Why the fvck ..... Ukraine declining to at least talk?
Ukraine has been willing to talk since 2014. r*SSia had their chance then blew it. There is no reason that Sir Keir and the coalition of the willing should play their games.
Funny that Putler gave his press conference at 2 am. For sure he didn't sleep last night.
Looks like non-binary representatives of british so called "elite" finally forgot what mr blow job got in a responce, when tried to talk about some british problems with Putin.
It is about "deaf ears", of course.
Ukraine has been willing to talk since 2014.
Willing so hard, so Z signed a law that prohibit any talks... ;)
I still think, is it in a water or in the air in some places in europe, that make otherwise normal looking people complete m0rons?
"Putin didn't need conditions when he wanted a ceasefire to have a parade, and he doesn't need them now. Ukraine has shown the willingness to engage again and again, but again and again Putin has refused," said Starmer.
From today's news: Starmer said Putin had drawn the wrong lessons from the second world war. "We understand the lessons of history, the lesson that any veteran of Normandy or north Africa or of any other campaign will tell you, but that Putin has not yet grasped. There is no glory in aggression and conquest, glory comes from fighting for your country, defending the people, and winning the peace," he said. theguardian.com/world/2025/may/10/leaders-britain-france-germany-poland-arrive-kyiv-ukraine
What a difference between a Statesman and a Medvedev.
r*SSia will try to lash out (for sure they will launch missiles) and they will pay a penalty for that.
Starmer said Putin had drawn the wrong lessons from the second world war.
Now tell us why the Red Army met the U.S. Army on April 25, 1945 on the Elbe and not on the Oder, for example. If you know how to look on a map where both rivers are located, you will get another history lesson.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the weeping face of desperation and copium.
Russia's response to the ultimatum came in a press briefing for Russian media and western television networks, held in the Kremlin close to 2am local time on Sunday morning. Putin rejected the calls for a ceasefire, but said he was ready for direct negotiations with Ukraine.
He suggested delegations from the two countries could meet in Istanbul this Thursday to begin talks. "We don't exclude that during these negotiations we will be able to agree on new ceasefires," Putin said.
I'd say "nice try" however that would be a lie since your comment is merely rather pathetic deflection. You see, the term "coalition of the willing" means just that. It's led, obviously, by Sir Keir. Standing shoulder to shoulder with him are the leaders of France, Germany and Poland, the other major European democracies. They are backed fully by the United States. None of these major democracies have the time or the inclination or the patience to make idle threats.
May 10 and the first hours of May 11 were oversaturated with news about a possible end to the war in Ukraine.
It all started with another Ukrainian proposal to introduce a comprehensive ceasefire for a period of 30 days starting on May 12. This proposal was supported by France, Great Britain, Germany and Poland: the leaders of these countries visited Kyiv on May 10 specifically for this purpose. The proposal, in fact, was expressed in the form of an ultimatum: Russia was offered to accept it without additional conditions, and if it refused, Moscow was threatened with the expansion of sanctions.
It is also reported that directly from Kiev, European leaders together with Zelensky called Trump, who allegedly supported the ceasefire and promised to join the strengthening of sanctions pressure on Russia if the Kremlin refused to cease fire. However, Trump himself at the time of writing this text personally did not comment on the story of the 30-day ceasefire at all.
Kiev and its "European friends" have been pushing the idea of a ceasefire for a long time - and it is easy to understand why. A cease-fire will make it possible to diplomatically achieve what the AFU has been unable to achieve on the battlefield for a year and a half: to stop the Russian offensive, albeit very slow but stable, and to take away the initiative from the Russian Armed Forces on the battlefield.
And most importantly, in this case there will be no reason to make any concessions to Russia or to seek a full-fledged peace at all. In the mode of positional war of the 2015-2022 model - the conflict in Ukraine can drag on for decades, and this is quite favorable to all its participants - except, perhaps, for Russia itself (which initially sought a "small victorious war"), well, except for the Ukrainian people, which in the course of the war of attrition risk exhaustion up to complete extinction.
And if the interests of the Ukrainian people in this situation are of little concern to anyone, but without the consent of Russia, of course, there will be no peace. And in this situation, the very ultimatum tone of Kiev's and the West's proposal looks strange: it is appropriate to speak in such a tone to those who are winning the war, which at the moment is clearly not Kiev and the Western coalition supporting it.
So it is not at all surprising that Russia reacted to the truce proposal without much enthusiasm. Putin's spokesman Peskov said that a ceasefire could only be discussed if, for example, Western arms supplies to Ukraine were stopped; this condition has already been called unacceptable in Europe (e.g., by French President Macron and German Prime Minister Merz), so the discussion on this point is definitely deadlocked.
On the evening of May 10, it was reported that Putin was planning to give an urgent press conference in the Kremlin, and it was more than logical to assume that it would be about some kind of Kremlin response to the Ukrainian-European proposals. The press conference, announced for midnight, started an hour and a half (!) late, which gave rise to various conspiracy theories about such a serious delay. I am not going to multiply these theories, but will speak on the facts: appearing before journalists, Putin did not say a word about the ceasefire, but in fact put forward a counter-proposal: to start direct negotiations with Kiev "right where they left off", i.e. in Istanbul. Even a specific date for the start of such talks has been named: Russia proposes to hold them on May 15.
In fact, Putin's proposal is the exact opposite of the Ukrainian-European proposal: those want a ceasefire without negotiations, while the Kremlin wants negotiations without a ceasefire. There is no common ground between the two scenarios, so, in essence, we are left where we were: the treaty is not coming together, and the war, as I said, will have to be fought to the end - at least until one side is decisively defeated, which will simply knock it out of the war and force it to sign what it is told.
Although in recent days one slightly unexpected and interesting aspect of the treaty-negotiation story has emerged, which perhaps deserves a separate text - I will write and publish it a little later.
Bulgarian-Austrian geopolitical analyst Velina Tchakarova gets to the point... putin really wants a ceasefire but wants to make it look like its on his terms....
For starter, you should know, that `Ukraine` coming from Serbian word `Krajina`, named that way by Serbian settlers as `Border land` of (!) Russian Empire. So, Serbian Krajina in Russian Empire. Two regions. New Serbia and Slaveno-Serbia. Granted to Serbian refugees from Russians.
And, before that, in past, in primordium, it was land of Rus.
and the values are fundamentally different. For Ukrainians, like Poles, freedom from coercion is a strong value
Yes, I know. We Serbians ourselves were exposed to the papacy but, we saved ourselves. Therefore, that what is now Ukrainian will do that, too. In a dramatic way, sure but, still.
Poles will, too. In not that dramatic way, I am sure.
You don't need to put European friends in inverted commas - Poland are a genuine friend to Ukraine, a fellow democracy. So are the UK, France and Germany and most of the other EU countries.
Who are North Nigeria's 'Friends' ? - Eritrea, Slovakia, Starving North Korea, Syria (actually strike that), Iran.
The Turks never even invited the NNs to Istanbul - and why would they ? They are within their rights to arrest any war criminals that land, and I am sure they don't want any drunks and rapists harassing the maids in their upscale hotels.
but wants to make it look like its on his terms....
Well, that's not likely to happen. Who in the west wishes to support or help out a dictator look successful? He will need to do it without the west getting a hang of it, very unlikely in a digital age. Another symptom of him being out of touch with this day and age.
He chewed on a too big bite and wants to pretend he can swallow it whole and not blurt it out? Good luck! He is too stubborn and more likely to suffocate then throw up
And yet another post from Tatyana Montyan TG channel...
50 shades of "match-fixing" part 2 : what does Nord Stream have to do with it?
The story of the almost forgotten Nord Stream gas pipelines may turn out to be a "black swan" in the history of the diplomatic fuss over the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Recently, the fact that these gas pipelines can play an important role in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis has been mentioned more and more often, and, as we will see now, not entirely without reason.
The idea there is briefly as follows: "Streams" are transferred under American control, after which Russian gas starts flowing to Europe through American pipes. To be more precise, not even so: the American owner of the gas pipelines will most likely buy gas from the Russians and sell it to the Europeans - of course, either with a markup on the buyer's side, or with a discount on the seller's side, or with both at once. So, according to the documents, the gas will be American, and EU sanctions should not apply to it.
The scheme is interesting, and, in principle, it can be interesting for all participants: the EU gets a lot of cheap gas, Russia gets a lot of money from its sale to Europe, the U.S. gets very decent commissions on gas resale, and also (and this is hardly the most important thing!) a wonderful gas stranglehold around Europe's neck and control over a significant part of Russian gas exports.
It sounds almost fantastic, but the facts show that some movements in this direction are actually taking place, and more and more actively.
On May 9, 2025, a court in the Swiss canton of Zug approved a settlement agreement between the owner of the pipeline, Nord Stream 2 AG, and its creditors. The details of the agreement have not yet been made public, but the general gist of it is quite clear: if the investors agreed to settle, they were almost certainly promised a return on their investment (1.3 billion dollars!) Nord Stream 2 AG itself does not have and will not have such money, and it could only appear from some external source. In fact, Nord Stream 2 AG can attract this money only in exchange for the gas pipelines themselves, as the company has no other assets. By the way, earlier plans to buy out Nord Stream 2 were voiced by American investor Stephen Lynch.
But gas pipelines have value (at least for Lynch, at least for anyone else) only if the issue of their real use is at least fundamentally resolved. And this, in turn, is impossible without a coordinated position on this issue by the US, the EU and Russia. And if someone (say, the same Lynch) is ready to guarantee serious money to the creditors of Nord Stream 2 AG, he certainly has reason to believe that this position is either already agreed or is on the verge of agreement.
One more fact in the piggy bank: on May 10, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, suggested that Germany consider stopping the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Not just like that, but in case (!) if Russia rejects the proposal of Ukraine, France, Great Britain, Germany and Poland to conclude a 30-day truce. That is, the operation of Nord Streams is no longer seen as something impossible a priori (as it has been since 2022), but has become one of the components of the negotiation process. This is a very significant detail!
In general, the issue is very serious even on a geopolitical scale. Its price - about 100 billion dollars annually (this is the amount for which Europe bought Russian gas before the war) - is a very impressive sum even by the standards of the EU, the US and Russia!
However, judging at least by Putin's statement yesterday rejecting the Ukrainian-European plan for an immediate ceasefire, the Kremlin does not yet consider the financial opportunities that are opening up to be sufficiently tempting to make serious concessions for their sake. However, it can and probably will influence the course of negotiations in the future, so the Nord Streams factor should definitely not be dismissed out of hand.
I remember those days so vividly...It was terrible...free place to live, free medical care, free education, safe streets, no migrants,...I was nearly suicidal...
And those mean 300,000 Red Army Russians that would not allow us to experience the joys of a Vietnam-style, "freedom and democracy" liberation war...Peace was so damn boring...
More russian behavior that's very...... russian....
"two Russian soldiers accused of desertion ... were given a choice: stay in the pit until they died, or fight each other to the death for a chance at release"
x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1921652102348317090
How sick does a person have to be to think other people want to live like russians?
