Wait, so now collateral damage is okay?

So the truck driver who got himself killed isnt a problem for you?

https://instagr.am/p/DKjZRBBNZhq


Look at all these civilians that were too close to the soldiers in kyiv. That wasn't apartment debris falling comrade.

The Russians no doubt well understood the construction of the bunker under the "Bolshevik" power plant in downtown Kiev, and very likely what had been recently stored there. Civilians should be kept far from munitions depots on both sides.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there was a weapons depot under civilian areas in downtown kiev?

Powe plant, apt building. Same same

Trump: Zelensky gave Putin a reason…and I'd note Zelensky then trashed the Russian peace proposal.

Quote:

---

In addition to launching a coordinated drone strike on multiple airbases, Ukraine also blew up railway bridges in Russia last week, derailing both civilian and freight trains, killing at least seven people, and injuring over 120 others, including children. President Vladimir Putin discussed the attacks in a phone call with his US counterpart on Wednesday, warning that Moscow's inevitable response is justified.

Trump told journalists on Friday that he "didn't like" the escalation when asked whether Kiev's attack on a key component of Russia's nuclear triad changed his view of "what's at stake" and what "cards" Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky holds.

"Well, they gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night," Trump stated. "That's something I didn't like about it. When I saw it, I said: 'Here we go… now it's going to be a strike.'"

---

Sumy collapse is ongoing. UK getting more blame than the US.

Another massive wave of attacks on Kharkov, Kiev and Odessa in particular. Odessa Underground assassinated a 'recruiting' commander (Oleg Nomerovsky) using a car bomb. "Recruiters" are assigned 12 abductees per day as a quota.

The Ukrainians managed to take down an Su-35 over Kursk. Several Patriots fired and managed a single interception of an Iskander this time in Kiev. Politico notes Russian drone production surge.

An absurdity: note that it was the Europeans who unanimously opposed pre-Maidan Ukraine from joining nato.

Merz: "If Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008, this war might not have happened." pic.twitter.com/c2EltxUuuS

— War Designer (@WarDesigner0) June 6, 2025

Yes, that's what they were in Turkey discussing.

Less-reported is that Trump now has threatened to sanction both 'kids' if progress isn't made. I'm not sure what sanctions on Ukraine would work though, perhaps financial ones on their wealthy class. No third stage/meeting has been scheduled, however.

‘It Takes Two to Tango’: Trump Threatens Both Russia and Ukraine With Sanctions If They Torpedo Peace Talks | Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart News

President Donald Trump reminded Russia “very, very tough” sanctions loom if it kills peace talks, saying Ukraine would suffer the same… pic.twitter.com/jPMz3MkcB4

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) June 6, 2025

Ukrainian President Zelensky responds to US President Trump's analogy describing him and Putin as two kids fighting in a park:

"we're not kids with Putin at the playground in a park [...] he is a murderer who came to this park to kill the kids." pic.twitter.com/tysblAQXSK

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (BlueSky too) (@Archer83Able) June 7, 2025

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

Well that peace deal Russia is proposing is not a deal at all for Ukraine. I vote they keep gutting Russians until a real deal is put on the table.

Quote:

---

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

---

They changed the first to "cut that **** out."
Super embarrassing.

It's an amazing point of view and not in a good and/or rational way, is it not? Russia invades a neighboring sovereign nation (again) and then expects to be able to dictate how or even if they can respond with their existential defense, even while committing war crime after war crime. They delay, reject, and continuously change the conditions for any peace process all the while whining about Ukraine's response in a war the Russians started.

Russia deserves every bit of misery and loss that Ukraine can put upon them.

agent-maroon said:

---

It's an amazing point of view and not in a good and/or rational way, is it not? Russia invades a neighboring sovereign nation (again) and then expects to be able to dictate how or even if they can respond with their existential defense, even while committing war crime after war crime. They delay, reject, and continuously change the conditions for any peace process all the while whining about Ukraine's response in a war the Russians started.

Russia deserves every bit of misery and loss that Ukraine can put upon them.

---

Perhaps they could make such demands........if they were in the position to do so. They're practically asking for total capitulation, when they have not yet earned that stance.

Putin is perfectly content with throwing men and equipment away for minimal gains. He will continue to do so, likely until he dies. If your Russian and disagree with him to loudly, you will fall out a window, drink poisoned tea, or end up in Siberia to be posined there.

But, ukraine had the balls to kill a military officer, so, we must drop bombs on their civilian centers, comrade

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

---

Basically, de-nazify, elections, recognition of annexed territories, and neutrality. These 4 components have been the same for at least the past 2 years I believe.

Quote:

---

Russia's terms for a comprehensive peace treaty

The Russian document declares that conditions for peace must include the "international legal recognition" of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and its 2022 annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

It says a future peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, and abandon its bid to join NATO. The document demands that Ukraine limit the size of its armed forces, recognize Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian, ban "glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism" and dissolve nationalist groups - conditions reflecting Putin's goals from the outset of his invasion.

---

Keep in mind, Putin see's Ukraine's independence/borders post-Soviet era as conditioned, in the 90's, on neutrality.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

It says a future peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, and abandon its bid to join NATO. The document demands that Ukraine limit the size of its armed forces, recognize Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian, ban "glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism" and dissolve nationalist groups - conditions reflecting Putin's goals from the outset of his invasion.

---

Russia has no right to demand any of this from a separate sovereign nation. Ukraine or any other nation would be foolish to agree to any of those demands.

---

Ukrainian neutrality is a topic that goes back at least to 1990, and is really an expansive one to get into. Again, not our playground, and it's really irrelevant to American interests (at least much less relevant than when the Soviets were threatening to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, way back when).

Quote:

---

Debate on Ukrainian neutrality

Ukraine's declaratory commitment to neutrality has fluctuated in the decades since the end of the Cold War. This fluctuation reflected divisions among political elites and presidents about the desirability and practicality of direct security alignment with western states. Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty of 1 July 1990 declared the country's 'intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs' and adheres to nuclear-free principles (not to accept, produce or purchase any nuclear weapons).6 This declaration was adopted by the supreme council of the Ukrainian SSR in an effort to extract Ukraine from central Soviet military control. Ukraine's constitution of 1996 contained a similar clause. With shifts in European security in the 1990s, this proclamation of future neutrality was not viewed as an impediment, however, to Ukrainian participation in European security structures. The issue became significant as Ukrainian politicians began to conceive of eventual Ukrainian accession to the EU and NATO.

Documents on the principles of Ukrainian national security and military doctrine were amended in the 1990s, but in 2003 the country's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, gave up its powers to formulate these as legislation in favour of the president. In June 2004 President Leonid Kuchma issued a decree on Ukraine's military doctrine, which had no reference to neutrality and set the target of full-fledged NATO and EU membership. But a month later, with no reasoning offered, Kuchma issued another decree removing this commitment from the text.7 For many years Ukraine seemed anchored in a security policy buffer zone between Russia and European institutions, with a 'multi-vector' foreign policy.8 President Viktor Yushchenko reversed the official stance on NATO in April 2005 after the Orange Revolution, only for Ukraine's 'non-bloc' status to be reinstated in 2010 by his successor Viktor Yanukovych.

Then in December 2014, after the Maidan revolution, Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas region, the neutral non-bloc status was removed. This signalled Kyiv's undiminished commitment to its EU ambitions, through and beyond its EU association agreement. Significantly, the goal of 'achieving the criteria required to attain membership' in NATO was restored.9 From that time on, Kyiv pinned its hopes on a security alignment with western states and an explicit, if medium-term, prospect of NATO membership, to limit Russian aggression and territorial encroachments.

---

More at the link, a fairly even-handed non-legalese paper. Given just the past 40 years and the current 'regime' in Kiev I don't think it's unreasonable as a demand, however.

Not joining NATO might be a reasonable demand. However, it's completely unreasonable to limit Ukraine's military capabilities. Russia is the one with a history of military and political oppression of Ukraine's citizens, not the other way around. Given Ukraine has no capability to develop military equipment and can't rely on Russia to provide them with said equipment, that leaves only one option. So, while they may not become formal NATO members, they will absolutely need trade agreements with western countries to acquire military assets.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

---

Russia's demands:
1. Give away land that Russia can't take currently
2. Hold an election that would violate their constitution (unless it's after Russia decided to stop attacking them)
3. Set themselves up for Russia to launch another unprovoked invasion in a few years by not having a functional military or defensive allies
4. "Denazify" which purposely has no actual meaning so it can't be completed.

Ukraine's demands - stop attacking us and killing our civilians for 30 days.

nortex97 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

---

Basically, de-nazify, elections, recognition of annexed territories, and neutrality. These 4 components have been the same for at least the past 2 years I believe.

Quote:

---

Russia's terms for a comprehensive peace treaty

The Russian document declares that conditions for peace must include the "international legal recognition" of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and its 2022 annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

It says a future peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, and abandon its bid to join NATO. The document demands that Ukraine limit the size of its armed forces, recognize Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian, ban "glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism" and dissolve nationalist groups - conditions reflecting Putin's goals from the outset of his invasion.

---

Keep in mind, Putin see's Ukraine's independence/borders post-Soviet era as conditioned, in the 90's, on neutrality.

---

Which is ridiculous. Russia recognized Ukraine's full independence and sovereignty in 1991, after a referendum in Ukraine won by 90% of the vote.

MaxPower said:

---

Not joining NATO might be a reasonable demand. However, it's completely unreasonable to limit Ukraine's military capabilities. Russia is the one with a history of military and political oppression of Ukraine's citizens, not the other way around. Given Ukraine has no capability to develop military equipment and can't rely on Russia to provide them with said equipment, that leaves only one option. So, while they may not become formal NATO members, they will absolutely need trade agreements with western countries to acquire military assets.

---

I somewhat/mostly agree. I think Ukraine participating in the EU trade block is a reasonable request.

Limits as to nukes (several predecessor agreements/payments on this)/foreign troops on Ukrainian soil strikes me as fair as well. Ultimately, Ukraine's demographic collapse will come faster than the Russian one, so it's not really worth limiting their uniformed military size, imho, and that's really probably the most negotiable point. Plus, even a smaller force with adequate air defenses/massive/stocked inventory of drones etc. would be a formidable defense.

If Ukraine agrees to end martial law and hold elections their military will rapidly decrease in size, period. Not a point worth continuing the war over.

The U.S. shouldn't really be involved in this. My concern is Trump overplayed his hand talking about being able to manage Putin. Putin knows the campaign promises and will try to leverage that.

The prudent thing to do is for the U.S. to disentangle. The worst thing that could happen is Trump arm twists Ukraine into a bad deal then the U.S. takes the backlash when Russia invades again. It's long past due for this to be a Europe problem. I fully support Ukraine's position but they should make their own rationale decision knowing they aren't getting anything more than maybe some basic intelligence from us. Equipment can be negotiated with the Euros and if they can't support enough then tough luck.

Wow, I pretty much agree with all of that too.

Quote:

---

their military will rapidly decrease in size, period.

---

Not as long as they are being invaded. The Ukrainians really really don't want to be Russians.

nortex97 said:

---

Keep in mind, Putin see's Ukraine's independence/borders post-Soviet era as conditioned, in the 90's, on neutrality.

---

Keep in mind the translated version ... neutrality and free elections exactly like Belarus and Lukashenko.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Can you post Russia's demands? Ukriane posted theirs for all to see. What were russias?

---

Russia's demands:
1. Give away land that Russia can't take currently
2. Hold an election that would violate their constitution (unless it's after Russia decided to stop attacking them)
3. Set themselves up for Russia to launch another unprovoked invasion in a few years by not having a functional military or defensive allies
4. "Denazify" which purposely has no actual meaning so it can't be completed.

Ukraine's demands - stop attacking us and killing our civilians for 30 days.

---

"Denazify" means, "Install leadership that is subordinate to us and acts in our interests, not Ukraine's."

MaxPower said:

---

Not joining NATO might be a reasonable demand. However, it's completely unreasonable to limit Ukraine's military capabilities. Russia is the one with a history of military and political oppression of Ukraine's citizens, not the other way around. Given Ukraine has no capability to develop military equipment and can't rely on Russia to provide them with said equipment, that leaves only one option. So, while they may not become formal NATO members, they will absolutely need trade agreements with western countries to acquire military assets.

---

That's not how subservient vassal states work

MaxPower said:

---

I'd really love to know your personal connection with Russia. It's more fascinating to me than Trump's time with Epstein.

---

I'd like to respectfully answer this, as it's been asked in various ways: I don't have one.

My only real connection is just one of analysis, and my bigotry is that Russiagate made me look at everything negative about Russia/Russians with a highly skeptical eye. I'll just state though, the Russians/Ukrainians alike have done bad things in this war, period.

I don't base my analyses/posts on 'blue stars' here by any means, but have been dubious of 'Russia bad' since at least the opening of the Russiagate/Steele Dossier saga of lies/sedition/treason. A saga, I might add, that has to this date not ended.

nortex97 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

I'd really love to know your personal connection with Russia. It's more fascinating to me than Trump's time with Epstein.

---

I'd like to respectfully answer this, as it's been asked in various ways: I don't have one.

My only real connection is just one of analysis, and my bigotry is that Russiagate made me look at everything negative about Russia/Russians with a highly skeptical eye. I'll just state though, the Russians/Ukrainians alike have done bad things in this war, period.

I don't base my analyses/posts on 'blue stars' here by any means, but have been dubious of 'Russia bad' since at least the opening of the Russiagate/Steele Dossier saga of lies/sedition/treason. A saga, I might add, that has to this date not ended.

---

There's a difference between that and what you do. Hth

The Russian war has been a war of choice and an attempt to completely annex Ukraine or at the minimum turn it into a complete vassal state like Belarus. Anyone that argues otherwise knows nothing or is a useful idiot for Russia.

During the initial invasion, Russia landed paratroopers about 10 miles outside of Kiev. That is hundreds of miles away from any province with a large Russian speaking population.

Russian demands have been nothing but a complete surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty since day 1 and continue to thus day.

Ultimately I suppose after Mogadishu, Iraq x2, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Serbia, and I suppose reflection as to Tehran (1979) and others (including Rhodesia) I also just got fed up believing in 'the righteous war' narratives I was steadily raised on.

Kiev is such a vile regime it won't even accept it's own dead. It warrants zero support, period.

I recognize, again, this is unpopular. I don't care.

So you turned to blindly following Russian narratives instead?

And Afghanistan was justified. They were quite literally aiding al queda to conduct 9-11. As was the first Iraq war. More than justified.

The US being wrong at times doesn't automatically make Russia good.