Compartir en las Redes !

Twitter Whatsapp Telegram Pinterest Linkedin Tumblr Reddit

Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

El mundo del día visto por los foristas de la comunidad !
Responder
Avatar de Usuario
verdinegro
Mensajes: 14434
Registrado: Sab Dic 18, 2021 10:30 am
Ubicación: Evropa
Contactar:

Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por verdinegro »

Joe Biden Offered Vladimir Putin 20 Percent of Ukraine to End War: Report
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-vlad ... 8526?amp=1

CIA Director William Burns reportedly offered Russian President Vladimir Putin a fifth of Ukraine's territory to end the war as part of a peace plan drawn up on behalf of President Joe Biden.

Burns is believed to have submitted the plan in mid-January to put an end to the war, which began on February 24, 2022. The story was reported by Swiss-German newspaper NZZ on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians.

Both Kyiv and Moscow reportedly rejected the proposal.

According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—approximately the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

Kyiv reportedly shut down the proposal "because they are not willing to have their territory divided" while Russian officials said they "will win the war in the long run anyway," NZZ reported.

Newsweek has contacted the Biden administration and the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Russia for comment.

This is a developing story and it will be updated when further information becomes available.
Avatar de Usuario
verdinegro
Mensajes: 14434
Registrado: Sab Dic 18, 2021 10:30 am
Ubicación: Evropa
Contactar:

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por verdinegro »

Extracto de la fuente suiza, en inglés cortesía de Google Translate:

Olaf Scholz verkaufte seine Panzerwende als wohlüberlegte Entscheidung – tatsächlich aber wurde er wohl überrumpelt
https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfp ... ld.1724136

Peace for country, country for peace?

One of the clues is a confidential conversation between the NZZ and two influential foreign politicians, one from the governing coalition, the other from the opposition. Both insist on anonymity because what they say independently is explosive. In mid-January, US President Joe Biden instructed CIA chief William Burns to assess whether Kyiv and Moscow were willing to negotiate.

The offer to Kyiv read: peace for land, the offer to Moscow: land for peace. The "land" is said to have been about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. That's about the size of the Donbass. Both sides, the two politicians report, refused. The Ukrainians because they are not willing to have their territory divided, the Russians because they assume they will win the war in the long run anyway.

On the one hand, these statements are explosive because they give an indirect insight into the views in the White House at the time of Burns' trip. According to the two German foreign politicians, Biden wanted to avoid a protracted war in Ukraine and was prepared to give up parts of the country. If this account is correct, Biden would not be alone in his stance in Washington. A new study by the Rand Corporation ("Avoiding a long war"), a renowned American think tank, concludes that "avoiding a long war is a higher priority for the United States" than for Ukraine "control of their entire territory».

Biden pivots in the short term

If all of this is correct, the statements would also point to a possible split in the American government over the Ukraine issue. On the one hand, as the two German MPs describe it, are security adviser Jake Sullivan and CIA chief Burns. They wanted to end the war quickly so they could focus on China. On the other side would be Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. They did not want to let Russia get away with destroying the rules-based peace order and called for massive military support for Ukraine .
Avatar de Usuario
Baron Harkonen
Mensajes: 3471
Registrado: Dom Dic 12, 2021 8:56 am
Ubicación: Como Scotty en la sala de máquinas

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Baron Harkonen »

Nuevamente:
Poco a poco la verdad va saliendo a flote y más de uno quedará como Condorito, los tontos que se atragantaron con basura informativa.
Avatar de Usuario
Buzz
Mensajes: 10922
Registrado: Sab Dic 11, 2021 11:13 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Buzz »

...citing high-ranking German foreign politicians
En otras palabras, un brollo :? :roll:
Avatar de Usuario
verdinegro
Mensajes: 14434
Registrado: Sab Dic 18, 2021 10:30 am
Ubicación: Evropa
Contactar:

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por verdinegro »



The war is not over yet, but the outcome is already clear. Ukraine has lost.

It pains me to say this, of course. Ukraine has fought a just war against an unjust – even barbaric – aggressor. And the country has fought well. Indeed, not only have the Ukrainians put up a better defensive fight than was generally expected in the run-up to the war, but they have taken the fight to the enemy, even pushing the Russians back on several fronts.

But Ukraine has lost the war nonetheless.

Why do I say this? Because, at the end of the day, Russia will have imposed its will on Ukraine while Ukraine will have achieved almost none of the goals – other than survival – it is pursuing on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.

That Russia will end up imposing its will on Ukraine now seems beyond reasonable doubt. Despite suffering terrible casualties and embarrassing battlefield setbacks, Moscow has already forced Kyiv to concede that NATO membership, and probably European Union (EU) membership too, is a non-starter. The separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk are in no danger of reverting to Ukrainian control, and the only question in the south of the country is how much territory will be added to the Crimean lands pried from Kyiv’s control in 2014.

Ukraine, on the other hand, will likely achieve almost none of its goals. To be sure, Ukraine will continue to inflict losses on the Russian forces, preventing them from taking Kyiv and other major cities and pushing them back here and there in successful, if limited, counter-offensives. But Kyiv will not achieve its operational-level objectives of expelling the Russians from all the territory it has lost since Feb. 24. It will not win a decisive battlefield victory that will vanquish once and for all the Russian invaders.

Mounting a spirited and capable defense is one thing; launching a major operational offensive is another. Ukraine has demonstrated that it can do the former, but there is no indication that it can launch and sustain the type of major combined-arms offensives required to drive the Russians out of those parts of occupied Ukraine that Moscow is really committed to holding.

Nor will Ukraine realize its main strategic objectives – the diplomatic-political goals it has been pursuing in fits and starts since the early-2000s but in earnest and consistently since 2014 – either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. Not only will Ukraine not recover all the territory lost during the war; it will not re-establish sovereignty over territory lost in 2014. Nor will it definitively break with Russia and decisively accede to the West, either through NATO membership or association with the European Union.

None of this is going to happen. Russia is not willing to concede any of this. And as has already been amply demonstrated, Moscow gets a vote on Ukraine’s future. NATO leaders are not interested in this happening, fearing that if Russian President Vladimir Putin faces decisive defeat – that is, the realization of Ukraine’s main strategic goals – he might play the nuclear card in a final desperate bid to stave off disaster both for him and his country. And Ukraine’s president has already conceded that some form of neutrality is likely to be his country’s future, conceding one of Kyiv’s main strategic objectives.

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that the fighting will stop tomorrow. Getting to the inevitable outcome – which, to reiterate, will be a strategic defeat for Kyiv and a partial (and pyrrhic) victory for Russia – will take some time, and much additional bloodshed, yet. It is in the nature of such conflicts, however, that once a mutually hurting stalemate sets in, both sides will be forced to make difficult concessions, first in the service of agreeing a ceasefire and later, perhaps much later, in the service of a more permanent negotiated settlement.

But such a stalemate is already in sight, even if at the moment both sides continue to cling to the delusion that just one more push and victory will be theirs. The fighting will eventually end, or at least return to pre-war levels.

The hard part to swallow is that between now and then many more people will die, additional destruction will be wrought upon the land and lives of the people of Ukraine, more war-crimes will be perpetrated and much more suffering inflicted and endured — and all for nought. Perpetuating the fighting will yield few, if any, gains for either side. It may be the inescapable logic of such conflicts that they end in this way, pointlessly dragging in the pursuit of victory but at the inevitable expense of innocent people. But it is a bitter pill — one that’s very hard to swallow.

But here’s the truly bitter truth: In broad brush strokes at least, the most-likely post-war settlement is pretty much the same as the settlement that was on offer before the bloodletting began in earnest on Feb. 24. While Putin was the one who pulled the trigger that fateful day, and thus bears full moral responsibility for all that has happened since, there are many others who could have made different choices in the run-up to the war. Different choices could have resulted in a pre-war settlement that would have been almost indistinguishable from the most likely post-war settlement, minus only the untold death and destruction visited on Ukraine these past weeks and months. In that sense, and only in that limited sense, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

It’s perhaps best left to history to definitively sort out precisely who made what decisions that led us needlessly down the historical path to war. And maybe it’s always the case that belligerents must batter themselves senseless before they come to their senses.

But one thing is already crystal clear: While the war is not yet over, Ukraine has lost. Grasping that, we must first bring the fighting quickly to an end. Then we must mourn the dead. And, finally, we must get on with the task of rebuilding the country that Vladimir Putin has destroyed.
Avatar de Usuario
Senderos
Mensajes: 8526
Registrado: Dom Dic 12, 2021 3:59 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Senderos »

editado no iba por aca
Avatar de Usuario
Axio
Mensajes: 8726
Registrado: Vie Ene 07, 2022 10:49 pm
Ubicación: Ex-capitanía General de Venezuela
Contactar:

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Axio »

verdinegro escribió: Vie Feb 03, 2023 9:46 am

The war is not over yet, but the outcome is already clear. Ukraine has lost.

It pains me to say this, of course. Ukraine has fought a just war against an unjust – even barbaric – aggressor. And the country has fought well. Indeed, not only have the Ukrainians put up a better defensive fight than was generally expected in the run-up to the war, but they have taken the fight to the enemy, even pushing the Russians back on several fronts.

But Ukraine has lost the war nonetheless.

Why do I say this? Because, at the end of the day, Russia will have imposed its will on Ukraine while Ukraine will have achieved almost none of the goals – other than survival – it is pursuing on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.

That Russia will end up imposing its will on Ukraine now seems beyond reasonable doubt. Despite suffering terrible casualties and embarrassing battlefield setbacks, Moscow has already forced Kyiv to concede that NATO membership, and probably European Union (EU) membership too, is a non-starter. The separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk are in no danger of reverting to Ukrainian control, and the only question in the south of the country is how much territory will be added to the Crimean lands pried from Kyiv’s control in 2014.

Ukraine, on the other hand, will likely achieve almost none of its goals. To be sure, Ukraine will continue to inflict losses on the Russian forces, preventing them from taking Kyiv and other major cities and pushing them back here and there in successful, if limited, counter-offensives. But Kyiv will not achieve its operational-level objectives of expelling the Russians from all the territory it has lost since Feb. 24. It will not win a decisive battlefield victory that will vanquish once and for all the Russian invaders.

Mounting a spirited and capable defense is one thing; launching a major operational offensive is another. Ukraine has demonstrated that it can do the former, but there is no indication that it can launch and sustain the type of major combined-arms offensives required to drive the Russians out of those parts of occupied Ukraine that Moscow is really committed to holding.

Nor will Ukraine realize its main strategic objectives – the diplomatic-political goals it has been pursuing in fits and starts since the early-2000s but in earnest and consistently since 2014 – either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. Not only will Ukraine not recover all the territory lost during the war; it will not re-establish sovereignty over territory lost in 2014. Nor will it definitively break with Russia and decisively accede to the West, either through NATO membership or association with the European Union.

None of this is going to happen. Russia is not willing to concede any of this. And as has already been amply demonstrated, Moscow gets a vote on Ukraine’s future. NATO leaders are not interested in this happening, fearing that if Russian President Vladimir Putin faces decisive defeat – that is, the realization of Ukraine’s main strategic goals – he might play the nuclear card in a final desperate bid to stave off disaster both for him and his country. And Ukraine’s president has already conceded that some form of neutrality is likely to be his country’s future, conceding one of Kyiv’s main strategic objectives.

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that the fighting will stop tomorrow. Getting to the inevitable outcome – which, to reiterate, will be a strategic defeat for Kyiv and a partial (and pyrrhic) victory for Russia – will take some time, and much additional bloodshed, yet. It is in the nature of such conflicts, however, that once a mutually hurting stalemate sets in, both sides will be forced to make difficult concessions, first in the service of agreeing a ceasefire and later, perhaps much later, in the service of a more permanent negotiated settlement.

But such a stalemate is already in sight, even if at the moment both sides continue to cling to the delusion that just one more push and victory will be theirs. The fighting will eventually end, or at least return to pre-war levels.

The hard part to swallow is that between now and then many more people will die, additional destruction will be wrought upon the land and lives of the people of Ukraine, more war-crimes will be perpetrated and much more suffering inflicted and endured — and all for nought. Perpetuating the fighting will yield few, if any, gains for either side. It may be the inescapable logic of such conflicts that they end in this way, pointlessly dragging in the pursuit of victory but at the inevitable expense of innocent people. But it is a bitter pill — one that’s very hard to swallow.

But here’s the truly bitter truth: In broad brush strokes at least, the most-likely post-war settlement is pretty much the same as the settlement that was on offer before the bloodletting began in earnest on Feb. 24. While Putin was the one who pulled the trigger that fateful day, and thus bears full moral responsibility for all that has happened since, there are many others who could have made different choices in the run-up to the war. Different choices could have resulted in a pre-war settlement that would have been almost indistinguishable from the most likely post-war settlement, minus only the untold death and destruction visited on Ukraine these past weeks and months. In that sense, and only in that limited sense, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

It’s perhaps best left to history to definitively sort out precisely who made what decisions that led us needlessly down the historical path to war. And maybe it’s always the case that belligerents must batter themselves senseless before they come to their senses.

But one thing is already crystal clear: While the war is not yet over, Ukraine has lost. Grasping that, we must first bring the fighting quickly to an end. Then we must mourn the dead. And, finally, we must get on with the task of rebuilding the country that Vladimir Putin has destroyed.
¿no crees en fuentes de tik tok que es una plataforma de origen asiático, pero crees en en fuentes de twitter que es una plataforma de occidente?

misterios del euroasianismo.....
La ignorancia afirma o niega rotundamente; la ciencia duda. François Marie Arouet
Avatar de Usuario
THE FAMILY GUY
Mensajes: 782
Registrado: Lun Dic 13, 2021 1:07 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por THE FAMILY GUY »

verdinegro escribió: Vie Feb 03, 2023 9:46 am

The war is not over yet, but the outcome is already clear. Ukraine has lost.

It pains me to say this, of course. Ukraine has fought a just war against an unjust – even barbaric – aggressor. And the country has fought well. Indeed, not only have the Ukrainians put up a better defensive fight than was generally expected in the run-up to the war, but they have taken the fight to the enemy, even pushing the Russians back on several fronts.

But Ukraine has lost the war nonetheless.

Why do I say this? Because, at the end of the day, Russia will have imposed its will on Ukraine while Ukraine will have achieved almost none of the goals – other than survival – it is pursuing on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.

That Russia will end up imposing its will on Ukraine now seems beyond reasonable doubt. Despite suffering terrible casualties and embarrassing battlefield setbacks, Moscow has already forced Kyiv to concede that NATO membership, and probably European Union (EU) membership too, is a non-starter. The separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk are in no danger of reverting to Ukrainian control, and the only question in the south of the country is how much territory will be added to the Crimean lands pried from Kyiv’s control in 2014.

Ukraine, on the other hand, will likely achieve almost none of its goals. To be sure, Ukraine will continue to inflict losses on the Russian forces, preventing them from taking Kyiv and other major cities and pushing them back here and there in successful, if limited, counter-offensives. But Kyiv will not achieve its operational-level objectives of expelling the Russians from all the territory it has lost since Feb. 24. It will not win a decisive battlefield victory that will vanquish once and for all the Russian invaders.

Mounting a spirited and capable defense is one thing; launching a major operational offensive is another. Ukraine has demonstrated that it can do the former, but there is no indication that it can launch and sustain the type of major combined-arms offensives required to drive the Russians out of those parts of occupied Ukraine that Moscow is really committed to holding.

Nor will Ukraine realize its main strategic objectives – the diplomatic-political goals it has been pursuing in fits and starts since the early-2000s but in earnest and consistently since 2014 – either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. Not only will Ukraine not recover all the territory lost during the war; it will not re-establish sovereignty over territory lost in 2014. Nor will it definitively break with Russia and decisively accede to the West, either through NATO membership or association with the European Union.

None of this is going to happen. Russia is not willing to concede any of this. And as has already been amply demonstrated, Moscow gets a vote on Ukraine’s future. NATO leaders are not interested in this happening, fearing that if Russian President Vladimir Putin faces decisive defeat – that is, the realization of Ukraine’s main strategic goals – he might play the nuclear card in a final desperate bid to stave off disaster both for him and his country. And Ukraine’s president has already conceded that some form of neutrality is likely to be his country’s future, conceding one of Kyiv’s main strategic objectives.

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that the fighting will stop tomorrow. Getting to the inevitable outcome – which, to reiterate, will be a strategic defeat for Kyiv and a partial (and pyrrhic) victory for Russia – will take some time, and much additional bloodshed, yet. It is in the nature of such conflicts, however, that once a mutually hurting stalemate sets in, both sides will be forced to make difficult concessions, first in the service of agreeing a ceasefire and later, perhaps much later, in the service of a more permanent negotiated settlement.

But such a stalemate is already in sight, even if at the moment both sides continue to cling to the delusion that just one more push and victory will be theirs. The fighting will eventually end, or at least return to pre-war levels.

The hard part to swallow is that between now and then many more people will die, additional destruction will be wrought upon the land and lives of the people of Ukraine, more war-crimes will be perpetrated and much more suffering inflicted and endured — and all for nought. Perpetuating the fighting will yield few, if any, gains for either side. It may be the inescapable logic of such conflicts that they end in this way, pointlessly dragging in the pursuit of victory but at the inevitable expense of innocent people. But it is a bitter pill — one that’s very hard to swallow.

But here’s the truly bitter truth: In broad brush strokes at least, the most-likely post-war settlement is pretty much the same as the settlement that was on offer before the bloodletting began in earnest on Feb. 24. While Putin was the one who pulled the trigger that fateful day, and thus bears full moral responsibility for all that has happened since, there are many others who could have made different choices in the run-up to the war. Different choices could have resulted in a pre-war settlement that would have been almost indistinguishable from the most likely post-war settlement, minus only the untold death and destruction visited on Ukraine these past weeks and months. In that sense, and only in that limited sense, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

It’s perhaps best left to history to definitively sort out precisely who made what decisions that led us needlessly down the historical path to war. And maybe it’s always the case that belligerents must batter themselves senseless before they come to their senses.

But one thing is already crystal clear: While the war is not yet over, Ukraine has lost. Grasping that, we must first bring the fighting quickly to an end. Then we must mourn the dead. And, finally, we must get on with the task of rebuilding the country that Vladimir Putin has destroyed.
Pero el articulo que cita Vera van Horne es de Abril 2022. :roll:
Avatar de Usuario
Senderos
Mensajes: 8526
Registrado: Dom Dic 12, 2021 3:59 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Senderos »

Lo mejor es el reparto del territorio entre los países vecinos, incluyendo la porción rusa, de este modo todos los ucranianos tendrían salida al mar bajo la bandera de Rusia.
Avatar de Usuario
verdinegro
Mensajes: 14434
Registrado: Sab Dic 18, 2021 10:30 am
Ubicación: Evropa
Contactar:

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por verdinegro »

Avatar de Usuario
Senderos
Mensajes: 8526
Registrado: Dom Dic 12, 2021 3:59 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Senderos »

Es una negociación, Hidden ofrece 20% pero Putin pide 90 a lo mejor acuerdan por la mitad (55%) como en hardcore pawn.

Imagen
Avatar de Usuario
Toddy
Mensajes: 592
Registrado: Lun Oct 03, 2022 3:14 pm

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por Toddy »

A veces uno cree que son noticias exgeradas, y luego la realidad te golpea
Avatar de Usuario
verdinegro
Mensajes: 14434
Registrado: Sab Dic 18, 2021 10:30 am
Ubicación: Evropa
Contactar:

Re: Newsweek: Biden ofreció a Putin el 20% del territorio de Ucrania

Mensaje por verdinegro »

Mejor que aflojen ahora so pena de quedarse sin el chivo y sin el mecate. Ucrania tiene mucho territorio ocioso con fines más productivos.
Responder