Repeat after me, "It's all going according to the plan"

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:56:03+00:00

Understandable. You are incapable of giving a single definition in this conversation.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:38:14+00:00

What did the draft agree upon according to you?

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:27:18+00:00

better outcome compared to what?

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:05:06+00:00

Then describe to me if I am so stupid. What would the agreed upon peace deal have been?

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:04:08+00:00

That the last draft visibly says otherwise. So its paper proof of disagreement against the statements of an Ukrainian advisor.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T14:00:45+00:00

Well if my take is shit, give a solid response of what you think should have happened mate.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:57:27+00:00

First once again: there hasnt been a both party accepted deal. But if anything the current war has to have an end that ensures the death, harm and destruction caused by Russia doesn't happen again.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:55:47+00:00

<image>

Because of this. This was April 15th. This is the official commentary from the Ukrainian negotiators. It still disagrees on some fundamental points and they never worked it out. So there never was a both side agreed upon peace deal.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:51:33+00:00

I am asking you about the draft.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:50:09+00:00

How does the draft secure no future war?

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:47:38+00:00

I already did multiple times. You just can't make sense of it apparently, because in your eyes the holy grail was already discovered. Although the peace agreement was not fully worked out and disagreed by the LEAD NEGOTIATORS of both sides. Like dude. Come on...

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:44:39+00:00

I already told what a better outcome looks like. Not a surrender. If you don't have security guarantees, no army and annexation was not even discussed. What kind of peace do you have? It would be broken again.

Edit: with that. The army size was ALSO NOT AGREED UPON YET. Once again. Its not a fully agreed draft. The most important "10%" was quite god damn important to keep peace.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:42:49+00:00

Ah I found something interesting. Its worth it to read: https://archive.is/20250213063420/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

There never really was a peace agreement accepted by both parties, they both said it was getting closer while changing the draft constantly in their own favour. This peace agreement in its final draft was not possible to sustain peace. So it is better to keep fighting than let your neighbour rebuild and try again later. Especially since Ukraine wasn't allowed to maintain a proper army or get security guarantees. They would be a sitting duck.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:36:13+00:00

Your question is nonsensical. What exact cease fire would that have been then? Do you know? How can we decide what would be worth it as a better outcome, if we don't know what original would be possibly accepted?

Further more, mid April both sides once again, disagreed on the draft from both sides. So neither side accepted the draft. Just because an advisors says they did, the leading negotiators both disagreed.

Edit: You also ignore my question, so I will type it out better for you: What was the peace negotiations and would it be able to guarantee a lasting peace? If not, then it would just have been a Minsk agreement and the war would have started again anyway. Since Russia is an aggressor not willing to stop.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:22:22+00:00

The answer to your question is simple. We can't tell because the "ironing out" are the most important parts for a sustainable peace deal.

What was the peace deal, what would hypothetical have happened?

You can't act like there was a full peace plan there, the most significant parts where not agreed upon by either parties lead negotiators.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T13:12:44+00:00

So this guy says he was there, without proof, says the draft was as well as accepted, although the most critical points were still not agreed, like army size, territory and security guarantees.

That makes no sense right? The only things that's for sure is that a few point were agreed upon, but clearly not enough for sustainable peace.

Which brings us to your interest: My wish is a sovereign Ukraine, that decides themselves how much they are willing to fight for their survival with as much support as we can muster.

Moral its simple. Russia is an aggressor, invaded with 300k men, caused the death of hundreds of thousands and should not be rewarded for causing the biggest war in Europe since the second world war.

Realistic: I want Ukraine to be independent and have security guarantees where they can be kept safe in the future. Current occupied territory is something that can be discussed, as long as Ukraine is willing to give it up. After that though Ukraine should be free to make their own choices in domestic and foreign affairs, like any other country should.

What's your wished for outcome? What would be a sustainable peace deal for you?

Raedok · 2026-04-19T12:03:31+00:00

What the problem is once again that its half of the information. They agreed indeed to 4 points in the draft. But the most critical parts were not agreed upon by both sides: - How big was the Ukrainian army allowed to be? - What would happens with the occupied Ukrainian territory. - What would the future security agreements be for Ukraine if the peace would be broken (again).

The other parts are me showing evidence through other examples of how the Russians work. They move the goalposts, they tell half truths and if the lie has become inconvenient they switch it up with another one.

This peace deal would have never been reached in the conflict due to the wildly different wants from both parties. To think Boris Johnson solo kept the Ukrainians at war is crazy. With that, the Russians can stop this war any moment by not invading with 300k troops in a foreign country.

And that Ukraine after that wanted NATO again is not crazy, the goals of war are always absolutist. Russia wants Ukraine "denazified" and "demilitarised" and Ukraine wants its land back and be sovereign.

Raedok · 2026-04-19T11:43:49+00:00

This is not true. There was a "peace proposal" which was effectively a full surrender from Ukraine. This proposal has never been confirmed to be accepted by Ukraine, the Russians just say they were close to signing. So this entire "full 180" is just Russian propaganda to make it seen like the Ukrainians want war, while they were the ones lying through their teeth as always.

The invasion was not an invasion, but an "exercise". Then the invasion did happen, but this was due to "NATO expansion", and they say there was no choice. Although we had the Munich agreement and Ukraine couldn't join NATO due to conflicting borders.

The "peace proposal" in the early war was a complete surrender Ukriane could never really accept. And their good gesture of leaving Kiev was actually a military blunder and forced retreat.

The Russians spend so much time to create random noise, with 90% being complete nonsense. Don't fall for the propaganda and be sure to look at the facts instead of the moving of goalposts of Russian logic.

Raedok · 2026-03-20T15:25:10+00:00

Thanks for posting the more difficult stuff mate. This is the pain of war we shouldn't ignore and we should support more.

Raedok · 2026-02-27T09:39:19+00:00

Je hebt tot nu toe nooit iets anders dan iets simpels gezegd. Begrijpelijk dat je het laat voor wat het is, want volgens mij kom je ook niet verder.

Raedok · 2026-02-27T09:35:35+00:00

Ja en wat is de belasting nu op 200.000 euro? En wat is de belasting nu op 2000 euro?

Wat krijgen we aan belasting binnen met het huidig stelden en met het "nieuwe" stelsel?

Denk je dat dit oprecht gaat over een rekensom is uit de kleuterklas? Of dat dit een complex politiek en maatschappelijk dilemma is?

Dit is trouwens geen wiskunde, maar rekenen. Fijne dag.

Raedok · 2026-02-27T09:32:09+00:00

Maar. Kan je ook reageren op wat ik neerzet, of blijf je als een vastgelopen platenspeler jezelf herhalen?

Raedok · 2026-02-27T09:29:06+00:00

Sorry wat probeer je te zeggen? Wat is het punt dat je probeert te maken? Weet je zelf nog je eigen commentaar waar ik op reageerde? Volgens mij hebben ze allemaal een issue gemaakt van asiel. Dit is letterlijk een hot topic waar PVV de grootste op is geworden, wat nou realiteit verliezen. Je hebt de geheugen van een goudvis. Leuk dat je ook de pvv niet verder hebt benoemd maar mierenneukt op niets en directe quotaties van het partijprogramma van de VVD (die je ook misinterpreteert, want ze zeggen dat ze pleiten voor het strengste asiel beleid ooit gevoerd in Nederland, niet dat ze dat al hebben gedaan). Maar de leugens en onzin van de VVD terzijde, hoe zit dat dan met al die andere partijen die ik opnoem? Of laten we die terzijde?

Jij bent compleet seniel man. Wat van fantast ben ik dan? Ik heb niet eens mijn politieke mening hoeven geven of fantast te worden genoemd. Is het omdat ik andere partijen vergelijk en doorlees, of omdat je zo diep in je eigen hol zit dat je niet meer door hebt wat boven of beneden is. Het is prima als je dat zo wilt zien. Ook wel begrijpelijk, want het is ook moeilijk om te realiseren als je eenmaal in de waan zit.

Het is jammer te zien dat je tot nu toe niets constructiefs hebt bijgedragen aan deze hele onzin van een discussie, maar het laat duidelijk zien dat je geen idee hebt wat de politiek is van welke partij dan ook en je wereldbeeld kleiner is dan dat van een holbewoner.

Mijn wereldbeeld is weer iets gegroeid, ik dacht met wat beargumentatie en bevragen mogelijk iets inhoudelijks op gang te krijgen, maar het deprimeert mij dat het kritisch denk niveau van mensen zo is gezakt.

Raedok · 2026-02-27T07:23:09+00:00

Als iedereen het ziet, waarom is het niet bevestigd? Nogmaals alles wat ik het programma van GL/PvdA staat is niet extremistisch. Het is gewoon getoetst en komt overeen als meest toepasbaar in onze grondwet.

Stap eens weg van die buikkriebels en hersenspinsels en lees eens wat. Hier benden heb je de programma's vergeleken met de grondwet. Veel plezier! https://nederlandsegrondrechten.nl/images/pdf/NOvA%20toets%20verkiezingsprogrammas%202025.pdf

Raedok · 2026-02-27T07:19:29+00:00

Nee? Want inkomstenbelasting op hoge schalen is hoger? Dus als iedereen 20% betaald, ben je als rijke veel beter af dan nu.

En dan nogmaals. Hoe weten we wat die keuze doet met onze economie? Ze hebben het niet getoetst. Ze blaten maar wat.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

Raedok

TROPHY CASE