Quote:Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to discuss a ceasefire agreement for Ukraine with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump but remains firm on refusing major territorial concessions and insists that Kyiv abandon its NATO ambitions, according to five sources familiar with Kremlin discussions, as reported by Reuters.


Trump, who has promised to quickly end the conflict, returns to office amid a period of Russian ascendancy. Moscow controls a substantial portion of Ukraine, roughly equivalent in size to the U.S. state of Virginia, and is making its most significant territorial gains since its initial 2022 invasion.

In the first detailed insight into Putin’s potential terms for a deal with Trump, five current and former Russian officials indicated that the Kremlin could agree to a ceasefire that freezes the conflict along the existing front lines. Some room for negotiation may exist over the precise boundaries of the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, which Moscow claims entirely as part of Russia. However, Russian forces control only 70-80% of this territory, with Ukrainian troops still holding around 26,000 square kilometers, based on open-source data.

Sources also suggested that Russia might consider withdrawing from small territories it holds in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions. However, Putin has emphasized that any ceasefire deal must reflect the current “realities” on the ground, warning against a short-lived truce that could allow Western countries to rearm Ukraine. “If there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine the existence of any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine,” Putin stated earlier this month.

The incoming U.S. president’s communications director, Steven Cheung, claimed Trump is uniquely capable of brokering a peace deal. Trump has indicated a willingness to speak directly with Putin, but he has offered no specifics on how he would reconcile the deeply entrenched positions of both sides. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has maintained that his country will not rest until all Russian troops are expelled from Ukrainian territory within its 1991 borders. However, top U.S. military officials have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of this goal.

In negotiations, Putin’s opening terms include Ukraine relinquishing NATO aspirations and withdrawing troops from the contested regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Russia remains adamantly opposed to NATO’s presence in Ukraine but is open to discussing security guarantees for Kyiv. Additional concessions could include limitations on Ukraine’s military size and commitments regarding the use of the Russian language.

Currently, Russia controls about 18% of Ukraine, including Crimea, annexed in 2014, and large portions of Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Domestically, a ceasefire that consolidates most of these gains could be framed as a victory for Russia, particularly in terms of defending Russian-speaking populations and safeguarding access to Crimea.

Ultimately, any deal will rest on Putin’s approval. The Russian president has presented the conflict as a defining moment against Western expansion and interference, while Ukraine and its allies see the invasion as an illegal grab for sovereign territory. Some Russian sources have referenced a draft agreement discussed in April 2022 in Istanbul as a potential framework for negotiations, which would require Ukraine to adopt permanent neutrality in exchange for international security guarantees. However, significant hurdles remain, particularly in balancing security assurances without risking further escalation.

Link

I was under the impression there was already an agreement signed by Putin that he has obviously ignored. He is a liar and will only use those conditions as a break to rearm and replenish his cannon fodder after Trump leaves office.

I think Putin holds all the high cards here. Firstly, Ukraine can't do Schiff if it doesn't get funds and equipment from us. Zelensky can say anything he wants but his words have no bearing. It's an either/or problem here. He'll still have 80% of his country to govern and that's better than no country to govern if we don't fund this war.

The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Putin will have to make some concessions here as his word for neutrality was not true. Nato should be allowed to entertain the thought of providing defense. It's not like Nato is in the business of starting wars so Russia shouldn't use that as an excuse for refusing to accept the idea. Putin is the one that started the war. Trump has to make that clear and he Putin refuses any concessions Trump should tell them to be ready to continue fighting because he will continue arming the Ukrainians.

If Putin threatens a nuclear war Trump would probably tell him the same thing he would tell Zelensky, that he'll have no country to govern afterwards.

I say give Putin the areas that have been won, to pull out of the rest of Ukraine and allow Ukraine membership in Nato. Fair is fair.

(11-20-2024 02:26 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  I was under the impression there was already an agreement signed by Putin that he has obviously ignored. He is a liar and will only use those conditions as a break to rearm and replenish his cannon fodder after Trump leaves office.

Exactly. No cease fire. Keep fighting while negotiations continue. He just wants time to rebuild his forces.

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I think Putin holds all the high cards here. Firstly, Ukraine can't do Schiff if it doesn't get funds and equipment from us. Zelensky can say anything he wants but his words have no bearing. It's an either/or problem here. He'll still have 80% of his country to govern and that's better than no country to govern if we don't fund this war.

The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Putin will have to make some concessions here as his word for neutrality was not true. Nato should be allowed to entertain the thought of providing defense. It's not like Nato is in the business of starting wars so Russia shouldn't use that as an excuse for refusing to accept the idea. Putin is the one that started the war. Trump has to make that clear and he Putin refuses any concessions Trump should tell them to be ready to continue fighting because he will continue arming the Ukrainians.

If Putin threatens a nuclear war Trump would probably tell him the same thing he would tell Zelensky, that he'll have no country to govern afterwards.

I say give Putin the areas that have been won, to pull out of the rest of Ukraine and allow Ukraine membership in Nato. Fair is fair.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense for Ukraine to be part of NATO. They border about 60% on Russia, more if you count Crimea. Its just not a line that is easy to defend. But if may be the only way to ensure peace long term.

"Personally, I don't think it makes sense for Ukraine to be part of NATO. They border about 60% on Russia, more if you count Crimea. Its just not a line that is easy to defend. But if may be the only way to ensure peace long term." Bullet

I would, for sure we know how great fighters they are and are still holding a world power in check. That's the kind of friend you want on your side fighting, not someone like France.

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I think Putin holds all the high cards here. Firstly, Ukraine can't do Schiff if it doesn't get funds and equipment from us. Zelensky can say anything he wants but his words have no bearing. It's an either/or problem here. He'll still have 80% of his country to govern and that's better than no country to govern if we don't fund this war.

The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Putin will have to make some concessions here as his word for neutrality was not true. Nato should be allowed to entertain the thought of providing defense. It's not like Nato is in the business of starting wars so Russia shouldn't use that as an excuse for refusing to accept the idea. Putin is the one that started the war. Trump has to make that clear and he Putin refuses any concessions Trump should tell them to be ready to continue fighting because he will continue arming the Ukrainians.

If Putin threatens a nuclear war Trump would probably tell him the same thing he would tell Zelensky, that he'll have no country to govern afterwards.

I say give Putin the areas that have been won, to pull out of the rest of Ukraine and allow Ukraine membership in Nato. Fair is fair.

2400 dollars per taxpayer so far.

Russia will keep what it took. Ukraine will not be in NATO.

We were duped

(11-20-2024 03:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I think Putin holds all the high cards here. Firstly, Ukraine can't do Schiff if it doesn't get funds and equipment from us. Zelensky can say anything he wants but his words have no bearing. It's an either/or problem here. He'll still have 80% of his country to govern and that's better than no country to govern if we don't fund this war.

The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Putin will have to make some concessions here as his word for neutrality was not true. Nato should be allowed to entertain the thought of providing defense. It's not like Nato is in the business of starting wars so Russia shouldn't use that as an excuse for refusing to accept the idea. Putin is the one that started the war. Trump has to make that clear and he Putin refuses any concessions Trump should tell them to be ready to continue fighting because he will continue arming the Ukrainians.

If Putin threatens a nuclear war Trump would probably tell him the same thing he would tell Zelensky, that he'll have no country to govern afterwards.

I say give Putin the areas that have been won, to pull out of the rest of Ukraine and allow Ukraine membership in Nato. Fair is fair.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense for Ukraine to be part of NATO. They border about 60% on Russia, more if you count Crimea. Its just not a line that is easy to defend. But if may be the only way to ensure peace long term.

Ukraine would be fine in NATO. I just watched Ukraine defend the current line for nearly 3 years by themselves with old Cold War equipment and a handful of 30 year old "modern" western weapons systems. I would also note Ukraine would be contributing a nearly million man army with the most experienced and battle tested peer-on-peer modern war veterans in all of NATO (along with providing another 700 mile wide defensive buffer zone IN FRONT every current NATO member). The combined forces of NATO and Ukraine are more than capable of defending that border. If attacked, might there be some initial penetration of the border before the lines stabilize? Sure---but that was always the NATO defensive plan for decades. Use air power to cover a controlled retreat, trading territory for the time needed to bring the formations needed into the theater to blunt the spear head and setup a counter attack.

Putin is trying despertely to get what he can here, because he knows if Trump brings down the price of oil, he is screwed as far as rebuilding anything.

(11-20-2024 04:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Putin is trying despertely to get what he can here, because he knows if Trump brings down the price of oil, he is screwed as far as rebuilding anything.

That is certainly a factor. Its already coming down. Of course, oil prices always come down during a world wide recession (which is on the way folks). I would also note---its still coming down despite multiple attempts by OPEC to prop up the price by reducing production. Thats not a good sign at all.

(11-20-2024 04:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 03:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I think Putin holds all the high cards here. Firstly, Ukraine can't do Schiff if it doesn't get funds and equipment from us. Zelensky can say anything he wants but his words have no bearing. It's an either/or problem here. He'll still have 80% of his country to govern and that's better than no country to govern if we don't fund this war.

The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Putin will have to make some concessions here as his word for neutrality was not true. Nato should be allowed to entertain the thought of providing defense. It's not like Nato is in the business of starting wars so Russia shouldn't use that as an excuse for refusing to accept the idea. Putin is the one that started the war. Trump has to make that clear and he Putin refuses any concessions Trump should tell them to be ready to continue fighting because he will continue arming the Ukrainians.

If Putin threatens a nuclear war Trump would probably tell him the same thing he would tell Zelensky, that he'll have no country to govern afterwards.

I say give Putin the areas that have been won, to pull out of the rest of Ukraine and allow Ukraine membership in Nato. Fair is fair.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense for Ukraine to be part of NATO. They border about 60% on Russia, more if you count Crimea. Its just not a line that is easy to defend. But if may be the only way to ensure peace long term.

Ukraine would be fine in NATO. I just watched Ukraine defend the current line for nearly 3 years by themselves with old Cold War equipment and a handful of 30 year old "modern" western weapons systems. I would also note Ukraine would be contributing a nearly million man army with the most experienced and battle tested peer-on-peer modern war veterans in all of NATO (along with providing another 700 mile wide defensive buffer zone IN FRONT every current NATO member). The combined forces of NATO and Ukraine are more than capable of defending that border. If attacked, might there be some initial penetration of the border before the lines stabilize? Sure---but that was always the NATO defensive plan for decades. Use air power to cover a controlled retreat, trading territory for the time needed to bring the formations needed into the theater to blunt the spear head and setup a counter attack.

Strategically long term it doesn't make sense for NATO to have a salient into Russian territory. I'm not looking at just the next 10 years. When their dictator dies, Belarus becomes a republic of Russia so that adds to the border.

But if Ukraine in NATO adds to stability, it may be necessary. Obviously there would have to be some limits on foreign troops and foreign weapons stationed there.

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Maybe not. We have depleted our stockpiles to a point that Trump will be buying a lot of munitions to restock. That business might, MIGHT, be enough for them to keep a lid on things for his term. After that though, they'll have to come up with something.

(11-20-2024 05:33 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Maybe not. We have depleted our stockpiles to a point that Trump will be buying a lot of munitions to restock. That business might, MIGHT, be enough for them to keep a lid on things for his term. After that though, they'll have to come up with something.

Honestly---the restock was already bought and paid for. It probably hasnt been produced and delivered---but that value amount we see announced anytime weapons are sent to Ukraine or Israel is not the actual value of the weapons being sent.

Weapons systems and ammunition do not last forever in storage. Most of what we are sending are weapons and ammo nearing the end of their useful life that would have to be disposed of and replaced soon anyway. The "value" of these weapons to us at this point is almost zero---and if we have to pay to have them disposed of---they could even potentially have a negative value for us. The "value" announced is what replacing the weapons will cost---and that money isnt leaving the country. It goes to whatever domestic defense company that builds the system being replaced (Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, etc).

So---I agree with you. I suspect a number of these defense contractors already have a decent backlog to work through that will keep them busy for a while.

Ukraine is about out of fighting age males. A lot of the ones that are still alive I see at Home Depot every week.

(11-21-2024 12:46 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Ukraine is about out of fighting age males. A lot of the ones that are still alive I see at Home Depot every week.

Nonsense. Germany had 13,600,000 serve from a population of 80,000,000 in WWII. Ukraine has 44,000,000 and hasn't put anywhere near a million in.

Both Russia and Ukraine are going to have to mobilize further. Russia has 3 times the population, but has been losing a lot more men. So much that they are bringing in North Koreans. They don't want to tick off the population of Moscow and St. Petersburg by getting aggressive in recruiting there.

(11-21-2024 12:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 05:33 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-20-2024 02:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The military/industrial powers won't be too happy and would have to start another war someplace else.

Maybe not. We have depleted our stockpiles to a point that Trump will be buying a lot of munitions to restock. That business might, MIGHT, be enough for them to keep a lid on things for his term. After that though, they'll have to come up with something.

Honestly---the restock was already bought and paid for. It probably hasnt been produced and delivered---but that value amount we see announced anytime weapons are sent to Ukraine or Israel is not the actual value of the weapons being sent.

Weapons systems and ammunition do not last forever in storage. Most of what we are sending are weapons and ammo nearing the end of their useful life that would have to be disposed of and replaced soon anyway. The "value" of these weapons to us at this point is almost zero---and if we have to pay to have them disposed of---they could even potentially have a negative value for us. The "value" announced is what replacing the weapons will cost---and that money isnt leaving the country. It goes to whatever domestic defense company that builds the system being replaced (Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, etc).

So---I agree with you. I suspect a number of these defense contractors already have a decent backlog to work through that will keep them busy for a while.

That's an issue that this war has exposed. We have allowed our military manufacturing to atrophy. We are dependent on China for a lot of key materials. Hopefully Trump will have someone in the military focus on these things instead of spending their time recruiting trans soldiers.

Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would be seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for Trump very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a guarantee---of political survival)....and its also the only deal that Trump can hold up as "reasonable" and a "victory" for his deal making abilities.

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

When are you going to fight. Russia just used icbm on Ulraine.

You filth wont be happy until all of Ukraine is dead and in rubble

Putin has a damn strong hand. Dont be a fool.

(11-21-2024 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 02:23 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Putin is in no position to 'set firm conditions' but I won't be surprised if his bro Trump bails him out.

This negotiation actually will have THREE interested parties with a lot at stake.

Trump cant come out of this looking like the loser. I expect a fair deal---Trump cant afford looking like he was completely taken in his first big negotiation with Putin. It would seen as weakness by the public. In fact, a big Putin victory in these peace talks would be viewed as the Trump version of the Biden Afghan pull out---a complete disaster for him very early in the term. For Trump---emerging with NO deal is better than walking away with a deal where he looks like he was taken by Putin. Trump "bailing out" Putin is a complete non-starter.

Like Ive said forever---it will be a land for security deal. I dont see how Putin can politically survive walking away from the conflict without some new territory. I dont see how Zelesnsky can survive if he signs a deal that does not give Ukraine NATO Article 5 protection (or the equivalent protection from a "coalition of the willing" that includes at least 2 nuclear powers). Neither will want to give up anything----but this is the only deal both could sign and still call it "victory" (which will give each the ability---but not a gurantee---of political survival).

Russia will not allow Ukraine in NATO.

They will fight for a thousand more years.

Its a.a fools game.