Russia-Ukraine War - News, Discussions & Updates

[Yommie]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Trump confirms Ukraine will continue receiving weapon shipments until a peace deal is reached

There's nothing left to give. No more spare M1A1, M2A2, M109, M777 left.

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[j_hungary]

As of January 2025 Ukraine most definitely was receiving aid from US.

Receiving US aid is not the same as any package being made. It can be a drip feed. Those are ALREADY paid for expenses since the last package

There were NO AID PACKAGE being passed since April last year.

Again, the threat parts is, if you don't go to the table, I won't pass new deal on aid. It would be such a threat if no new deal on aid had been passed since April. That mean that is something you are not going to do to begin with.

Also they just announced the new deal that Ukraine will exchange US aid with mineral profit of up to 50% contribution

Regarding the images you've shared of the presidents: you've got a foreign dignitary with Obama and a former military Uncle Tom with Biden wearing a suit - used as a tool get back at Trump. Both of those are highly political meetings designed to create a façade compare that with Putin's meeting.

That's not what I said. You keep conveniently ignoring the rest of the examples of CONTINUOUS wanton destruction and cherry pick the 500k Iraqi children. From that same list: nukes on Japan, napalm/agent orange in Vietnam, carpet bombing of Laos - I can add more non-Muslim examples if it makes you feel better. If you're uncomfortable addressing the long line of war crimes of the US and would like to cherry pick it would be better to leave it. Continuous.

Well, I am going to stop nitpicking on the Muslim matter, this is WAYYYYY out of topic.

You're sure Russia won't reach Dnipro and Ukraine will be in NATO as it is today. Those are predictions. Just flush them out - will the 4 provinces Russia captured be in NATO as well? Will US guarantee article 5 to Ukraine? etc.

We can discuss for eternity the rest of the details but reality will play out only one way. IMO best to lay out predictions and see who was closer to the truth retrospectively.

The chance of Russia reach Dnipro right now is close to zero. There aren't any actual sight that Russia can do that other than some X factors (again, such as Russian mobilisation)

I have studied war for over 20 years, and I used to plan war and battle for a living, and I can tell you that you don't get sudden progress out of nothing, especially when the line are static for so long. And don't count on Ukraine having manpower issue either, because if they do have manpower issue, they WILL most definitely start their own mobilisation to offset it, nobody is stupid enough to lose a war rather than to mobilise their citizens, especially if the war is about their own country survival.

Ukraine won't be joining NATO now either, there can be framework or agreement to talk about accession, any actual NATO membership now when the war is still hot is not going to pass by any NATO country, even with those who strongly supported Ukraine.

Again, one final time, as I said, there are no advantage on EITHER side in this war, this war is going anywhere because either side is in strong enough position to overrule the other side. As I said, there is physical limits on what you can do as an attacker, those battle is in a trend, and if Russia can change that during anytime in those 3 years, then that would not be a trend, as their prospect improved. If I have to take a guess, in 4 years time, it would be considered good progress if Russia can roll over Southern Donbas, which is not much. Which make the entire episode of talk pointless.

 

[j_hungary]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is a stupid tweet.

If US is sending non-creditable promise of weapon (by the way he spell Weapon wrong, he spelled "weaponises"), then US is getting non-creditable promise of money from FUTURE mineral sale. You can't force the Ukrainian to give out money for nothing. We aren't talking about upfront payment from Ukraine, the payment has to be both ONGOING and IN THE FUTURE........I mean if Zelenskyy is stupid enough to keep contributing without any actual return, then well, they really deserve to lose the war

Do these tweeter people know how international transaction works? I would like to contact some of these people and make an international deal with them.

 

[KingQamaR]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Looks like a minerals deal has been reached

Extortion on the highest level ! Funny thing is those critical minerals are largely in the Donbas area. Now with Russia.

 

[Persian Gulf]

This is a stupid tweet.

If US is sending non-creditable promise of weapon (by the way he spell Weapon wrong, he spelled "weaponises"), then US is getting non-creditable promise of money from FUTURE mineral sale. You can't force the Ukrainian to give out money for nothing. We aren't talking about upfront payment from Ukraine, the payment has to be both ONGOING and IN THE FUTURE........I mean if Zelenskyy is stupid enough to keep contributing without any actual return, then well, they really deserve to lose the war

Do these tweeter people know how international transaction works? I would like to contact some of these people and make an international deal with them.

he did not misspell "weapon". he meant weaponises and spelled it correctly. he is saying the US weaponises (uses) others to its advantage.

 

[j_hungary]

he did not misspell "weapon". he meant weaponises and spelled it correctly. he is saying the US weaponises (uses) others to its advantage.

there are no s in the word Weaponise.......it's not a countable noun. Weaponise is a verb, you don't put s's in verb.......it's like saying he iss an arsehole........or they ares arseholes.

 

[Persian Gulf]

there are no s in the word Weaponise.......it's not a countable noun. Weaponise is a verb, you don't put s's in verb.......it's like saying he iss an arsehole........or they ares arseholes.

it is pretty funny you want to be this pedantic over this Greek guy's English when you yourself don't know the basics of English grammar

I suggest you google 'third person singular' verbs, admit you made a mistake, and then respond on the merits next time

 

[j_hungary]

it is pretty funny you want to be this pedantic over this Greek guy's English when you yourself don't know the basics of English grammar

I suggest you google 'third person singular' verbs, admit you made a mistake, and then respond on the merits next time

But he wasn't using it as third person singular...........for crying out loud.

Or do you want me to break the entire tweet down like a 3rd grade English teacher?

 

[Persian Gulf]

But he wasn't using it as third person singular...........for crying out loud.

Or do you want me to break the entire tweet down like a 3rd grade English teacher?

"Weaponise is a verb, you don't put s's in verb"

yes please explain this statement to me because I do not agree. the existence of third person singular verbs disproves your statement that "you don't put s's in verb".

 

[j_hungary]

"Weaponise is a verb, you don't put s's in verb"

yes please explain this statement to me because I do not agree. the existence of third person singular verbs disproves your statement that "you don't put s's in verb".

I was referring to how he wrote that. Not generally in English...........

Isn't it the example I gave ON THAT POST already point out the plurality form of a verb?

it's like saying he iss an arsehole........or they ares arseholes.

I mean, it ain't my problem if you don't see it.

 

[Persian Gulf]

I was referring to how he wrote that. Not generally in English...........

Isn't it the example I gave ON THAT POST already point out the plurality form of a verb?

I mean, it ain't my problem if you don't see it.

You are still wrong. He used "weaponises" as a third person singular present verb and his sentence is grammatically correct.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

Russia's war objectives 'not yet achieved,' Kremlin's ambassador says

Russia's stated goals in its war against Ukraine remain unachieved despite ongoing diplomatic efforts to start peace negotiations, Russian Foreign Ministry's Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik said on Feb. 25, according to the Russian state-owned news agency TASS.

"The objectives of the Special Military Operation have not yet been achieved," Miroshnik said, using the Kremlin's term for its war against Ukraine.

The objectives include Russia's failure to fully occupy Ukraine's four regions it has illegally annexed and the need to ensure Kyiv no longer "poses a threat" to Moscow.

"The constitutional territories of Russia have not been liberated," he said.

Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimea in 2014, followed by Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts in 2022.

Moscow does not control all of these territories, including the regional capitals of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded Ukraine withdraw from all four oblasts as a condition for negotiations.

Miroshnik said that while military objectives remain unachieved, Russia may attempt to achieve them through future negotiations.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Feb. 24 that Moscow would agree to a ceasefire only if negotiations yield a "sustainable result" that "suits" Russia.

The U.S. held direct talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, excluding Ukraine from the meeting. The decision sparked criticism in Kyiv and Europe, with leaders concerned about being sidelined in negotiations.

LINK

Let the meat grinder continue.

 

[j_hungary]

You are still wrong. He used "weaponises" as a third person singular present verb and his sentence is grammatically correct.

Okay, let's play Grammar Nazi and break down his entire post.

Zelensky has given Trump everything that Trump demanded in return for absolutely nothing beyond a vague promise of some nebulous something. This is what happens when one believes the non-credible promises of a US that weaponises you for its own purposes

First of all, the "promise" is in the past, he didn't just promise it now, it was in the past, already had a few different considerations, that offer HAD BEEN ConsiderED by Zelenskyy. If this is a proposal that just comes out, then this would have been a present tense.

Secondly, the action of "Weaponise" is also in the either in the past (If that had already done) or continuous (is in the progressive), because he is accusing the US (not a US by the way) of Weaponizing the deal or had the deal weaponised Ukraine for its own purposes. If it was in present tense, then it would mean this is just happening now, and not going to carry into the future.

Thirdly, the two highlight "promise" contradict one another. The first one is talking about "Trump's Promise" in the deal, he should have uses "Promises" as Trump is a third person singular noun. It's the same as He. and if you contested that the later part is correct. The US is a third person singular too, then he had made a mistake in the first one. If not then he had made a mistake on the second one.

So, no, this is first of all, NOT Third Person Singular Present Tense. And second of all, his Grammar is shit.

The Correct Grammar in this should have been

Zelensky had (He already did by signing the agreement) given Trump everything that Trump had demanded (Past Perfect as he had already defintively laid out those condition) in return for absolutely nothing beyond a vague promises (again Trump's promises) of some nebulous something. This is what happens when one believes the non-credible promises of the/ an (I would accept both AN if push come to shove, United States is a noun start with a vowel, you don't use a) US that weaponising (The deal are long term, it's should be progressive) you for its own purposes

I would much rather dissect what he actually said instead of going on my off hand comment on how he misspelled "Weponise" but well, seems like you want to discuss that instead. So here we are

 

[Yommie]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies