×

368
369

What we know about leaked US draft plan to end Russia's Ukraine warUkraine/Russia - Flaired Commenters Only (bbc.co.uk)

submitted by Tartan_Samurai Scotland

all 176 comments
sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

The link you have provided contains keywords associated with the content restriction of Rule 2.3 of r/anime_titties. If you believe your submission does not exceed the content restriction threshold and should be permitted, please request a post review and approval via modmail.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Blackintosh England 197 points198 points  (92 children)

It was written in Russian, and Russia has only taken control of an extra 1% of Ukrainian territory in the last 2 years of intense fighting.

Combined with Russia being unable to stop Ukraines domestically produced drones and missiles from destroying Russian oil and energy...

Its quite obviously a desperate attempt to use Trump to bully Ukraine into stopping because Putin is increasingly desperate for a way out of this 3 day special operation.

[–]fre-ddo Kyrgyzstan 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Before they start using long range missiles to hit Russia

[–]Any-Monk-9395 North America 12 points13 points  (23 children)

I suggest learning more about attrition warfare. It’s not just about capturing land.

Also Ukraine kidnapping men off the streets just to fill their ranks looks far more desperate to me.

[–]S-Tier_Commenter European Union -1 points0 points  (22 children)

You reckon that bussification is more desperate than the utilisation of blocking detachments?

[–]MirTrudMay Europe 10 points11 points  (7 children)

Ukraine extensively uses blocking detachments. This is stated in Ukrainian media openly by the neo nazis who perform the role but western propaganda outlets dont pick it up.

Azov commander Kukarchuk is open about doing this on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QQO1KrjN6o&t=3228s

[–]elperuvian Mexico 6 points7 points  (1 child)

What are blocking detachments ? So they kidnap fodder merely to stall Russia ?

[–]MirTrudMay Europe 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You have units with people you dont trust completely (prisioners, territorial defense, people you kidnaped) and near or behind them you deploy fanatical nazis to "motivate" them and make sure they dont run away or surrender.

[–]S-Tier_Commenter European Union 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Do you even speak Ukrainian? Because I don't see how this has anything to do with blocking detachments. Maybe you can quote something form the transcript?

[–]MirTrudMay Europe 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yes, do you ? Starts speaking about it from the minute to which the video links.

I know reality is hard to accept.

[–]Vinterlerke Europe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't speak Ukrainian. Do you mind sharing the relevant part of the transcript (YouTube has the "Show transcript" function), and I will translate it using ChatGPT? I'd really appreciate it.

[–]S-Tier_Commenter European Union 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Again: maybe you can quote something form the transcript?

[–]CheckMateFluff Multinational [score hidden]  (0 children)

They can't. because they are talking out of their behind.

[–]Any-Monk-9395 North America 8 points9 points  (13 children)

Yes! It does look more desperate, especially when you realize the entire reason Russia is even advancing right now is because Ukraine lacks sufficient manpower. Either there is a monumental amount of casualties on the Ukrainian side or they’re getting sick of fighting while Russia is having no issues at all filling their ranks with fresh troops who want to capture land! Ukraine has not captured any territory at all.

[–]S-Tier_Commenter European Union 0 points1 point  (12 children)

I think you're glossing over the fact that Russia is getting more and more totalitarian, with no free press and little regard for the treatment of their illusioned troops.

[–]FullConfection3260 North America 1 point2 points  (11 children)

I think you’re glossing over Ukraine becoming the same thing.

[–]S-Tier_Commenter European Union 3 points4 points  (10 children)

If it was, Russia wouldn't be invading.

[–]FullConfection3260 North America -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

Are you even following along? Ukraine’s government absolutely is a wartime dictatorship right now and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

So much for all that democracy Ukraine wanted.

[–]hammerofspammer United States 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Yes! They should just hold a general election. Right now.

Ignore Russian atrocities. Ignore the trafficking of thousands of Ukrainian children. It’s all the Ukrainians’ fault because they haven’t had an election while fighting off an invader.

That about fucking sum it up?

[–]__DraGooN_ India [score hidden]  (1 child)

Russia has only taken control of an extra 1% of ukranian territory

And Ukraine has paid in blood and lives to make it so. All the Western propaganda conveniently glosses over this.

The current plan is to just keep feeding Ukrainian and Russian lives to the war machine, for a war which is pretty much at a standstill.

[–]Blackintosh England [score hidden]  (0 children)

Except that's not the plan. That's called defending.

The plan is to destroy Russian oil and energy, which they are doing and is clearly working because Russia is getting desperate.

[–]DesoLina Europe 59 points60 points  (2 children)

The document appears to offer Kyiv access to EU markets while ignoring the views of 27 European countries.

Yeah, this totally won’t backfire in today’s political climate. /s

[–]Thangoman Argentina 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It doesnt matter how badly the US lashes at Europe, they will keep crawling back to them

[–]eagleal Multinational [score hidden]  (0 children)

Meh. If the US pushes through EU countries will follow since with all these cleptokratic Right and Center governments there’s really no proper leadership classes left.

Before this conflict the EU with Russia and China as economic partners was starting to really hurt the USA economy, since the EU economy had access to cheap energy sources. We really shot ourselves in the foot by allowing the US to dictate our policy

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia 29 points30 points  (65 children)

While 600,000 might seem a potentially acceptable number in peacetime, that kind of limitation would infringe on Ukrainian sovereignty. It might also be too big a number for Russia to accept.

I like how even BBC is confused about this 600k number lmao. And I agree, but for a different reason - if we're talking about ensuring peacetime redevelopment for Ukraine, why in the hell would it need this many troops in a first place? It's far better for soldiers to work at factories and construction sites during peacetime, there's 0 point in keeping army 3 times bigger then Poland's; while also asking for security guarantees from the US and EU.

[–]Legal_Lettuce6233 Europe 29 points30 points  (36 children)

Poland is in NATO, Ukraine isn't. If Putin just does what he already did, which is ignore peace treaties, what's there to stop him for the 2nd time? How about 3rd, 4th and 5th?

[–]kapuh European Union 4 points5 points  (21 children)

I like how even BBC is confused about this 600k number lmao.

Where do you see confusion there?

The country comes out of a full scale invasion by one of their aggressive neighbours. Even with security guarantees, it is quite reasonable to be sure. At least for the first few years.
Also those guarantees wouldn't lead to having hundreds of thousand NATO forces in Ukraine.
It would probably be a few hundert stationed at strategic points.
NATO would still expect Ukraine to keep a usable force.

Anyway, the number is irrelevant since, as the BBC writes: it is Ukraine’s own decision how many they want to keep. Not the recent aggressors.

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia -5 points-4 points  (20 children)

we're talking about "peace agreement", you're talking "short-term ceasefire plan".

how in the hell can Russia and Ukraine "agree", if large Ukrainian army is one of the points of said "disagreement"? this war started due to a whole bunch of disagreements between two sides, and it will end once they're addressed. And if those disagreements are solved - what's the incentive for Russia to invade again? to kick puppies?

war is solved through either diplomacy, when both sides compromise on how to agree with each other (thus it's called an "agreement"), or brute force their way until one cannot oppose another. If "peace agreement" doesn't solve core issues, what's the point of even stopping this invasion, that still goes on?

hyper-focusing on "what if putin attacks again" is counter-productive. Focus should be placed on how the peacetime will look like - who's going to give security guarantees, who gets what territories, who pays and how much - not this "Ukraine keep everything because what if Putin strikes again" nonsense.

it is Ukraine’s own decision how many they want to keep

then I welcome their statements at Russian-Ukrainian conference, when they'll be able to actually speak and listen for one another.

[–]kapuh European Union 4 points5 points  (9 children)

we're talking about "peace agreement", you're talking "short-term ceasefire plan".

No, I'm talking about fuckin Russia which, in the 21st century invaded their neighbour to grab it, like they fell out of time or something.

how in the hell can Russia and Ukraine "agree", if large Ukrainian army is one of the points of said "disagreement"?

Don't know, by getting the fuck out of some other countries politics altogether? It's not like Russia is maintaining a reasonable force or something equivalent which would allow them to make such demands.

this war started due to a whole bunch of disagreements between two sides, and it will end once they're addressed.

lol no?
It started because Russia invaded Ukraine. Twice.
They didn't like Ukraine's internal political shift which made them lose their puppet president.
They could have ended the war any day by just leaving.

And if those disagreements are solved - what's the incentive for Russia to invade again? to kick puppies?

Another political shift for example?
Or maybe they just need more land. Who the fuck knows.
It's not like we're talking reasonable grounds for starting the war in the first place.

hyper-focusing on "what if putin attacks again" is counter-productive.

It's not hyper-focussing (lol dem drama!). it's a reasonable consideration.
Not doing that would be naive. Even idiotic.

who's going to give security guarantees, who gets what territories, who pays and how much

You can do both.
No problem there.

At this point it's not even known if Russia will accept ANY NATO/EU troops on Ukraine's soil. All we have at the moment is the wishes of the other sides (US and the rest).

[–]alkbch United States 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Russia won’t accept NATO troops on the ground.

You’re writing as if European countries haven’t invaded or bombed other countries to meddle with their politics in the 21st century.

[–]kapuh European Union -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

Russia won’t accept NATO troops on the ground.

Even more reasons to keep a large army then.

You’re writing as if European countries haven’t invaded or bombed other countries to meddle with their politics in the 21st century.

What do you wanna say?
That they'd bomb Russia?
Why would they need Ukraine for that?

BTW. sure they did evil bombing and meddling...especially after dragged into it by your home country.

[–]alkbch United States 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… nobody dragged them, they did it on their own. To be fair, some refused for some of these conflicts, like France famously refused to join the war on Iraq; but then went to lead the attack against Lybia, very likely to cover up illegal campaign financing for which the former president Sarkozy has been convicted.

[–]kapuh European Union 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… nobody dragged them, they did it on their own.

lol no they didn't.

Why not answer my questions first before you stack more whataboutisms onto that bs?

[–]alkbch United States 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Yes they did, on their own. They even lead the way in Libya and Syria.

I answered your questions.

[–]kapuh European Union 0 points1 point  (1 child)

They even lead the way in Libya and Syria.

Bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973).

And bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

In June 2014, the Iraqi government formally requested the United States to assist in its struggle against ISIL, following the group's offensive in northern Iraq that same month.[214] Since then,** the US led efforts to establish a global coalition** to counter ISIL.[215] [...] On 22 September 2014, the United States officially intervened in the Syrian civil war with the stated aim of fighting the Islamic State (ISIL/ISIS) militant organization in support of the international war against it, code named Operation Inherent Resolve.

I like how you dropped Iraq and Afghanistan as if that was such an obvious bullshit that it even got through your brain.
Fascinating.

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No, I'm talking about fuckin Russia which, in the 21st century invaded their neighbour to grab it, like they fell out of time or something.

well just say it then: "I don't want peaceful "agreement", I want Russia to lose". That's it, no one's gonna judge you for that

political shift which made them lose their puppet president

lol, since when Yanukovich was a puppet?

Another political shift for example?

and why would they need it, if their demands are met, and Ukraine is secure with US backing them?

At this point it's not even known if Russia will accept ANY NATO/EU troops on Ukraine's soil.

as it stands, Russia won't accept any foreign troops in Ukraine. It's a subject of change tho, considering that the only peace treaty that we have is just a draft that probably won't go far. That's what I'm saying by "agreement" - there's no other way around, other then brute forcing one side, or untangling their relationship to find a sensible agreement. You just stand by position that's it impossible to find peace with Russia thus Russia needs to lose, that's it. It's your position, and I'm fine with that, but it's obviously stupid to imply that the only way out of this conflict is one side completely sinking.

[–]Regular_mills Europe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If you think Russia wants any diplomatic way out of the war you are delusional. What Russia/ Putin wants is the USSR back as said by the man himself.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481.amp

That article is from 2014 and still stands today. No amount of diplomacy is going to get Putin to stop as he wants all the lands that the USSR once had and doesn’t like the fact that ex soviet countries can be run by themselves without Russian interference which Russia doesn’t like.

From the article

"Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest ... We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored," he said”.

So again what diplomatic way is there out of this without Ukraine surrendering? Russia doesn’t like “being ignored” or rather countries telling them to fuck off so they invade.

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Putin wants is the USSR back as said by the man himself.

he didn't said this. You linked an article called "Putin rebuilding 'soviet' Russia", where BBC tries to compare him and Soviet rulers on his own. They basically asked some different people about Putin and they just started comparing him to Stalin lol

That article is from 2014 and still stands today.

yeah the talking points still stand, although they're shit, like this one:

"Eventually, the money is going to run out, and then he will find himself in the same position Soviet leaders were in by the late 1980s, forced to confront political and economic crises, while trying to hold the country together. He looks strong now, but his Kremlin is built on the one thing in Russia doesn't control: the price of oil."

a decade later, the narrative is the same as it was, however nothing really happened.

"Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest ... We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored," he said”.

for the life of me, I cannot find where they took this quote from, neither in Russian or in English. I'm calling bullshit on this one, since the only close quote he made back in 1999 before his presidency https://www.ng.(ru)/politics/1999-12-30/4\_millenium.html :

"Russia has been and will remain a great power. This is determined by the inherent characteristics of its geopolitical, economic, and cultural existence. These factors have shaped the mindset of Russians and the state's policy throughout Russian history. And they inevitably continue to do so today. However, today this mindset must be filled with new meaning. In the modern world, a nation's power is manifested not so much in military strength, but in its ability to be a leader in creating and applying advanced technologies, in ensuring a high standard of living for its people, and in its capacity to reliably safeguard its security and defend its national interests on the international stage."

this article is shit

[–]creiss74 North America -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

this war started due to a whole bunch of disagreements between two sides, and it will end once they're addressed. And if those disagreements are solved - what's the incentive for Russia to invade again? to kick puppies?

Haha “both sides” what a joke. Get out of here with this propaganda bullshit.

Russia said they were “de-nazifying” Ukraine when in reality they didn’t like that Ukraine was cozying up with the West. It’s just imperialism plain a simple and Russia wants it back into its domain. This treaty does nothing to prevent that and in fact makes tha goal easier down the road.

So no, it won’t be to kick puppies - it will be to finish the invasion and conquer Ukraine.

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Haha “both sides” what a joke. Get out of here with this propaganda bullshit.

what? I suppose not being a fanboy of either Ukraine or Russia is propaganda bullshit now, great. In your mind, peaceful agreements are about one of the sides? that's like the whole point of nations "agreeing" to something - speaking their way out of common grievances and threats, by implying that agreement must be one-sided (god forbid it's going to be """both sides""") you're just telling that someone needs to lose this war with no other way around.

Russia said they were “de-nazifying” Ukraine when in reality they didn’t like that Ukraine was cozying up with the West. It’s just imperialism plain a simple and Russia wants it back into its domain.

yes? of course they do. That's like their official position, you're mixing up populist "reasons" (like de-nazification) with real reasons this conflict ever started.

This treaty does nothing to prevent that and in fact makes tha goal easier down the road.

what "down the road" we're speaking about? invasion still goes on, and the only way out is to either ensure that both Ukraine and Russia start speaking with one-another to find a sensible way out, or they just won't sign a treaty and the current invasion goes on. Russia, as it seems, feels comfortable with their slow pace of advances, so why are we talking about something "down the road", if Ukraine needs to focus on their current realities?

[–]creiss74 North America [score hidden]  (2 children)

You justify invasion of conquering of another country just because one coveted the other and did not like its politics. They did not have disagreements.

They wanted their shit and are trying to take it - full stop. This is a mugging and you're over here bullshitting.

The proposed peace plan just makes Ukraine weaker for the next attempt at the mugging. Russia has already shown disregard for the previous treaty. They already invaded and took a portion of land all the while saying "no no thats not whats happening" until it happened. Just like in the run up to this invasion "no no thats not what we are doing!"

You're full of shit or dumb as shit. And I don't think you're dumb - you're just a sophist liar.

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia [score hidden]  (1 child)

They did not have disagreements

ah yes, the world famous friendship between Ukraine and Russia. Dude they were at each others throats since 90s. I'm ain't even justifying shit, I'm calling for sides to come to the table and discussing their grievances with one another, with a purpose to actually find solution.

This is a mugging and you're over here bullshitting.

and what am I bullshiting about? That Russia wants Ukrainian political submission? that Russia and Ukraine had shit relations for decades? that there's no point in agreements that contradict the premise of "agreeing" with each other?

Russia has already shown disregard for the previous treaty.

US wiped it's ass with Budapest memorandum. Ukraine and Russia shoved aside Minsk agreements on a whim. No one cared about them, because those agreements where either bullshit (like Budapest one), or were purposefully made missleading and unsatisfactory for anyone (like Minsk ones). So what? you want another treaty that's going to amount to nothing, since their purpose must be to untangle relationships, not some short-term ceasefire bullshit or some quick break between rounds.

You're full of shit or dumb as shit. And I don't think you're dumb - you're just a sophist liar.

you're just calling me names at this point

[–]creiss74 North America [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ok, you’re an apologist for war and thuggery. There was no disagreement that meant Russia needed to invade. You’re ok with violence to solve political disagreements and I think that’s barbaric. If Russia had genuine reasons for war they wouldn’t lie.

[–]eagleal Multinational [score hidden]  (2 children)

There’s a point to be made that Russia would request guarantees from the EU in Ukraine, such as the way the military would be financed.

There’s no way Russia will accept the EU funding Ukraine’s military, while both retaining 600k troops. Either they will lower the number or there would be cuts to funding. Given Ukraine is basically bankrupt, how are they supposed to maintain them?

[–]ferroo0 Eurasia [score hidden]  (1 child)

I think Russia won't push for cutting finances, since it's much harder to monitor how much money actually goes to the military. It's by far easier to just make up a limit on how much personnel can Ukraine have.

also I had a thought recently, that Ukraine may win more favorable limit on personnel, if they'll abandon their yearly conscription policy - since any administration that cuts this practice will get a massive boost towards their popularity among younger folks, Russians will be pleased with hearing that Ukraine drops their main source of troops in regular army, and it's one less money sink in Ukrainian budget.

basically, I would expect Ukraine to: limit it's personnel to ~350k volunteer-only members (funded by Ukrainian budget only), abandon mandatory 18y/o conscription policy and destroy all of it's long-range weaponry. Seems like a good deal, in case they'll receive US-only security guarantee and UN peacekeeping force.

[–]eagleal Multinational [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's by far easier to just make up a limit on how much personnel can Ukraine have.

Yes, we definitely agree that's indeed what they will pursue, unless they would advance different things in exchange.

There's an assumption in western spheres that this document was redacted by Russia, with everything in their favor. But I don't think Russia would be this naive to allow a force of 600k soldiers without hard written guarantees from the EU.

[–]Rizen_Wolf Multinational -1 points0 points  (0 children)

there's 0 point in keeping army 3 times bigger then Poland's; while also asking for security guarantees from the US and EU

Whoever leads Russia needs a boogeyman to point at. The more real the boogyman the easier the sell. A big military in Ukraine is a favor, to all future leaders of Russia, because its an easier sell and Russia is just that kind of nation. Fear the west in their media and to their public, fret about their southern border and regional control in private.

Really, thats what it is, its why the Russians proposed a Ukrainian military strength of 600K, which is almost 3X as much as Polish military strength. Ukraine does not need that, Russia does politically.

[–]Significant-Oil-8793 Europe 2 points3 points  (9 children)

However, a plan for a "full amnesty" for all parties will go down well in Moscow and very badly in Kyiv and European capitals.

But source said differently on this

https://kyivindependent.com/umerov-denies-approving-any-points-of-us-russia-peace-plan/

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Nov. 20, citing an unnamed senior U.S. official, that during talks with the U.S., Ukraine changed this specific point in the version that circulated online. Yaroslav Trofimov, chief foreign affairs correspondent for the WSJ, claimed on X that it was Umerov who had done so.

I think they missed the point that the amnesty will cover corruption in Ukraine. Easily the one that will bring Zelensky current administration down.

[–]x1rom Germany 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Hardly what's meant here is corruption charges. Ukraine is corrupt, Russia even more so, but like Russia wouldn't have co authored this "peace plan" if it was about that.

This point is probably about war crimes. And given the generally amateurish writing of this plan, they probably specifically meant Putins ICC warrant.

[–]Significant-Oil-8793 Europe 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Allegedly from WSJ that it was changed from 'audit of all international aid to Ukraine' to "full amnesty for actions during the war" by Umerov. This is after the co-authored by both US/Russia.

I don't think Putin cares as much on the warrant as induction to G8 will mean that US/EU will eventually need to make further amendment.

Personally I want those fucked up drone operators who killed civilians charged and hanged

[–]Professional-Way1216 Europe -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The big difference is Russia isn't stealing EU funds they've been given for free.

[–]saracenraider Europe 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Corruption is an internal issue that is dealt with/not dealt with domestically - no international agreement will be able to change that

[–]bachh2 Asia 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Not in Ukraine's case since it's EU/US who footed that bill and NABU is backed by them to go after those who pockets that money.

[–]saracenraider Europe -1 points0 points  (1 child)

That’s fair although there are very limited avenues through which they could be pursued internationally unless they were to be extradited, which of course is a possibility

[–]bachh2 Asia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the war ends, Zenlensky and Co are getting ousted, and whoever take charge (most likely Zaluzhnyi) will happily send them to jail for corruption. That's why Mindich bailed to Israel already. That's why there has been pressure on Yermak lately.

[–]Medical_Officer Asia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn't even matter.

Russia has already come out and rejected the plan.

This is just an opening bid for peace. Trump is going to have to make a lot more concessions before Putin will accept.

But it is amusing watching Zelensky and the EU pretend like they have any agency in this proxy Russo-American proxy war.