5mo ago

Russia must withdraw its troops to February 2022 line, Zelenskyy says

www.pravda.com.ua /eng/news/2025/02/15/7498475/

Summary

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia must withdraw to its pre-invasion positions from February 24, 2022.

In an interview with Newsmax, he hoped that Donald Trump, with European backing, could end the war and influence Putin.

Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine will not accept any negotiated settlement that excludes its involvement.

He also suggested that Trump needs a diplomatic success to differentiate his approach from Biden’s. However, there is no indication that Russia is willing to retreat.

70 comments

How about to 2013 line?
- Unfortunately unlikely, considering American support is now in the hands of Putin's puppet.
  
  I don't think that Russia would be giving up Crimea in any case, regardless of who's in the Whitehouse. The Donbas is a different question, they probably would've been prepared to give them back in whole or in part in negotiations, but I don't think Crimea would've ever been up for negotiations.
- That would be best. Definitely.
- [removed by mod] for an opinion. Wow.
The chessboard’s lines blur when leaders mistake desperation for strategy. Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
The subtext? Ukraine’s survival now hinges on American electoral drama, where “success” is just another campaign slogan. Europe’s support here feels like a stage prop, all optics and no spine. Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table? That’s not diplomacy—it’s surrender by committee.
- One big reason why Ukraine can make terroritorial demands as part of its peace plan is because Europe has a huge interest in making sure Russia doesn't keep any terroritory through conquest. It sets a precident for Europe that Europe is willing to go to war over to disprove.
  Zelensky's Peace Plan was actually really well thought out and affordable, Europeans and Americans were just too scared of "escalation" to give Ukraine the weapons they were requesting, and allow them into NATO.
  The west has betrayed Ukraine.
  
  The West didn’t just betray Ukraine—it betrayed its own supposed principles. The obsession with “escalation” is a coward’s excuse, a mask for the real fear: admitting that their posturing as defenders of freedom is hollow. Zelenskyy’s plan wasn’t just affordable; it was necessary. Instead, they left Ukraine to bleed while pretending to care, all for the sake of preserving their fragile illusion of stability.
  Europe’s interest in territorial integrity is performative at best. If they truly believed in drawing a line against conquest, they wouldn’t have hesitated to arm Ukraine fully or fast-track NATO membership. What we’re watching isn’t diplomacy or strategy—it’s a slow-motion capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
  The West’s spine is as absent as its moral compass.
- A prop? Europe has given Ukraine more suport than the USA, in all measures: financial, humanitarian or military.
  
  Europe may have written bigger checks, but let’s not confuse quantity with quality. Dollars and euros are meaningless without decisive action. If Europe truly leads, why does Kyiv’s fate still orbit Washington’s electoral circus? Aid without autonomy is charity, not strategy.
  And let’s not pretend transactional support equals solidarity. Europe’s fragmented policies scream self-interest louder than unity. Numbers don’t matter when the spine to confront Moscow is missing.
  
  Wow! 2 dozen countries gave more support than one. The EU's commitment per capita is far less than the states.
- Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism
  Trump brokering a deal is not negotiable, he's going to do it for the simple reason that he sees himself as the best deal-maker, the best negotiator, the best. It would be futile to try to stop him, and it doesn't hurt Ukraine's position that he try, so why the hell would they attempt to stop him.
  There's basically two outcomes, here: Trump thinks Putin is nuts when it comes to demands, Trump still wants to look good domestically, so he's doubling down on Ukraine support. Then, Trump thinks Putin is in a strong position, he tries to dictate terms to Ukraine, but will fail. US support may or may not stop after that, depending on how he can spin it domestically, in any case Europe is there to have Ukraine's back.
  This decision point -- is Trump going to squeeze a deal that's acceptable for Ukraine out of Putin -- has to be awaited before Ukraine can move, because otherwise you're pissing Trump off and making the US pull out instead of double down more likely.
  tl;dr: It's strategically opportune to hold Trump's beer right now, you might not believe he can get anything out of Putin but you got to let him try, and fail, on his own.
  
  Trump’s self-image as the “best deal-maker” is precisely the problem. His deals are transactional theater, not strategy. He doesn’t broker peace; he brokers leverage—for himself. Ukraine’s survival isn’t a stage for his ego or America’s domestic optics; it’s existential. Betting on Trump isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.
  Your two outcomes ignore a third: Trump undermines Ukraine to curry favor with Putin, framing it as “peace.” Europe might have Ukraine’s back, but Trump’s America-first rhetoric would leave Kyiv holding the bag. The US pulling out isn’t a threat—it’s a gift to Russia.
  Strategic opportunism? No, it’s capitulation dressed as pragmatism. Letting Trump “try and fail” risks lives, sovereignty, and global stability. Ukraine can’t afford to be someone’s PR stunt.
- Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table?
  Really makes one question the narrative of the defensive war in favour of the proxy war between Russia and US doesn't it?
- Why do I write like this? Because the world is drowning in oversimplified soundbites and hollow platitudes, and someone has to cut through the noise. If you think clarity or depth is pretentious, that says more about your expectations than my delivery.
  Intelligence isn’t a performance—it’s a tool to dissect the absurdity of geopolitics, propaganda, and transactional leaders who treat diplomacy like a poker game. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask why mediocrity feels so familiar.
For someone that demanded the 2014 borders for the past few years, this is a concession. Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine even if Russia has to stop where they are for a few years and repeat the 2014 playbook. It's very surprising Russia hasn't been able to push past the current positions. However, they are close to taking certain important cities and the highways.
Another possibility is if Ukraine has elections and chooses another pro Russian president. Then you would have the largest army in Europe equipped with Western weapons potentially switch sides and on to other former USSR states.
- There is zero chance that after the last 11 years (and especially the last 3)ukraine will elect a pro Russian president in the next 3 generations. The pro Russian oblasts (the ones in the east) have either been annexed or obliterated, there's little sympathy left for Russia. If before the war there was a 45-45 split, I'm pretty sure it's 85-10 now.
  
  Didn't take that long for Vietnam US relationship to settle down.
- Russia is not that strong
- Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine
  That doesn't make any sense. Russia knows it can't control Ukrainian-majority areas in any meaningful way. This war isn't a war of annexation and expansionism, it's a proxy war between Russia and the US in which Russia is showing its neighbouring countries that it won't simply allow its influence sphere to disintegrate.
  
  Not according to Putin, who has stated multiple times that Ukraine isn't really a country and Russia owns it.
  https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/
  “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference."
fuck putin!
Zelenskyy giving interviews to propaganda outlets like Newsmax, especially in giving in to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in peace talk negotiation, is just dealing into Russia's hand. Trump's odd pandering to Putin means that Zelenskyy should be spending his time wheeling and dealing with as many European politicians as possible, since Trump will take Russian bribes in a minute over recognizing the illegality, authoritarianism, and ethnic cleansing associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the countless war crimes that it has perpetuated in the process.
- Zelenskyy knows that Europe does not have the money or political will to see this through if the US backs off. Realistically this is a discussion between the US and Russia, with Europe and Ukraine being a peanut gallery. Without Russia, no war. Without the US, no Ukraine.

70 comments