We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Using an out of date article is taking news out of context and equal to misinformation.
Imagine if I made a post talking about the US and Russia resetting relations and use the article from when Hilary Clinton was Sec of state.
See how ridiculous it looks. Right?
Buysellrepeat, I do recall reading that article so I don't questions its validity. I just think it is rather out of date and a lot of things have changed.
@Havoc. Excellent question. When was the article written.
I was very suspicious when "he could not attach the link"
We have too many frauds on here posting news without a source/link so people can verify for themselves.
I hope people begin to understand why I have a problem.with people who write paragraphs upon paragraphs without any sources.
#DYOR
Brah that was 3 weeks in to the invasion. we are in the 4th month no. Dont spam crap here.
Havoc, part 1 speaks of being three weeks in so I guess it’s well out of date.
As for the kodo idiot, the Russian backed separatists already were de facto in control of mast of what they had prior to the outbreak of hostilities. But hey don’t let facts get in the way of a good headline….
Oh and Arm dumps…..who’s arm? But again the reality is carpet artillery bombing is the attack of choice and with a shortage of trucks available to supply that attack, there will be a time where counter offences will be active.
When was that article written? I think things have changed somewhat since it was published.
Part 4
To the extend Russia’s concessions are sincere, they are fruits of military setbacks and economic devastation. Any plausible peace agreement would be a tacit admission of Russian defeat. Putin’s invasion may succeed in ending Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership and the EU. Ands it may secure Kyiv’s formal commitment to neutrality in any future conflict between Russia and the West. But it had already consolidated the Anti Russian turn in Ukraine’s domestic politics, strengthened the EU and NATO, weakened Russia economically, diplomatically and militarily. Any peace that leaves Ukraine’s sovereignty and military even partially intact will represent the utter defeat of Putin’s ambitions for a Russian sphere of influence south form Moscow all the way to the Black Sea
Such settlement will be possible only if Putin believes victory is not. Ukraine has evidently shaken Moscow’s faith in the latter possibility. If nothing revives the Kremlins hopes in the coming weeks, Putin might just give peace a chance
Long read - but some interesting opinions
GLA
Part 3
Since the survey was taken, the RUSSIAN SHELLING OF Ukrainian cities and the slaughter of civilians have dramatically increased, even as the Ukrainian military has held up better than expected against attempted Russian advances toward Kyiv. It is possible that these developments would have rendered Ukrainians even less amenable to large concessions.
Yet the two sides might have found a way around the impasse. In an interview with the FT , Podolyak said Ukraine and Russia are currently negotiating over a guarantee withdrawal from the territories that have been occupied since the start of the military operation on Feb 24th. This would facilitate an end to Russia’s broader invasion of Ukraine without requiring either side to formally surrender in the border disputes that have been raging since 2014.
The single biggest question looming over the talks, however, is Moscow’s sincerity. Even as Russian and Ukrainian officials made steady progress at the negotiating table this week, Russian forces have subjected Ukrainian cities to three consecutive days of heavy shelling. Further, although Lavrov and other Russian Officials have moderated their demands, Putin himself continues to insist his military operation is going exactly to plan and that its full aims will be achieved. At the same time the Russian president’s rhetoric about war and his treatment of domestic dissent have grown increasingly fascistic. Russian people will always be able distinguish true patriots from traitors and just spit them out like a fly that accidently flew in their mouth, Putin said on Wednesday “”Such a natural and necessary purification of the society will only strengthen our country”
The city council of Mariupol reported on Wednesday that a Russian plane dropped a bomb on a theatre where hundreds of civilians had sought shelter
These developments have led to some Ukrainian officials to fear that the Russians concessions are merely a stalling tactic, their true aim being to buy time to regroup the Russian forces before resuming an all out offensive aimed at total victory. And on Thursday, the Kremlin lent credence to such anxieties. In response to reports that major progress had been made in peace talks Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that such accounts were wrong and that Ukrainian negotiators were seemingly in no rush to reach a reasonable compromise.
If Russia’s plan is to use negotiations to wrong foot the Ukrainian military, it is not working very well. While Ukraine’s diplomats sketch the outlines of a peace agreement, its president has been securing stronger air defenses through a series of direct addresses to foreign legislatures. On Wednesday Zelenskyy Implored Joe Biden to be the leader for peace in an address to the U.S. Congress Biden subsequently announced an additional $800m in military assistance to Ukraine as part of a broader $13.6 billion aid package CONGRESS Authorized las week
Part 2
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said of the proposals for an independent but neutral Ukraine on Wednesday – “ There is absolutely special formulations, which in my view are CLOSE TO AGREEMENT” Lavrov added that, although negotiations have not been easy, there are some hope of reaching a compromise.
Zelenskyy meanwhile, told reporters that Russia’s demands were becoming “MORE REALISTIC”
Nevertheless, if the path to a peace settlement is coming into view, the obstacles arrayed across it are still formidable.
Ukraine officially rejected the Swedish Model of neutrality on Wednesday, with its top negotiator, Mykhailo Podolyak saying “UKRAINE is now in a direct state of war with Russia. As a result, the model can only be Ukrainian and only on legally verified security guarantees.
At first blush, this may seem like a distinction without difference or like mere posturing for Ukrainian nationalists who would chafe at the idea of fighting and dying for “Swedish” neutrality instead of a properly Ukrainian model. But Poldolyak’s concern for verifiable security guarantees is rooted in a well founded skepticism of such assurances. In 1994 Ukraine agreed to forfeit all of the nuclear warheads it had inherited from the Soviet Union, handing over the worlds third largest atomic arsenal to Russia in exchange for written security assurances from the United States, Russia and United Kingdom, each of which swore to respect Ukrainian territorial sovereignty and to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine …. If Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression. Of course, Russia violated this commitment with its invasion and the western nations promise to seek U.N. authorization for intervention on Ukraine’s behalf proved WORTHLESS, given that Russia enjoys veto power over the U.N. Security Council/
Therefore, Ukraine will want a binding promise from some combination of western and neutral powers that they will intervene to defend the nation against any future act of Russian aggression. Whether Putin would be willing to tolerate a peace settlement that leaves Ukraine less vulnerable to Russian coercion than it had before his invasion is uncertain.
Ukrainian opinion looks anything but conciliatory on these points. In a poll taken in early March, nearly 80% of Ukrainians said they were not ready to accept Russian sovereignty over the Donbas, even if doing so guaranteed an immediate end to the war.
Some light reading form EL in Intelligencer Magazine - Part1
For the first time since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine 3 weeks ag, there is hope of peace.
On Thursday, talks between Russian and Ukrainian leaders entered their 4th day. This by itself is auspicious: All previous sit-downs between the 2 sides had been acrimoniously terminated after one day of negotiations. And the talk longevity reflects apparent progress toward a mutually acceptable settlement.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Ukraine recognized it cannot join NATO, explicitly forfeiting an objective that had been enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution and that Russia had long demanded an affront to its security interests.
For its part the Kremlin has drastically downsized its official was aims in recent days. When Vladimir Putin first ordered the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian leader called for the overthrow of Zelenskyys government, the dissolution of the Ukrainian military and the installation of a new Russia aligned regime in Kyiv. These objectives were premised on the notions that Ukrainian nationalism was a negligible force and that Russian could conquer KYIV within a matter of days. Ukraine’s strong attachment to Self-determination, the Wests willingness to wage an economic war on Kyiv’s behalf and the under performance of the Russian Militarty quickly rendered Putin’s goals ludicrous.
If Russian were willing to shell Ukraine into rubble and lose tens of thousands of troops, its might be able to topple the Ukrainian Govt . But defending a reviled puppet regime against a perpetual insurgency, while suffering devastating economic isolation, would be a recipe for national self-sabotage, if not suicide. Putin’s refusal to back down from his initial war aims amid his army’s first setbacks called the Russian presidents rationality into question.
But now, the Kremlin is finally moderating its demands in deference to reality. On Wednesday, Russian officials expressed openness to a peace agreement. That would allow an independent Ukraine to maintain its own military as long as it committed to a neutral status akin to AUSTRIA OR Sweden. By pledging neutrality, Ukraine would be obligated to refrain from military conflicts beyond the defense of its own territory against an aggressor. This would bar Ukraine from joining NATO or any other military alliance and prohibit it from intervening in, for example, a hypothetical was between Russian and Georgia or any other regional power. Russian is also asking Ukraine to forswear hosting military bases in its territory. In exchange for these concessions, Ukraine would receive security guaranties from some combination of friendly powers, possibly including the US, UK and Turkey.
Part 2,3,4 to follow
Sorry can't attach the link