UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Alexei Navalny was killed by Novichok, his widow claims

Alexei Navalny’s widow has claimed he was killed by Novichok as she pledged to continue his work.

Yulia Navalnaya accused the Russian authorities of blocking the family from seeing his body in order to allow traces of the nerve agent to disappear from his system.

In a video posted on Twitter, Ms Navalnaya said she was taking over the cause of bringing democratic change in Russia to honour her husband’s memory.

“I’m going to keep up with Alexei Navalny’s struggle,” a visibly distressed Ms Navalnaya said, adding that she knows “what exactly” her husband was killed for.

“I’m going to keep struggling for our country and I’m asking you to stand by me and share not only the endless grief and pain that gripped us and won’t let go. I’m asking you to share the outrage, the anger and hatred for those who dared to kill off our future.”

Ms Navalnaya, who previously kept a low profile, publicly blamed Vladimir Putin for her husband’s death.

She portrayed her foray into politics as an homage to her husband, saying: “I want to build this (new) Russia with you: That’s the only way this unimaginable sacrifice that he made will not be futile.

“I’m not scared so shouldn’t you.”

EU foreign ministers were meeting Navalny’s widow on Monday to send a “message of support” to Kremlin opponents, the bloc’s top diplomat said.

“We have to send a message of support to the Russian opposition,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told journalists.

Mr Borrell said he expected EU member states to propose fresh sanctions on those directly responsible for Navalny’s treatment, including in Russia’s prison system.

“The great responsible is Putin himself,” Mr Borrell said.

He said that Brussels would look to rename its global human rights sanctions blacklist after Navalny in a symbolic move.

Postmortem period extended
Three days after Navalny, Russia’s most popular opposition politician, died at a remote prison in the Arctic Circle, officials are still stonewalling the family’s questions about the cause of his death.

Navalny’s mother and lawyer on Monday morning arrived at a mortuary in the regional capital Salekhard but were not allowed in, his spokesman said. The mortuary would not confirm if they were indeed keeping the body.

Navalny’s postmortem examination period has been extended, Kira Yarmysh, Navalny’s spokesman said, citing a request from the local Investigative Committee, Russia’s top investigative body.

“The cause of death is still ‘not established’,” she said in a statement.

A Kremlin spokesman on Monday refused to comment on the delay.

A close Navalny ally suggested on Monday a clear pattern of evidence tampering that his team witnessed at a hospital in the Siberian city of Omsk in 2020 following Navalny’s near-lethal poisoning.

“We have seen it all before in Omsk,” Ivan Zhdanov, head of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, said.

“They’re lying to us. It’s clear what they’re doing right now: They’re mopping up the traces of their crime.”

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, told reporters in Moscow the Kremlin was “not involved” in the proceedings and he was not in a position to comment.

He went on to say the West’s reaction to Navalny’s death was unacceptable but the statements from the US and Europe would not harm the Russian president.

“We consider it absolutely unacceptable to make such, well, frankly obnoxious statements,” Mr Peskov told reporters.

“These statements, of course, cannot cause any damage to our head of our state,” Mr Peskov said.

The investigation into Navalny’s death is ongoing and is being conducted in accordance with Russian law, he said.

Asked how Putin reacted to news of the death, Mr Peskov said: “I have nothing to add.”

Russian prison officials announced Navalny’s death on Friday afternoon but did not name the cause or any circumstances.

The most prominent opponent of Putin, the 47-year-old politician was jailed in January 2021 after he returned to Russia from Germany where he was convalescing from a near-lethal poisoning in Siberia.

Navalny was last seen speaking to the court via video link the day before his death. He looked cheerful and did not display any signs of illness.

The secrecy surrounding the opposition leader’s sudden death has fed speculations of foul play.

Navalny’s mother, who arrived in the Arctic Yamal region on Saturday, has been offered contradictory statements about when he died and where his body had been taken to.

Well-respected Russian media outlet Media Zona on Sunday studied a trove of publicly available CCTV footage on the road leading from Navalny’s prison colony to Salekhard which showed an unusual motorcade including a minivan they presume carried Navalny’s body to the regional capital about 10 hours after the reported time of his death.

Navalny’s mother had been told by the Salekhard mortuary they had not received his body.

The death of the charismatic opposition leader, who has been the focal point of opposition to Putin for over a decade, sent shockwaves across Russian civil society that has been brutally repressed by the Putin regime since the early days of his invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

With all forms of protest in Russia essentially outlawed, mourners have been bringing flowers and candles to monuments across Russia in Mr Navalny’s. At least 400 people have been detailed at those vigils since Friday. Some were sentenced to 15 days in jail for merely lingering and standing at the monuments for too long.

Navalny supporters have been rallying in every single major city that hosts a sizable Russian community, from Berlin to Buenos Aires.

[3-Body Problem]

Objectively, even if this war drags on another decade, there's very little hope of Ukraine exhausting Russia, much less throwing them back completely, that hope was lost when their allies decided to trickle-feed them equipment rather than sending everything while Russia was still on the back foot. This past summer's offensive showed that even with fresher better-trained troops Ukraine can't retake ground except at extreme cost. Unless there is some game changer coming down the pipes it likely won't make much difference how many guns, tanks, and bombs are funneled in from the West because Ukraine will simply run down on bodies and thus the capacity to force Russia to take a worse peace deal before Russia runs out of the same.

There are no good options for Ukraine unless something drastically changes. There are only less bad options that only get worse with each passing week.

I'd rather this not be the case, but reality doesn't give a fuck what I'd rather.

[Vympel]

So in other words, you trying to disprove the fact that I said they don't have modern night optics..... By providing proof that they don't have modern night optics.....

Bold move Cotton.

It's a globally stupid to claim the Russians don't have modern night optics, because they do. Their best sights are reserved for more modern tanks than mere T-62 upgrades. The 1PN96MT-02 isn't their best sight, and in this war has represented a "no frills" stop gap as they've expanded tank production, but its still a significant capability upgrade for something like an un-upgraded T-62.

I didn't at first understand where you were going with this, but then I realised I missed that you think the M2A2-ODS-SA Bradley given to Ukraine has third generation thermal imagers. It doesn't - it has a second-generation thermal sight - specifically the same IBAS first introduced on the M2A3 back in the early 2000s.

Here.

https://aircosmosinternational.com/arti ... raine-3546

3rd generation TIs are still very rare on military vehicles in general.

Right. Because obviously, Russia isn't facing manpower issues.

Not anywhere close to the extent that Ukraine is, no, it isn't, and none of your links establish otherwise. Like I don't know what's going on with your reasoning here but it's either abject denial or something just isn't connecting. You seem to think just pointing to the Russians administering their conscription system or tinkering with their assault platoons or dealing with resistance to conscription somehow establishes they are in as dire a situation as Ukraine. It doesn't, and they aren't. The Russians aren't the ones complaining about being outnumbered and starving for men, the Ukrainians are. It's really not that complicated.

Also of the two,
https://news.yahoo.com/doubling-arson-a ... 00204.html
Ukraine isn't the one facing actual massed arson attacks on her conscription offices.

Ah yes, "The New Voice of Ukraine" citing *checks notes* amongst other things the evidence free claims of UK military intelligence. Which is of course a credible, objective reporter of fact, with no stake in the conflict. Really reliable stuff here, just gold.

Do you credulously swallow and repeat pro-Russian media war propaganda, or just the Ukrainian stuff? Maybe I should start posting claims from Sputnik?

Even if those claims were true, guess what? Still doesn't matter, Ukraine still has less manpower in the field than Russia. Again, this isn't complicated.

Face it. Both sides are facing the strain of war, you can simply ACKNOWLEDGE that Russia has a larger manpower pool with more dictatorial power to draw in men, but your constant choices to only portray Ukraine problems show that it's propaganda and not an actual analysis.

Nah mate. You're just in denial and clearly desperately casting about to look for equivalencies that don't exist. The "constant choices" to "only portray Ukraine problems" is because their problems are worse and are being reported as such by the western media and western analysts. Russia has the advantage over Ukraine in manpower. Whining that Russia is having problems with recruiting too is just handwaving away the disparity.

What? Zaluzhny says that Putin can be more authoritarian than a democratic Ukraine? Oh no, this means all democracies must automatically lose then in war.

Bizarre response. I don't actually give a shit what Zaluzhny does or doesn't think about authoritarian Putin or democratic Ukraine or whatever the hell tangent you're on, I just care that he's openly lamenting that the Russians have superior state capacity for mobilisation, which is all this argument is actually about.

And the alternative?? Because we already learnt from 2014 that appeasing Russia doesn't solve shit.

Absolutely wild interpretation of 2014 you've got there. "Appeasing" Russia. That's definitely what happened. I remember the West bending over backwards to "appease" Russia and give them everything they want, yep. What actually happened is that the West proceeded to back Ukraine to the hilt, and there was no negotiation with Russia whatsoever. The Russians got nothing out of the West at all.

The "appeasement" framing is so juvenile and dumb at this point. Other wars exist in history than WW2. The idea that there's simply no alternative to fighting a war that Ukraine literally. cannot. win is just irrational. This war is going to end at the negotiating table. Ukraine is going to give up territory. Get used to the idea, or you'll be malding and seething about the unsatisfying conclusion for the rest of your life.

The side that literally doesn't have a hollow gap in its demographics chewed apart by AIDs,TB, drugs and alcoholism is healthier than Russia yes.

"Ukrainian 45 year olds are healthier than Russian 35 year olds!"

Jesus H Christ.

Just what are you talking about man. This is embarrassing now. Ukraine is a post-Soviet state even poorer and more immiserated than Russia was by the fall of the USSR. Where did you get the idea that Ukraine's demographics are at all better such that you're making this ridiculous argument?

Also lol. Note again how your SOLE excuse is to go Russia has more men. That's never been in contention. But Russia has been amazingly incompetent in her tactics and operations so far, squandering her manpower advantages. Ukraine has been punching above her weight.

Yeah that's what the Nazis told themselves about the Soviets too, even after they lost. They still lost though, because numbers and supply win wars of this scale, not "tactics and operations", even if there was some reason to believe the Russians are as bad as you think they are. Are you going to doggedly cling to years old defeats to tell yourself that everything's going to be ok for Ukraine for the entirety of the war, or are we eventually going to call time on that narrative?

And the Russians don't just have more men. They have superiority in firepower of all kinds, including artillery, aircraft, drones, and an indigenous military industrial complex to actually sustain it. And that superiority has increased since the war began, particularly with aircraft as the VKS now drops hundreds of JDAM-ERskis on Ukrainian forces and positions over a matter of days, without any meaningful reply.

Ukraine has absolutely nothing of its own, and is relying entirely on handouts from backers who are variously unable or unwilling to make the investments and outlays required to meet that challenge and endlessly supply Ukraine - essentially for free - to offset the massive Russian advantage.

Ah right. Because Ukraine losses are unsustainable while Russia is?

That's right. It's a simple question of numbers, and they have more, and your refusal to accept this reality and instead retreat to comforting fantasies about the incompetent Russians being somehow beaten by superior Ukrainian derring do or whatever the fuck is exactly the kind of thinking that saw their grand counteroffensive ignominiously smashed last year for no result.

As for RAND. You right. A long drawn out war is unfavourable for the US. They should have supplied more weapons and funding earlier in larger quantities earlier.

Wouldn't have made a lick of difference or changed the outcome one single iota, even if it was politically feasible, which it wasn't. What the US has supplied to Ukraine is the limit of what it can reasonably sustain.

[Vympel]

What does ending the war look like ?

Because so far Russia keeps demanding that Ukraine:
- Demilitarizes. Meaning they won't have the military to resist Russia doing whatever they want, unless you know of Russia also agreeing to demilitarize.
- Remains "neutral". Meaning Ukraine won't have allies to help resist Russia doing whatever they want. Unless Russia has talked about agreeing to significant consequences should they choose to break the neutrality.

Oh and while you have talked about the human cost of the war, I don't recall you comparing it to the human cost of how Russia will treat civilians in whatever territory they take. Two links that seem relavant:
Izium mass graves

ICC prosecutor: Hundreds of Ukrainian children taken from orphanages to Russia

It doesn't matter what Russia demands. Inherent in negotiation is that the two parties compromise. Ukraine demands a return to 1991 borders including Crimea and that's obviously totally delusional. Doesn't mean negotiation is impossible.

As for war crime allegations, the only reason to bring them up is to argue that the war should continue until Ukraine presumably wins and saves all of the civilians being brutalised. Except that's simply not ever going to happen, so insisting the war should continue for that reason is totally pointless. War crimes can be properly investigated and adjudicated after the war is over and civilians stop getting killed. Insisting that the war continue is an invitation for more war crimes, not less.

There is literally no good reason not to start negotiations now to see what is possible, people just don't want to entertain it because they can't accept Russia won't be totally defeated and want to manufacture reasons to insist that negotiations will be pointless. Nothing is lost by trying. It's all upside.

[Solauren]

Giving Russia ANYTHING at the table beyond 'give everything back and fuck off', shows the world, including Russia, there is no consequence for invasions, and you will not be punished.

In other words - welcome to Warlordism, with modern technology.

[Gandalf]

Giving Russia ANYTHING at the table beyond 'give everything back and fuck off', shows the world, including Russia, there is no consequence for invasions, and you will not be punished.

In other words - welcome to Warlordism, with modern technology.

If that's your criteria for warlordism, then we've been there a long time. Hence the massive size of countries like the USA, Canada, and Australia.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Putin loses another general in Ukraine as Russian troops swarm key city

One of Vladimir Putin's commanders in the war in Ukraine has died in hospital in occupied Crimea.

Colonel Magomedali Magomedzhanov was wounded in Ukrainian strikes in February having commanded the 61st Separate Kirkenes Red Banner Marine Brigade of the Northern Fleet.

He is originally from the Dagestan region Russia. Sergei Melikov, head of the region, said: "He died while performing his military duty in the Special Military Operation zone.

"This military operation was the fourth and, unfortunately, the last for the colonel."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reached a crucial moment as Moscow's forces take the crucial city of Avdiivka in the east.

Ukraine's military has claimed that Russia lost 17,000 men taking the area.

Dmitry Likhovy, Ukrainian military spokesman, said: "The losses of Russians around Avdiivka are colossal. My colleagues and I did the calculations and pulled up our archival records from the beginning of the year."

Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, confirmed on Sunday that the Russians had taken Avdiivka.

Russian media reported: "The minister of defence and the Chief of the General Staff are reporting to the president that our units are developing an offensive and are not allowing the enemy to gain a foothold on new lines."

[Vympel]

Giving Russia ANYTHING at the table beyond 'give everything back and fuck off', shows the world, including Russia, there is no consequence for invasions, and you will not be punished.

In other words - welcome to Warlordism, with modern technology.

That's an absurd argument. The foremost warmongering state in the world is the United States, who repeatedly attacks and invades countries at will in the flimsiest to non-existent pretexts. Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh and cleansed the entire area literally just last year, and noone said jack shit.

What this actual argument is about is the US' ability to enforce its will, which no one should give a shit about except American foreign policy wonks.

[3-Body Problem]

Giving Russia ANYTHING at the table beyond 'give everything back and fuck off', shows the world, including Russia, there is no consequence for invasions, and you will not be punished.

In other words - welcome to Warlordism, with modern technology.

So does the same apply to the western nations that only got to where they are today by doing the same thing or is this a blatant double standard?

[aerius]

There are no good options for Ukraine unless something drastically changes. There are only less bad options that only get worse with each passing week.

I'd rather this not be the case, but reality doesn't give a fuck what I'd rather.

Correct. For those who don't get it yet, this is how the negotiation process will go.
We can take a shitty deal now, or an even shittier one later.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

There are no good options for Ukraine unless something drastically changes. There are only less bad options that only get worse with each passing week.

I'd rather this not be the case, but reality doesn't give a fuck what I'd rather.

Correct. For those who don't get it yet, this is how the negotiation process will go.
We can take a shitty deal now, or an even shittier one later.

So, the Russians will change the terms after the fact?

[Gandalf]

Or before. Today Ukraine and Russia have a certain amount of fighting capability. So a ceasefire negotiated today would reflect that.

Over time, Ukraine is getting weaker and Russia is getting stronger, changing their ability to dictate terms in a negotiation.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Or before. Today Ukraine and Russia have a certain amount of fighting capability. So a ceasefire negotiated today would reflect that.

Over time, Ukraine is getting weaker and Russia is getting stronger, changing their ability to dictate terms in a negotiation.

Russia's stated goal is to destroy that very thing and any terms they offer will be to that effect.

[Vympel]

Russia's stated goal is to destroy that very thing and any terms they offer will be to that effect.

Sounds like it'd be a good idea to start negotiations and see if that's true, because they have literally nothing to lose by doing so.

[3-Body Problem]

Russia's stated goal is to destroy that very thing and any terms they offer will be to that effect.

I want to ask some questions to you and to everybody else who thinks Ukraine profits from dragging the war out for as long as possible.

1) Given what we have seen of their war-making capability thus far, which includes support from the West, do you think Ukraine can defeat Russia?

2) If you see Ukraine defeating Russia what does that victory look like?

3) If you don't think Ukraine will defeat Russia what benefit does Ukraine gain by continuing the fight?

4) A year from now do you feel like Ukraine will be strong relative to their current strength or weaker?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ending the war is not Ukraine's choice to make, it's Russia's. They can end it any time they want by leaving Ukraine.

[Vympel]

Ending the war is not Ukraine's choice to make, it's Russia's. They can end it any time they want by leaving Ukraine.

Ukraine can end the war any time they want by surrendering. That's not what is being discussed at all, of course. These are both mere thought terminating cliches.

It is absolutely both party's choice to end the war whenever they wish. The only question is negotiating mutually acceptable terms.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ending the war is not Ukraine's choice to make, it's Russia's. They can end it any time they want by leaving Ukraine.

Ukraine can end the war any time they want by surrendering. That's not what is being discussed at all, of course. These are both mere thought terminating cliches.

It is absolutely both party's choice to end the war whenever they wish. The only question is negotiating mutually acceptable terms.

No, it isn't, because Russia has been demanding Ukraine surrender right from the get-go.

[J]

Or before. Today Ukraine and Russia have a certain amount of fighting capability. So a ceasefire negotiated today would reflect that.

Over time, Ukraine is getting weaker and Russia is getting stronger, changing their ability to dictate terms in a negotiation.

If Ukraine surrenders right now they'll end up in a similar situation as Chechnya. It's not pretty, we're not going to like it, but it's a path towards peace which leaves what's left of the Ukraine with some degree of autonomy. Keep fighting long enough and they'll suffer the same fate as the Circassians - most of the people will be driven into exile or killed and those who remain will be assimilated into Russia. Ukraine will be erased and become part of Russia.

This is the reality we're dealing with, no amount of cheerleading and screaming "Slava Ukraine!!" will change this.

[Vympel]

No, it isn't, because Russia has been demanding Ukraine surrender right from the get-go.

A demand you make in public is not the same thing as what you would accept in the course of negotiations. And again, sounds like it would be a good idea to have negotiations to see if that's true.

It's impossible not to notice, at this point, that everytime I make the obvious point that there is literally nothing to be lost by trying to negotiate, I'm met with either total silence or a retreat into bromides about how the Russians just want Ukrainian surrender.

Like just say you can't bear the thought of the Russians keeping Ukrainian territory and would rather see Ukraine burn for years before that happens. That's clearly the sentiment.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Not really, this is what Putin himself has said three months ago:
Putin: No Peace in Ukraine Until Russia Achieves Goals

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday there will be peace in Ukraine when his country achieves its goals, and that those aims remain unchanged.

Two months shy of the two-year anniversary of Russia launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin reiterated that Russia is seeking “de-Nazification, de-militarization and a neutral status” of Ukraine as he gave a four-hour end-of-the-year news conference.

Russia has asserted that Ukraine’s government is heavily influenced by radical nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, which Ukraine and its Western allies have dismissed as a baseless pretext for the invasion.

"There will be peace when we ... achieve our goals," Putin said, repeating a frequent Kremlin line. "Victory will be ours."

The Russian leader pointed to recent Russian advances against its neighbor.

"Almost all along the line of contact, our armed forces — let's put it modestly — are improving their positions, almost all in an active stage of action," he said.

"The enemy has declared a big counteroffensive, but [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy] hasn't achieved anything anywhere," Putin said, contending that the latest Ukrainian attempt to create a bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Dnieper River also fizzled and Ukrainian troops suffered heavy losses.

Putin alleged Kyiv was sacrificing its troops in hopes of showing some success to its Western sponsors as it seeks more military assistance. More U.S. aid for Ukraine is stalled in Congress over a demand by some Republican lawmakers to link its approval to imposing tighter U.S. immigration controls on the southwestern U.S. border with Mexico.

"I believe it's stupid and irresponsible on behalf of the country's political leadership, but it's their business," Putin said of Ukraine’s battlefield strategy.

The Russian leader dismissed the need to call up more reservists to fight in Ukraine — a move that proved deeply unpopular during the first conscription. He said there are about 617,000 Russian soldiers there, including around 244,000 troops who were called up to fight alongside professional military forces.

One of Putin’s war demands is that Ukraine not join the West’s NATO military alliance. NATO has repeatedly said it is up to individual countries, and not Russia, to decide whether they want to join. Russia’s invasion prompted Sweden and Finland to launch membership bids. Finland was admitted in April while Sweden’s accession is awaiting final approval from Turkey and Hungary.

Speaking Thursday at the same time as Putin, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels that the Russian leader has shown no signs of preparing for peace.

Stoltenberg said the only way to reach a just and lasting peace in Ukraine is to convince Putin that he will not win on the battlefield, and for allies to continue to support Ukraine.

“If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is a real risk that his aggression will not end there,” Stoltenberg said.

The NATO chief welcomed what he characterized as U.S. President Joe Biden’s “clear commitment to Ukraine” and his administration’s urgent push to provide much-needed aid to Ukraine.

Biden has proposed a security package that includes $61 billion in aid for Ukraine, but the measure has so far been blocked by opposition Republicans in Congress.

Zelenskyy was in Washington this week to make the case directly to the president and lawmakers that the aid is vital to Ukraine’s war effort.

Ukraine’s military said Thursday that Russia attacked overnight with drones and missiles, while Russia reported Ukrainian aerial attacks targeting the Moscow area.

Ukraine’s air force said it shot down 41 of the 42 drones Russian forces launched, most of them over the Odesa region in southern Ukraine.

Oleh Kiper, the regional governor of Odesa, said on Telegram that falling debris damaged multiple buildings, including a dormitory. He said at least 11 people were injured.

Kiper said Russian forces also attacked port infrastructure in the Izmail area, located along the Danube River, destroying several warehouses.

Russia’s defense ministry said overnight its air defenses destroyed nine Ukrainian drones over the Moscow and Kaluga regions.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported that two of the drones were downed near Naro-Fomink, a town southwest of the Russian capital. Sobyanin said there were no reports of damage or casualties.

And he has given no indication of his position changing since then.

[Vympel]

Not really, this is what Putin himself has said three months ago:
And he has given no indication of his position changing since then.

Uh huh.

Putin says Russia is ready to talk on Ukraine

"In Ukraine, those who are aggressive towards Russia, and in Europe and in the United States - do they want to negotiate? Let them. But we will do it based on our national interests," Putin told a meeting of the defence leadership in Moscow.

Putin says he's open to negotiating with the US over Ukraine war in lengthy Tucker Carlson interview

Putin told Carlson in an interview from Moscow that Russia has “never refused negotiations” and would welcome any efforts from Washington to discuss a peace agreement in Ukraine.

“We hear all the time, ‘Is Russia ready?’ Yes,” Putin said in the interview that aired Thursday. “We have not refused. It was them who publicly refused.”

So that's false actually. You're conflating Putin's public statement of confidence that he'll achieve his objectives as if they're a refusal to entertain negotiations.

And like for the umpteenth time, the above represents a further retreat into comforting bromides about what Russia wants, as opposed to any substantive answer as to why you don't think its worth trying to see if you're actually right.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Did you even read those articles? Because in neither of them do they say what the terms of any ceasefire would be or that Putin has changed his position in any way. If anything, it's the exact opposite.

[3-Body Problem]

Ending the war is not Ukraine's choice to make, it's Russia's. They can end it any time they want by leaving Ukraine.

Is this a concession that Ukraine has no path to ending this war via victory at arms?

[Vympel]

Did you even read those articles? Because in neither of them do they say what the terms of any ceasefire would be or that Putin has changed his position in any way.

Jesus Christ - the entire point of negotiations is to seek to come to an agreement in a dispute where before there was none. Like good grief, your rationale for refusing to entertain negotiations is apparently "I have seen no evidence that Putin has indicated what he will agree to before it starts".

That's what the negotiation process is for! To see what the parties will actually agree to. To come to terms. Not to already agree on terms before walking into it.

Nothing is lost by trying to negotiate! Nothing. I have made this point a million times at this point and your refusal to engage with it is patent.