Ceasefire in Ukraine

[TheNoonBell]

Some promising news, Ukraine has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire. Now it's up to Russia to show willing and agree as well.

In other news the Ukrainian Kursk pocket (in Russia) has pretty much collapsed over the last 3 days and it appears a deal between the two sides has been done to allow the remaining Ukrainians to withdraw peacefully.

Hopefully this senseless slaughter will be over soon.

😂😂😂

Or shall we answer a posters question directly?

If you want to also ask a question about rail networks, that is fine, but I for one haven't seen the news on that, I only saw the news re Belgorod. So if you could link your news source we will all know what you are talking about.

And in the meantime, what is your answer to my questions? Is this "black flag" do you think? Or do you not want to answer?

Are you laughing while crying, or crying while laughing?

I don’t think it’s at all relevant because Russia broke the “ceasefire” first. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-ukraine-partial-ceasefire-broken/ And being mindful that this is a ceasefire agreed over the heads of Ukraine and intended to mostly benefit Putin.

And it would seem the Belgorod incident was simply Russian propaganda https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-denies-russian-claims-of-a-thwarted-attempt-to-invade-russias-belgorod-heres-what-we-know/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-zelensky-ceasefire-trump-ukraine-russia-war-b2717749.html

i wondered what you thought, and you answered - which is fine - I can't see any reference to rail networks though? it sounds like as ever there are two very different versions of events and while this continues there won't be ceasefire. full stop. the same things happened in relation to Minsk. so really negotiations need to focus on getting some common ground of fact first. and both sides - yours and their's - need to commit to this. otherwise, c'est la guerre, as the french say.

duncin, if you read upthread you will some discussion around this. it seems that there is more than one version of events relating to who broke ceasefires when.

There are 2 versions, the truth and Russian lies. Hope that helps.Why are you bending over backwards to excuse the side who have consistently lied and shown that their word is worth nothing?

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/19/7503638/index.amp

More than one version, a Russian version?

Not just a Russian version - the OSCE version (though the linked CEPA article said that what OSCE said officially was different from what it said in private and therefore taking that to its logical conclusion, what OSCE said officially was not true... NB I am not saying this, the article said that), an ex NATO person set out what happened referencing a number of different sources, if you look at all the sources you will see some Ukrainian sources, different analyses of the Minsk accords and the obligations, different ways of presenting events... To get an effective ceasefire we'd need to get some consensus on what happened when, as well as agreement on a lot of other issues.

I understand where you are coming from - you want war - you want to continue with fighting until Russia is beaten, even if that means Ukraine and other countries will be destroyed. Even though the only winners will be the bankers and insurers. You simply say "it is all lies" and you want us all to shout and scream what you say, but most of us are parents who do not want to lose children or cannot afford right not to feed children. Most people want the armed conflict to stop. I worked as a negotiator for years and I explained the issues you'd need to cover off upthread to get a ceasefire. it wouldn't be easy but I think that there is a way forward which would satisfy all the stakeholders - Ukrainian and Russian - and bring peace. And even Merkel is now saying to get agreement it is necessary to understand where the other side is coming from.

But if you want war, that is your prerogative.

Huh

Nobody wants war

Putin could stop the war he started at any time.

Ah yes the old “you want war” trope. Frankly of folk like you are negotiating god help us all. Anyway I won’t be engaging you any further as you clearly only see the Russian one side.

Ah yes, the "you must be a Russian bot" and personal attacks tropes.

The basic fundamental requirements of a successful win win negotiation - ie the only type which works long term - are that there is goodwill between the parties and that you fully understand exactly the position of both parties - in fact in this situation there are a LOT of stakeholders so it is a question of understanding fully the position of all parties, and that all sides understand eachother, and that you are able to communicate effectively with all sides and find an agreed pathway through it all.

If there is no goodwill and if you are not at all interested in what the other side(s) want()s, and you refuse to give any credence to anything they say or even to explore formerly not considered perceptions and solutions, there is no possiblity of negotiation. And to take that to its logical conclusion, in this situation, it means war. It is one or the other. Take your choice.

@Igotjellydo you think there’s a military conclusion to the war?

eg how long would conscripts fight until it was over?

I think that there could have been if the West had stepped up and supported Ukraine with what they needed when they needed it (not a year or 2 down the line). Our policy of dither and delay has led to where we are. We should have given Ukraine everything it needed in Autumn 2022 to allow them to continue their very successful counteroffensive.

And they would have beaten Russia?

Ok.

With the full power of NATO behind them? Absolutely.

And, why do you think NATO did not do this?

Isn’t part of the issue that Russia has sheer numbers of conscripts and they’d just keep sending young people regardless

It's how they've won every war they've ever fought including WWII - by attrition. I guess you could see it as a strategy, of sorts. They have enough people that they can endlessly fling their raped and brutalised young men at the enemy until it runs out of bullets/can't get past the corpses.

Starmer warning Putin of “severe consequences” if he breaches a peace deal?? It all seems a bit pantomime to me. Surely it’s like a fly threatening an ox. I pray for an end to war , and would love to see Putin defeated, but Starmer is being ridiculously pretentious here.

He's been good so far though, not pissing anyone off, including all the people we've brexited from, and that "coalition of the willing" is a nicely momentous sounding phrase that is just loose enough to cover every eventuality.

Sadly and horrendously so.

I don’t agree on the coalition stuff though. Starmer isn’t involved in negotiations between US / Ukraine and Russia and no one’s going without the US ‘back stop’.

The EU leaders using tough talk just doesn’t wash rn. Unless it’s polling well.