So clearly Zelensky and Zaluzhni are not on good terms. He even went around him to dismiss the commander of special forces. There is something brewing here and it’s not good.
Not being able to attack successfully but able to hold the line and defend is quintessential stalemate. Waiting until new forces are developed that can break the stalemate is tacit admission that its a stalemate. Admitting set backs and disappointments is not weakness nor incompetence.
May God bless the Ukr people in these dark days with cunning, patience, wisdom, courage, and endurance to defeat the evil inflicted upon them.
>*”We have no right to give up. What’s the alternative? Surrendering a third of our country? That would just be the beginning. We know what a ‘frozen’ conflict really is…”*
Russian losses are absurdly high. A decisive breakthrough would be nice but, failing that, Ukraine will win the battle of attrition eventually.
We had talks about concessions for 8 years, when it was in Russia’s best interest to preserve their high water mark, yet here we are. That ship has sailed.
You tell em, Zelensky, baby. No talks till Ruzzia has crawled back to Ruzzia from whence the came…..
A “stalemate” means Russia is losing. They’re an invading force. If they’ve hit a stalemate then the invasion is failing and the defense is successful.
Don’t give up. Fuck Russia.
The Russians already know Ukraine’s nonnegotiable position of regaining all of their territory that was stolen from them. Putin may want a stalemated truce, but the Ukrainians will aggressively fight to get back what is theirs and will continually pound the Russian invaders whenever possible.
There is no stalemate? OK, what are the overall territorial gains/territory return of Ukraine for the last month or two, and how long would it take to get occupied lands back with that rate? Decades?…
Is it a bad translation? Was the intent to say “there will be no stalemate”?..
Clearly, there should be no land concessions. The question is – how do you get those lands back?..
Good
People that want unkrinee to quit defending itself should have to pick what part if their country they are ok losing.
He’s right. The annexation of Crimea, and the separatist oblasts was an attempt to freeze. It is obvious what happened then. A new attempt to freeze would only create a new war in a few years.
It is an absolute tragedy how Ukraine has no choice but to fight until the end. The world has no other choice but for Ukraine to win. I feel the only good ending is where Russia is destroyed; otherwise this is just going to keep happening.
If I was Ukraine I’d disassemble and reassemble one of everything they get from the west so they can build their own copies when we piss the bed and get bored, as inevitably happens.
I think it’s worth to look back to the Finland Soviet war, similar to Ukrainians today, Fins fought miraculously well and their small nation could withstand the attack from the huge Soviet Union, nonetheless, they couldn’t regain all the lost territory and eventually negotiated a peace deal with Moscow losing 10% of territory. Fins later tried to retake those land but failed again and had a second peace deal with Moscow. But since then it has been like 70 years and Russians aren’t even thinking about attacking Finland anymore. The pain that Fins caused to them was strong enough for them to be discouraged from messing with Finland again. The reason why Russia/Putin attacked Ukraine, was mainly because Russians always looked down on Ukraine and thought it to be a low hanging fruit, an easy target that they could get with minimum costs. The fact that Russia easily occupied Crimea in 2014 only reinforced that belief. But now after almost 2 years of heavy losses and minimum gains, Russians must have learned that it’s not fun to mess with Ukraine, of course they will never admit that openly. But I really doubt Russia would invade Ukraine again anytime soon even if tomorrow there will be a peace agreement. Another example come to my mind is South Korea, one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world, despite being officially still in war with North Korea. If Ukraine cannot secure a clear victory in the near term, I don’t see why Ukrainians should be living under war for another 3-5 years and Ukrainian men should be ban from traveling abroad, while not giving peace agreement a try. On the other hand, even if Ukraine could push Russians out of 1991 border, there’s no guarantee why Russia can’t launch a new attack in future, it’s not like Ukraine will be launched into space once they have victory. Russia will always be the neighbor, no one can change that. War make people very emotional, but in the end only practicality brings good life to common people.
16 comments
So clearly Zelensky and Zaluzhni are not on good terms. He even went around him to dismiss the commander of special forces. There is something brewing here and it’s not good.
Not being able to attack successfully but able to hold the line and defend is quintessential stalemate. Waiting until new forces are developed that can break the stalemate is tacit admission that its a stalemate. Admitting set backs and disappointments is not weakness nor incompetence.
May God bless the Ukr people in these dark days with cunning, patience, wisdom, courage, and endurance to defeat the evil inflicted upon them.
>*”We have no right to give up. What’s the alternative? Surrendering a third of our country? That would just be the beginning. We know what a ‘frozen’ conflict really is…”*
That’s what the people who are [now pushing for peace talks](https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/04/nbc-west-begins-delicate-discussions-with-ukraine-about-russia-peace-deal/) because of the “stalemate” don’t get. Any “peace agreement” – concession of land, that is – would have no real benefit for Ukraine and only give Russia time to recuperate and prepare for another push. It’s defeatism.
Russian losses are absurdly high. A decisive breakthrough would be nice but, failing that, Ukraine will win the battle of attrition eventually.
We had talks about concessions for 8 years, when it was in Russia’s best interest to preserve their high water mark, yet here we are. That ship has sailed.
You tell em, Zelensky, baby. No talks till Ruzzia has crawled back to Ruzzia from whence the came…..
A “stalemate” means Russia is losing. They’re an invading force. If they’ve hit a stalemate then the invasion is failing and the defense is successful.
Don’t give up. Fuck Russia.
The Russians already know Ukraine’s nonnegotiable position of regaining all of their territory that was stolen from them. Putin may want a stalemated truce, but the Ukrainians will aggressively fight to get back what is theirs and will continually pound the Russian invaders whenever possible.
There is no stalemate? OK, what are the overall territorial gains/territory return of Ukraine for the last month or two, and how long would it take to get occupied lands back with that rate? Decades?…
Is it a bad translation? Was the intent to say “there will be no stalemate”?..
Clearly, there should be no land concessions. The question is – how do you get those lands back?..
Good
People that want unkrinee to quit defending itself should have to pick what part if their country they are ok losing.
He’s right. The annexation of Crimea, and the separatist oblasts was an attempt to freeze. It is obvious what happened then. A new attempt to freeze would only create a new war in a few years.
It is an absolute tragedy how Ukraine has no choice but to fight until the end. The world has no other choice but for Ukraine to win. I feel the only good ending is where Russia is destroyed; otherwise this is just going to keep happening.
If I was Ukraine I’d disassemble and reassemble one of everything they get from the west so they can build their own copies when we piss the bed and get bored, as inevitably happens.
I think it’s worth to look back to the Finland Soviet war, similar to Ukrainians today, Fins fought miraculously well and their small nation could withstand the attack from the huge Soviet Union, nonetheless, they couldn’t regain all the lost territory and eventually negotiated a peace deal with Moscow losing 10% of territory. Fins later tried to retake those land but failed again and had a second peace deal with Moscow. But since then it has been like 70 years and Russians aren’t even thinking about attacking Finland anymore. The pain that Fins caused to them was strong enough for them to be discouraged from messing with Finland again. The reason why Russia/Putin attacked Ukraine, was mainly because Russians always looked down on Ukraine and thought it to be a low hanging fruit, an easy target that they could get with minimum costs. The fact that Russia easily occupied Crimea in 2014 only reinforced that belief. But now after almost 2 years of heavy losses and minimum gains, Russians must have learned that it’s not fun to mess with Ukraine, of course they will never admit that openly. But I really doubt Russia would invade Ukraine again anytime soon even if tomorrow there will be a peace agreement. Another example come to my mind is South Korea, one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world, despite being officially still in war with North Korea. If Ukraine cannot secure a clear victory in the near term, I don’t see why Ukrainians should be living under war for another 3-5 years and Ukrainian men should be ban from traveling abroad, while not giving peace agreement a try. On the other hand, even if Ukraine could push Russians out of 1991 border, there’s no guarantee why Russia can’t launch a new attack in future, it’s not like Ukraine will be launched into space once they have victory. Russia will always be the neighbor, no one can change that. War make people very emotional, but in the end only practicality brings good life to common people.