) with the parliamentary leadership, leaders of the party factions, and officials from the defence forces command. The MPs had asked for an update on the actual situation regarding the war.

One of the attendees, speaking anonymously, shared their thoughts with a UP journalist.

"First the General Staff representatives spoke at length, in a rather complex manner, but it was very insightful. Then there were other reports. But what stood out the most was Budanov's response. Someone asked him how much time we have left. Kyrylo, with his calm smile, replied: 'If there are no serious negotiations by the summer, dangerous processes could unfold, threatening Ukraine's very existence…'

Everyone exchanged uneasy glances and fell silent. It seems like everything depends on things going right."

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/01/27/7495459/

---

Ukraine is running out of men.

Time to end this war the best they can, certainly by summer.

Suspect Trump is going to succeed bringing about a truce.

And the media, Dems and defense lobbyists will be furious at him.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukraine's Defence Intelligence chief: Ukraine will face existential threat if negotiations don't start by summer
Roman Romaniuk, Yehven Kizilov
MONDAY, 27 JANUARY 2025

Kyrylo Budanov, Head of Ukraine's Defence Intelligence, has warned that unless serious negotiations to end the war take place by the summer, Ukraine could face dangerous developments.

Ukrainska Pravda sources reported that a closed meeting was recently held in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) with the parliamentary leadership, leaders of the party factions, and officials from the defence forces command. The MPs had asked for an update on the actual situation regarding the war.

One of the attendees, speaking anonymously, shared their thoughts with a UP journalist.

"First the General Staff representatives spoke at length, in a rather complex manner, but it was very insightful. Then there were other reports. But what stood out the most was Budanov's response. Someone asked him how much time we have left. Kyrylo, with his calm smile, replied: 'If there are no serious negotiations by the summer, dangerous processes could unfold, threatening Ukraine's very existence…'

Everyone exchanged uneasy glances and fell silent. It seems like everything depends on things going right."

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/01/27/7495459/

---

Ukraine is running out of men.

Time to end this war the best they can, certainly by summer.

Suspect Trump is going to succeed bringing about a truce.

And the media, Dems and defense lobbyists will be furious at him.

---

They're already furious. Can't wait to end this stupid war

Redbrickbear said:

---

It took Ukrainian propagandists three years and a lot of money to build a narrative portraying Ukraine as a beacon of "democracy" and "freedom," and Tucker Carlson just demolished it all in a minute.

You gotta love this man!
pic.twitter.com/E2BgEJrGrS

— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) February 1, 2025

---

It's really shame that TC repeatedly lies to his vast audience.

He used to be one of my favorites.