The suggestion was put forward during discussions between President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterparts, a source with insight into the U.S. National Security Council told the paper.
Witkoff, who also serves as the White House’s Middle East envoy, reportedly backs the suggestion, which the U.S. believes will solve the issue of the Ukrainian constitution prohibiting giving up territory without organizing a referendum. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected any notion of ceding territory, the new occupation proposal may lead to a truce following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.
According to the proposal, Ukraine’s borders would remain officially unchanged, similar to the borders of the West Bank, even as Israel controls the territory. “It’ll just be like Israel occupies the West Bank,” the source told The Times.
Yes they’re all similarly bad, I don’t get why you of all people would post their view here.
I came across it watching this video and found it an interesting development
So Badempanada has the same US imperialist take.
The eastern ethnic-Russians, terrorised for 8 years by western sponsored Azov nazis and who have resisted ethnic cleansing are ‘occupied’.
BadEmpanada believes that the US has been provoking Russia by NATO expansion and should stop doing that but does not believe that Russia has a right to Ukrainian territory nor invading them.
Killing a million Ukrainians is not a very effective way of “liberating Ukrainians of oppression”.
A full video on his stance on the conflict which I found decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnVs4OmYyBM your point is mentioned at 4:05 though not addressed much.
Of the global superpowers I’m far, far more sympathetic to China than Russia, despite having criticism of China as well.
IDC what he believes.
I believe facts.
And the facts are they had a western backed coup, they literally decided who would be in the government in the Nuland-Pyatt call.
They have no legitimacy, and if the ethnic -Russians who decided not to live under them that is their right.
Crimea, only fairly recently and temporary part of ukraine bcs of the ukrainian Chruchov have wanted to be with Russia since long before the coup.
70+ in referendums, and after that 95+. (OC then they are fake and controlled !) Which is undestandable since they weren’t allowed to use the only language they speak for anything official.
Russia has given the ukrainians enough chances to stop this.
All they asked was no NATO and some self-determination (not even independence) for the east and Crimea.
OC the west wanted nothing more than to escalate to drag Russia into war.
They broke the Minsk treaties (observed by the EU OCSE) and kept bombing civilians.
So no crocodile tears for those who died fighting their proxy war.
Sympathy for Russia or Putin has nothing to do with it.
OC they have their issues, but it’s 100% the western escalation that is at fault.
Russia had no choice but to intervene.
As if the US would let Mexico be couped and have Russian nukes there.
It has been written many times by western military experts that ukraine would be a red line.
I watched the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin hoping to get a good Russian perspective but Putin really did the most awful job of not presenting any argument or relevant history.
He just went “look we have this paper from the 1600s which said that Ukraine belongs to Russia because a count said so” or something. He didn’t even go for the anti-NATO line. Full on "this land was promised to us 3000 years ago. Just the absolute worst defenses possible as if he didn’t even care.
You are right there are Russian speaking regions can have good motive to want to become part of Russia. But there too, referendums turning up with a like 95% pro-Russia vote are screaming “rigged” even if you ignore all the Western reporting about it. Once again Russia does an extremely poor job of justifying what might have been justified.
As for the nukes, a border doesn’t make much difference these days. Pretty sure America already has a satellite carried nuke anyways. And submarines. And other ways to launch deep into Russia using ICBM’s. If Iran has hypersonic missiles which can reach Europe then America has similar missiles for sure.
But Russia has nukes too. NATO attacking Russia is basically impossible. What seems most relevant to me is that Russia would never be able to reconquer Ukraine if Ukraine joined NATO.
I’m not really that partial in the Ukraine war. Russia has a right to not want the West on their borders but at the same time they don’t have a right to control Ukraine as a satellite state. Ukraine’s biggest mistake was giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees which never materialized. The ideal outcome is if it stayed a neutral buffer zone between the West and Russia.
I don’t watch garbage like Tucker Carlson.
Wouldn’t even trust the editing or the (deliberate) mistranslations.
And even less base my opinion on that.
Can’t take that seriously.
And there you go repeating western propaganda which I also mentioned as an excuse to deny the results.
I’m sure you have proof of that.
I mentioned polls from long before the coup and ukraine was still friendly with Russia.
Where all those polls rigged too?
then you know better than the military experts on both sides who say otherwise.
Distance matters. There is little time to react and also you don’t want NATO fascist troops on the closest border to Moscow.
Certainly not since they unilaterally ended all the missile treaties, changed their nuclear policy allowing a first strike and constantly provoking.
This from the only maniacs that have used nukes before.
Again, that was never the intention as I explained, the west escalated to this.
Even now they will only keep the east and Crimea who don’t want anything to do with ukraine anyway.
They will have their buffer and that’s as far as NATO expansion can go.
Obviously only the US has that right.
I rarely watch Tucker but I did watch his episode with Putin because that was Putin’s moment to explain everything from his perspective. And he failed spectacularly. I severely doubt there were mistranslations. That would have been brought up.
It was actually 98% instead of 95. I know Western media frequently lies or embellishes stories but this seems just too ridiculous. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1125322026/russia-ukraine-referendums
Unless I’m woefully misinformed then feel welcome to present me with evidence of the contrary. I literally watched Putin speak for like an hour to get a different perspective but was not presented with any.
Again you are fixated on basing yourself on ONE interview from some clown from the banana republic.
Putin or Lavrov have made many statements and speeches explaining their reasons, concers and demands in detail.
Clinging to this and only this to make your assumptions is weak and laughable.
But sure, ignore all that and start about .
Maybe you can throw in some Alex Jones somewhere.
Right, definitely in the free and democratic western press they don’t do stuff like that, or worse.
Like this farce?
When they had more than 75% in favor long before the coup and now they can’t even use their language and get shelled by nazis who also cut off their water supply they couldn’t possibly get 98%?
But OC what do those facts mean when you meticulously determined ‘it seems ridiculous’.
And what is your US regime link based on ukranian ‘sources’ supposed to prove here?
OC the western press and organisations want to throw accusations and try everything to delegitimise a referendum they don’t like.
They let everyone make the wildest unverified claims but when someone goes against their narrative like a German observer who reported “Being here, I can see with my own eyes that people are voting voluntarily,” they have to criticise it.
“Observers cannot properly assess elections when they are not members of a long-term observation mission and when they make public statements based only on their own limited observation,” the EPDE mouthpieces said.
Not only that, this guy was also fired from his job with this explanation: “clearly violates the world view, the moral values and the philosophy of the company.”
LOL
You’re not even misinformed but simply uninformed since you have made zero effort and think you’ve done enough by watching ‘a whole hour!!!’ of BS on which you base your predetermined conclusion that Putin bad.
I don’t need to prove anything, you prove that all the referenda are a sham.
Or can you determine that also from your vast research watching your little screen?