| Ryuu96 said: I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying, in regards to the territory concessions. The Kursk invasion happened last year, before that, the West was telling Ukraine they weren't allowed to use Western made equipment on Russian territory and were pushing Ukraine away from that idea, but with the upcoming election there were very real fears that Trump would pull Ukraine's support and pressure them to freeze the conflict on the current frontlines. Freezing the conflict would have benefited Russia more than Ukraine and prior to Kursk, may have been something that Russia accepted, as they would have essentially gained 15-20% of Ukraine and been able to repair their military to try again. If Russia accepted such a proposal but Ukraine didn't then it would give Trump his excuse to say Ukraine are being unreasonable. However, the Kursk invasion changed things, it put Russia in a position where they would absolutely not accept such a proposal because it would now mean surrendering Kursk. I don't believe it is a coincidence that Ukraine only invaded Russia right before the US Election. It was a strategic goal in more ways than one, I believe one of those goals are related to negotiations. |
Oh gods.In what way freezing the conflict benefits Russia,again?
Kiev regime needs to repair their military to try again,not Russia.Kiev regime needs time to rearm,retrain it's forces,mobilize last two million available moreorlessablebodied men,the stuff. Russia is fine as is.
And why would Kiev regime occupying 1% of the province mean Russia surrendering Kursk CITY?!
Essay Pro