Already posted four days ago. Didn’t Discourse give you a warning?
Usually the system does it, but this time it failed. I usually scroll to see if someone has already posted the same link or image as me. Many times I even see that it’s been posted before and I just give a like to whoever was faster than me.
Someone on the radio pointed out it’s just borsh in Ukrainian, no t on the end
I think it’s spelled the same in Cyrillic but they notice the difference
Yes.
True.
What I am saying is: SOME things are more probable than others. What I am saying is: negotiations with Russia over Kaliningrad are not probable until some dramatic changes occur. And by that, I mean a system-shattering level of drama.
After the end of the USSR, such negotiations could probably have taken place. That Russia did not give up Kaliningrad then, and did not de-militarize the Oblast — it might give everyone an idea about how important Kaliningrad is, strategically.
And, just for the record: I do not subscribe to the “one dickhead” point of view.
I believe the incidents between 16. Okt. 1962 and 28. Okt. 1962 tell a different story. As do ballistic missile submarines. Also, I mentioned more than strategic nuclear weapons.
My point is that Kaliningrad, to Russia, is non-negotiable.
If actual events prove me wrong, so be it. I would be looking forward to it. It it just very, very, VERY much wishful thinking, and honestly I think it would lead to many new problems in Europe and beyond.
The Ukrainian army has been operating HIMARS batteries for two weeks already.
Have you read any newspapers recently? Because one way or another, that’s exactly what’s happening.
History repeating itself
Jewish space lasers built by Hugo Chavez. Our own traitors sticking to the Putin party line.
I wonder if attacking me is helping your argument in any way. 
I’ll try again to explain why I do not think that noone can negotiate about demilitarising Kaliningrad.
- Kaliningrad is a Russian Oblast. This is not disputed.
- Kaliningrad is of great strategic importance for Russia. This is not disputed, and practically self-evident. I am of the staunch opinion that even a defeated Russia would not give that up, since Kaliningrad is basically guaranteeing that someone even has to talk to Russia in the region.
- Russia is not completely defeated, but still is strong enough to cause severe harm, maybe even a thermonuclear war. Personally, I am under the impression that this is also undisputed, but YMMV?
- For binding agreements to exist, international law must be respected. International law, however, is currently undermined and broken. Our rule-based system of relations is in grave danger. Russia, for example, is breaking international law on a daily basis and so blatantly that, again in my own perception, it cannot be trusted to be even able to negotiate. This might change, but seeing that the rule of law (especially international law) is under attack in other countries which quite definitely would want to be included in any negotiations considering Kaliningrad - like the US, the UK, and Poland - it is not bloody likely that we will quickly return to the status quo ante.
