Jump to content

News Forum - Ukraine’s Zelensky defies Russia’s ultimatum to lay down weapons


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

As Russian forces plunder through the Ukrainian city of Mariupol, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky says the situation there is “inhuman”. Russian troops first encircled Mariupol last month. Yesterday (Saturday), Russia gave Ukrainian forces an ultimatum to lay down their weapons by 6am Moscow time (10am Bangkok time) today. In response, Zelensky hit back by warning Russia “The elimination of our troops, of our men in Mariupol, will put an end to any negotiations”. Zelensky insisted that Ukraine would not negotiate its territories, or its people. Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov said Mariupol was on “the verge of a […]

The story Ukraine’s Zelensky defies Russia’s ultimatum to lay down weapons as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

“The elimination of our troops, of our men in Mariupol, will put an end to any negotiations”.

This sounds like “Stop punching me or I won’t talk to you anymore.” 
Sinking the cruiser was unexpected.
Has Zelenskyy got something up his sleeve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin, the modern day Hitler, has the front to mention Nazi's......😏

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Transam said:

Putin, the modern day Hitler, has the front to mention Nazi's......😏

But at least he now knows how Hitler felt when things started to go pear shaped at Stalingrad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, francoa said:

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

Strange how Putin apologists never mention he was a lawyer too, hang your heads in shame while genocide is being carried out right in front of your noses.

Biased in the extreme.

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, francoa said:

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

If the Ukrainian people feel that it's time to surrender, then they will let Zelensky know.

He will have no option but to go along with that. 

  • Like 4
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fester said:

If the Ukrainian people feel that it's time to surrender, then they will let Zelensky know.

He will have no option but to go along with that. 

Peace talks at this stage in the war is not a surrender. They are a negotiated agreement to stop a conflict. One of the challenges in peace talks for both leaders is selling their own people the idea of stopping a war. And the military and diplomatic advisors have the loudest voices, not the people whose country is being invaded. Citizens protesting a war or calling for peace are often labelled traitors\sympathizers\defeatists\appeasers\apologists etc etc but rarely peace loving. Weird eh? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanta said:

Peace talks at this stage in the war is not a surrender. They are a negotiated agreement to stop a conflict. One of the challenges in peace talks for both leaders is selling their own people the idea of stopping a war. And the military and diplomatic advisors have the loudest voices, not the people whose country is being invaded. Citizens protesting a war or calling for peace are often labelled traitors\sympathizers\defeatists\appeasers\apologists etc etc but rarely peace loving. Weird eh? 

I think my statement was quite clear.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, francoa said:

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

Zelensky ( & Trump) Elected precisely because they HAD “ no political experience”. When you resist a nuclear armed or very large powerful nation you always “ risk annihilation” which decision the Ukrainian People, materially supported by NATO Free Nations, have freely made.
 

Not heard a SINGLE Ukrainian - speaker source call for “peace”.

They realize that ONLY Putins unilateral Withdrawal ACTION is an essential pre- condition for any real lasting Peace.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fanta said:

Peace talks at this stage in the war is not a surrender. They are a negotiated agreement to stop a conflict.

It would be a surrender by at least one side. What makes you think Putin would want peace now? He’s getting ready to attack again, one last big push to try and break open the stalemate. He has to fail first before he’d even consider it. If he succeeds there is no way he allows Ukraine to surrender unless it’s unconstitutionally. Ukraine on the other hand can’t stop fighting unless they win. To do so means the end of Ukraine as an independent country. That’s certainly not going to happen even if Russia occupies the entire country. Ukraine has a long and storied history of defiance to the end (and that includes against Russia). Hate to say, but I don’t see this ending anytime soon. 

  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fanta said:

Peace talks at this stage in the war is not a surrender. They are a negotiated agreement to stop a conflict. One of the challenges in peace talks for both leaders is selling their own people the idea of stopping a war. And the military and diplomatic advisors have the loudest voices, not the people whose country is being invaded. Citizens protesting a war or calling for peace are often labelled traitors\sympathizers\defeatists\appeasers\apologists etc etc but rarely peace loving. Weird eh? 

Putin to GET OUT. Unconditionally. Only Then there can be meaningful peace talks. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

It would be a surrender by at least one side. What makes you think Putin would want peace now? He’s getting ready to attack again, one last big push to try and break open the stalemate. He has to fail first before he’d even consider it. If he succeeds there is no way he allows Ukraine to surrender unless it’s unconstitutionally. Ukraine on the other hand can’t stop fighting unless they win. To do so means the end of Ukraine as an independent country. That’s certainly not going to happen even if Russia occupies the entire country. Ukraine has a long and storied history of defiance to the end (and that includes against Russia). Hate to say, but I don’t see this ending anytime soon. 

Nor will or should it. Russia need to be so beaten down with Losses they will never Repeat. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Nor will or should it. Russia need to be so beaten down with Losses they will never Repeat. 

Ukraine know any ceasefire is temporary, and any peace agreement will just be broken a few years down the line. How could you possibly trust Russia after they have already broken a signed treaty to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine? Who pretended to negotiate even announcing to the world they had no intention of invading Ukraine. 
 

The dynamics of why Russia invaded have not changed. There is little reason to think any peace deal would be anything other than a opportunity for Russia to prepare to attack again. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, francoa said:

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

So what did the president of Ukraine or ther people deserve to merrit this?

Please explain.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Putin to GET OUT. Unconditionally. Only Then there can be meaningful peace talks. 

I think it is easy to say that from a distance. 

     Neither is Zelensky in much danger. 

         To the last Ukrainean.

           Long live NATO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NorskTiger said:

I think it is easy to say that from a distance. 

     Neither is Zelensky in much danger. 

         To the last Ukrainean.

           Long live NATO!!

Nobody else can make Putin leave. 
Ukrainians have seemingly decided to fight until the end. Victory or Death. No Surrender to,or pointless bargaining with, Putins Evil.

Ukrainians asking for NATO Aid and getting it. West will NOT engage Putin Directly so risk WW3. Zelensky can hardly lead the nation while being “ in danger”. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

To the last Ukrainean.

           Long live NATO!!

That presupposes NATO started the war with the express purpose of bleeding out the Russian army, and by extension accelerating it's eventual demographic collapse. Problem is NATO didn’t start the war, didn’t force Putin to invade, and could have just as easily waited Russia out. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, francoa said:

when u have a president who is an actor with zero political and diplomatic experience, this is what happens. Ukraine will be annihilated for the populistic sake of “ we dont give up”

Sometimes, the life of people and infrastructure is more important than being a “hero”. 

An ironic quote that relating to Zelensky having no political experience. Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Hollywood actor?  and Trump was a game show host on the Apprentice?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NorskTiger said:

I think it is easy to say that from a distance. 

     Neither is Zelensky in much danger. 

         To the last Ukrainean.

           Long live NATO!!

Here you go again Tiger mentioning NATO  in your posts give it up were not interested in NATO until it enters Ukraine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean, I have a bridge to sell you?

Many years ago it was said that con men in New York City used to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to suckers as a scam. I don’t know whether it was an urban myth or it actually happened, and perhaps other famous bridges were used elsewhere. Nowadays, after something farfetched has been touted, someone might add, “And if you’ll believe that, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you,” i.e. you’re gullible and you’ll believe anything.

If you believe that the actor who played a president on TV, who was hired to be a president is actually in control and running things... well I've got a bridge to sell you. As a former member of the OSCE from 2016-2021 (you're going to have to go look that up) I can tell you the conflict that has been raging in Ukraine since the "West's" engineered coup de tat, regime change operation back in 2014 is no longer a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It is now a war between those who have vested interests in an anachronism we call NATO. As a "treaty organization" you have to admit, they have clearly failed their mission. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EdwardV said:

It would be a surrender by at least one side. What makes you think Putin would want peace now? He’s getting ready to attack again, one last big push to try and break open the stalemate. He has to fail first before he’d even consider it. If he succeeds there is no way he allows Ukraine to surrender unless it’s unconstitutionally. Ukraine on the other hand can’t stop fighting unless they win. To do so means the end of Ukraine as an independent country. That’s certainly not going to happen even if Russia occupies the entire country. Ukraine has a long and storied history of defiance to the end (and that includes against Russia). Hate to say, but I don’t see this ending anytime soon. 

 

Perhaps it is wishful thinking from me to hope Putin would leave Ukraine if his demands are met.  So the options for Ukraine are a negotiated peace (conditional surrender) or a fight to the death (victory/unconditional surrender). That is grim for Ukraine. And one last big push to break open a stalemate?  No. This is not a blitzkrieg and any recent map showing territory taken to date etc will show there is no stalemate. Russia has juice left in the tank for many more pushes and this is not their first rodeo. Time and sheer numbers are on Russia’s side. They are controlling the war and deciding where the next battle is. Ukraine is definitely not winning this war to date. We saw a 64 km long Russian convoy enter Ukraine but we didn’t see it destroyed or severely damaged. We see destroyed Russian tanks daily and snap shots of individual Russian tanks being destroyed in battle but never scenes of pitched tank battles or the aftermath etc When are the Ukrainian military losses ever shown? Only civilian deaths and destroyed buildings are shown. We are simply not getting the full picture of these battles and subsequently the whole war. Maybe what Zelenskyy was really saying when he said “no peace talks” was that time has passed. Otherwise his threat was as empty as his naval docks and Air Force bases. I also hope peace will come soon but I greatly doubt it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Freeduhdumb said:

It is now a war between those who have vested interests in an anachronism we call NATO. As a "treaty organization" you have to admit, they have clearly failed their mission. 

The ironic thing is before Putin invaded Ukraine, NATO was on its last legs. The French wanted to replace it with an EU army, the new German government didn’t even pretend they wanted to spend money on it, most of the western members didn’t care, the eastern members were locked out of a permanent base agreement, and the US couldn’t get out fast enough (they had been drawing down since Clinton). All of that had changed. Your boy Putin has revitalize and supercharged it. Germany will now be spending more yearly  on defense than Russia, and that’s not even counting the extra €1B starter fund. America has moved heavy divisions back to Europe. There are now going to be permanent member bases in the eastern countries. Every member is giving real pledges to spend at least 2% of GDP. Best of all, in another month Finland and Sweden will join. Putin couldn’t have done a worse job if he tried. 
 

I have no idea what that last sentence was suppose to prove. Want to try again?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

The ironic thing is before Putin invaded Ukraine, NATO was on its last legs. The French wanted to replace it with an EU army, the new German government didn’t even pretend they wanted to spend money on it, most of the western members didn’t care, the eastern members were locked out of a permanent base agreement, and the US couldn’t get out fast enough (they had been drawing down since Clinton). All of that had changed. Your boy Putin has revitalize and supercharged it. Germany will now be spending more yearly  on defense than Russia, and that’s not even counting the extra €1B starter fund. America has moved heavy divisions back to Europe. There are now going to be permanent member bases in the eastern countries. Every member is giving real pledges to spend at least 2% of GDP. Best of all, in another month Finland and Sweden will join. Putin couldn’t have done a worse job if he tried. 
 

I have no idea what that last sentence was suppose to prove. Want to try again?

I really shouldn't need to explain this too you... but for the other folks at home who may be equally confused... I'll take the time.

From their website... two important words. "Prevent Conflict" 

NATO has failed... 

 

POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defence clause of NATO's founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.

https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use